Social scientists use the term “institution“ in two very different ways, to denote two distinct types of socio-cultural forms. These two different types of institutions are „informal“ and „formal“. Informal institutions are products of spontaneous development and are maintained and structured by informal rules that humans adopt through the process of socialization. On the other hand, formal institutions are a subtype of formal organizations, are governed by formal written rules, have formal membership, have an official internal division of labor, and most often have a formal internal hierarchy. Confusion regarding the use of the term institution is increased as social scientists often don't specify which type of institution they are referring to, and because some scientists use different terms to denote the same concept. For example, George Herbert Mead uses the term „social institution“, Lewis Henry Morgan uses the term „cultural institution“, and Talcott Parsons uses "evolutionary universals",  to denote the same concept - informal institutions.

G. H. Mead argues that wider society is structured through social institutions that represent a special form of social action. Social institutions serve to satisfy constant socio-psychological impulses by regulating their manifestation. Social institutions and „institutional social acts“ are formed through constant repetition because that is how they gain their stability. However, through individual creativity, these institutions can take on a new look and form. Social institutions are necessary for the formation of society because, without them, society would be just a collection of disorganized masses of people. Institutions differ in the size of "social participation" in them. Some social institutions have large participation; that is, a large number of members of society, or all members, participate in them. On the other hand, in some institutions, only a small number of members of society participate. Institutions with the highest social participation emerged in the earliest periods of social evolution, while institutions with the lowest participation emerged at the latest. There are six basic social institutions that emerged in the following evolutionary order: 1) language, 2) family, 3) economy, 4) religion, 5) polity, and 6) science.

Morgan, in his analysis of socio-cultural evolution, distinguishes seven types of cultural institutions: 1) subsistence, 2) government, 3) language, 4) the family, 5) religion, 6) house life and architecture, and 7) property.

Parsons introduces the concept of "evolutionary universals," which he defines as: “a complex of structures and associated processes the development of which so increases the long-run adaptive capacity of living systems in a given class that only systems that develop the complex can attain certain higher levels of general adaptive capacity” (Parsons, 1967). Evolutionary universals refer to the ability of societies to adapt to their own specific circumstances. From the most primitive to the most advanced societies, they are all structured around several ubiquitous universals: kinship, linguistic communication, religion, and technology. When society enters a transitional stage, then two more universals become functionally necessary: ​​a system of social stratification and a “system of cultural legitimation” that regulates emerging institutions. These institutions have increasing autonomy, so they are more prone to disorganization. With the transition to modern industrial society, four more types of universals are formed: 1) bureaucratic organization, 2) legal system of generalized universalic norms applicable to the whole society, 3) money and markets based on property and contract, 4) democratic association - universal suffrage, parliamentary assemblies, secret ballot, free elections, political associations and the concept of citizenship.

From the last few passages becomes evident that informal institutions can be divided into those that are universal for all societies, on all levels of technological, cultural, and political development, and into others that are found in some societies but not in others. While Parsons called the first type of informal institutions "evolutionary universals", other authors use the terms “human universals” (see Donald Brown’s book Human Universals (1991) or “cultural universals” to refer to the same concept. Different authors propose various lists of human or cultural universals. Apart from those that Morgan, Mead, and Parsons put forth, some of the widely recognized universals are: storytelling, art, incest avoidance, ethical systems, nonverbal communication, body ornamentation and body modification, education, gender roles, etc.

                                      Organizations

Organizations can also be divided into formal and informal organizations. In this entry, we will focus on formal organizations. A formal organization is a group of people that is deliberately created and structured to achieve specific goals. It has defined roles, responsibilities, rules, and procedures that guide how members work together. The organization has specific goals or objectives, such as making a profit, providing education, or delivering public services. Members have assigned roles, job titles, and reporting relationships, often shown in an organizational chart. Organizations have written policies, regulations, and standard operating procedures that help ensure consistency. Organizations are often hierarchically structured, as there is a chain of command that specifies who supervises whom and who makes decisions. Organizations have a formal division of labor, as different people or departments specialize in different tasks. Organizations also possess continuity, as the organization continues to exist even as individual members join or leave. Most often, organizations are recognized by the state they operate in as “legal entities” or “legal persons”.

The most common types of organizations are:

Businesses: Companies that produce goods or provide services to earn a profit.

Nonprofits: Groups that pursue social, educational, charitable, religious, or environmental missions rather than distributing profits to owners.

Government organizations: Agencies and departments that provide public services and enforce laws.

Educational organizations: Schools, colleges, universities, and research institutions.

International organizations: Groups made up of member countries or institutions that cooperate on global issues, such as the United Nations.

Community and membership organizations: Clubs, professional associations, labor unions, and volunteer groups that serve the interests of their members or communities.

                  Theoretical Approaches to Organizations

Organizational theory (also called „organization theory“) is focused on organizations, and its goal is to answer questions like: how are organizations structured, how they function and change, how they interact with the environment, etc. The organizational theory contains multiple theoretical perspectives and approaches and draws influences from several scientific disciplines – economics, sociology, political science, management, and anthropology.  Early research in organizational theory was influenced by the works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Henri Fayol, and Frederick Taylor, but the most influential was the theories of Max Weber.

Max Weber is well known for his study of bureaucracy in organizations. He saw bureaucracy as the most rational mechanism for governing the state and other organizations and institutions. Bureaucracy enables efficient and systematic management of a large number of people and material resources. Although the rudiments of bureaucracy appeared with the first civilizations, it was not until the nineteenth century that bureaucratic management spread to all aspects of social life. This development and expansion of bureaucracy were made possible by the creation of a centralized state, an increase in traffic and communication systems, an increase in the monetary economy, an increase in tax revenues, and the development of industry.

The development of bureaucracy is most closely related to the development of a legal-rational type of authority. Within a bureaucratic organization, individuals are connected hierarchically, each position has specific powers and duties, and there are clear relationships of superiority and subordination. There are general formalized rules that all members must strictly follow. The duties and salary of each person are precisely defined, the prospects for progress within the organization are known, and job qualifications are acquired through schooling or special exams. Bureaucracy is guided by instrumental rationality, and its advantages are: predictability, speed, resource savings, and uniformity.

American sociologist Peter Blau studied bureaucracy and organizations in his books Dynamics of Bureaucracy (1955) and Formal Organizations (1962). His research on bureaucracy was on the sociological trail of Max Weber; however, unlike Weber, Blau believes, based on his own empirical and theoretical research, that deviating from the official structure within a bureaucratic organization does not have to be disastrous for the organization. The reverse case is far more common. Based on his research of a federal institution, whose center was in Washington, he concluded that the illegal practice of consulting officials of the same rank contributed to better efficiency within that institution. The reasons that, deviating from strict bureaucratic rules, lead to better work organization and greater efficiency are twofold. On the one hand, workers within an institution or company constantly create their own norms of work practice, and on the other hand, strict rules, no matter how detailed, can never predict all the problems that may arise in practice.

Based on his research of a federal institution, whose center was in Washington, Blau concluded that the illegal practice of consulting officials of the same rank contributed to better efficiency within that institution. The reasons that deviating from strict bureaucratic rules leads to better work organization and greater efficiency are twofold. On the one hand, workers within an institution or company constantly create their own norms of work practice, and on the other hand, strict rules, no matter how detailed, can never predict all the problems that may arise in practice.

In The Functions of the Executive (1938), Chester I. Barnard depicts organizations as cooperative systems that survive only if they achieve two goals: fulfilling their objectives (effectiveness) and maintaining the willingness of individuals to contribute (efficiency). These systems depend on three key elements: a shared organizational purpose, individual motivations that must be satisfied, and communication processes that balance these two. Barnard redefines the role of executives as creating organizational purpose, maintaining cooperation through a fair balance of contributions and rewards (organizational equilibrium), and ensuring effective communication. He views organizations as networks of participants—such as employees, managers, customers, and suppliers—who engage in mutually beneficial exchanges.

A major theme in Barnard’s work is the gap between practical understanding and theoretical explanation. Executives often act with an intuitive grasp of organizational realities but fail to recognize or explain them formally. For example, Barnard emphasizes the importance of informal organization, which naturally develops alongside formal structures and plays a crucial role in communication, cohesion, and protecting individuals. Although managers rely on it in practice, they often deny its significance in theory. Barnard also offers a key insight into authority, arguing that it does not reside in the person giving orders but in the person receiving them. Orders are only effective if they are understood, accepted as consistent with organizational goals, and feasible to carry out. While skilled leaders intuitively understand this, they often overestimate their own authority and overlook how frequently their directives are ignored.

Ralf Dahrendorf studies authority relations in organizations in his book Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1957). According to him, positions of authority are those that are expected and that are obliged to carry out forced subordination. Such positions are located within various organizations: the state, schools, companies, churches, etc. Positions of authority serve to achieve integration because they ensure compliance with and respect for social norms. However, the same positions of authority that should ensure integration can be the starting point for conflict. There are different interests within organizations, and if those in positions of authority work in the interest of their own partial interests, then conflicts can arise. When different interests are manifested, an interest group can be created, and when an interest group starts fighting for its interests, then it becomes a conflict group.

Structural contingency theory focuses on the relationship between organizations and their environments. This approach researches how organizational form adapts to its environmental context. The book The Management of Innovation (1961), co-authored by psychologist George Macpherson Stalker and sociologist Tom Burns, started the structural contingency theory and is one of the most influential studies in the field of organizational theory and industrial sociology. In this book, the authors divide organizations into two types: organic and mechanical. Mechanical organizations have a hierarchically organized bureaucracy, with clear vertical channels of tasks, responsibilities, and power. Each individual and each level within the organization does its part autonomously, while major decisions are made only at the top of the hierarchy.

Organic organizations have a looser structure, while levels and channels of communication and decision-making are multiple. In these organizations, achieving goals is more important than respecting clearly defined bureaucratic rules. Organic organizations are more suited to companies operating in fields that are characterized by rapid market changes and major technological innovations. On the other hand, mechanical organizations are more suited to traditional and stable industries, which are not greatly affected by market changes.

Amitai Etzioni studied organizations in his books The Semi Professions and their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, and Social Workers (1969), and A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates (1975). According to the form of motivation of individuals to accept organizational authority, Etzioni singled out three types of organizations: utilitarian (in which the motive is personal gain), normative (motive is morals and values), and coercive organizations (motive is avoidance of punishment). Etzioni introduced the concepts of "scope" and "pervasiveness" of organizations. Scope refers to the amount of activity that members of the organization perform together, while pervasiveness refers to the level of sharing common normative values ​​between the members of the organization. He believes that organizations have a huge impact on our lives, as evidenced by his famous statement: "We are born in organizations, educated by organizations, and most of us spend much of our lives working for organizations" (Etzioni, 1975).

The evolutionary (ecological) approach was created by Howard Aldrich. His ecological model of organizations is derived from the natural selection mechanism of biological ecology. Variation is the first requirement: Variation within and between organizations is the basis of natural selection by the environment, while variations across environments are necessary if the externally induced change is to occur. Aldrich’s work encompasses the entire range in which variation can occur, from the activity routines and goals that make up the internal structure of organizations to the organizations themselves or the industry groupings in which their forms can classify them. Selection by the environment can occur at each of these levels, affecting population distributions of internal structures, organizations, and societal levels, respectively. Aldrich notes that retention is necessary, in combination with variation and selection, to drive a population ecology model of organizational change.

Erik Olin Wright, in his book Classes (1985), introduced "organization" as the fourth type of productive asset. The organization, as a coordinated cooperation between producers in a complex division of labor, represents a production resource in itself. In current capitalism, this resource is controlled by managers and capitalists. According to Wright, for bureaucracy (including political and economic leaders), authority is not a resource in itself, but the organization is a resource controlled by a hierarchy of authority. Organizational resources are the basis for exploitation because ordinary workers would be in a better position if the management of companies were democratized. The peculiarity of this type of resource is that the organization cannot be the subject of legal ownership or ownership relations.

In The Change Masters (1983), Rosabeth Moss Kanter argues that American businesses face a challenging global environment and must undergo a “corporate renaissance” to remain competitive. She contends that the tools for success already exist, particularly in companies that effectively foster innovation. Kanter defines “change masters” as leaders who understand how to manage change by shaping supportive organizational environments. She emphasizes that innovation—broadly defined as implementing new problem-solving ideas—depends on valuing individuals, investing in people, and encouraging initiative within firms.

A key distinction in Kanter’s analysis is between "integrated" and "segmented" organizations. Integrated organizations promote teamwork, flexibility, open communication, and creativity, making them highly innovative. In contrast, segmented organizations are hierarchical, rigid, and compartmentalized, which stifles innovation and limits change. Kanter argues that successful innovation requires supportive cultures, decentralized power, strong communication networks, and employee participation. Even though innovation can occasionally emerge in rigid organizations, it rarely lasts. Ultimately, companies that thrive are those that create environments encouraging new ideas, adapt to external pressures, and engage employees at all levels in the process of change.

In When Giants Learn to Dance (1989), Kanter describes a “post-entrepreneurial” corporation, a new organizational model that blends entrepreneurial energy (the ability to innovate and seize opportunities) with disciplined strategic planning. Traditional bureaucratic giants must learn to act more like nimble competitors while maintaining stability. Competing in a Global business is likened to “corporate Olympics”, a competition where speed, flexibility, and responsiveness are crucial. Giants must streamline, cut unnecessary layers, and embrace change to compete effectively. She contrasts two extremes: “Corpocrats” — slow, risk-averse bureaucrats, and “Cowboys” — reckless, undisciplined innovators. She advocates a balanced middle path that fosters calculated risk-taking without chaos. Instead of trying to do everything internally, large firms should form partnerships and alliances (“PALs” — Pooling, Allying, Linking) to create value and achieve goals more efficiently.

Göran Ahrne is best known for his own "organizational theory of society". He combines the contributions of organizational theory with classical sociological theory. Using a broad definition of organizations, Ahrne shows that processes within and between different organizations have a crucial impact on the understanding of general social relations. Societies are shaped by interaction with organizations. Organizations provide resources and motivations to individuals and shape the frameworks within which they operate. Ahrne's theory was influenced by organizational, institutional, and environmental theories. 

Arthur Stinchcombe believes that, in the modern era, with the increase of urbanization, literacy, monetary economy, and economic, social, and political differentiation, comes a need to create organizations that will have specific purposes. These new organizations depended on the cooperation of individuals who did not know each other before, and on the application of new techniques and routines, which would sometimes be specific to only one organization. He believed that organizations, once they have established their way of functioning, show a great deal of inertia in their form and way of functioning, which sometimes prevents them from adequately adapting to external changes. Stinchcomb proves this hypothesis by pointing out that the key characteristics of organizations, which operate in one branch of industry, are closely related to the period in which that branch of industry originated. Thus, all companies engaged in the textile industry are more similar to each other than companies operating in the automotive industry, because these two industries were developed in different historical periods. The survival of specific organizations depends on their ability to adapt to external changes, despite the tendency towards inertia. In this regard, it is important to study the cessation of some organizations to determine how selective factors affect the survival or transformation of organizations.

Joan Woodward, in Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice (1965), argues that variations in workplace organization and behavior—such as the number of managerial levels, the scope of supervisory responsibility, the division of labor among specialists, the clarity of roles, and the extent of written communication—could largely be explained by the immediate work setting. Drawing on findings from the Essex survey, she argued that differences in technology were a decisive factor shaping organizational structure. Technological requirements, she showed, influenced patterns of authority, coordination, and control within firms.

Some sociological approaches treat organizations as a crucial part of “the middle level of Society”, in between the micro level that is focused on individuals and the macro level focused on the whole society. In Randall Collins’ approach, the mediating middle level is made up of networks, and the main networks are social stratification and organizations. When interactional rituals occur regularly, then they form chains of interactional rituals. In organizations, chains of interaction rituals are structured around dimensions of power and status. In rituals of power, those with more power experience greater emotional energy and therefore identify more with the organization's symbols than those without power. A similar thing happens within the chains of status interaction rituals, where similar effects occur.

Within each organization, different coalitions are formed that fight for power and status, and individuals are constantly trying to improve their position within the coalition and the entire organization through interactional rituals. Collins argues that rituals of power and status are what make the differences in power and status within organizations stable and lasting. The essence is that individuals can change their own position, but those differences in power and status remain constant at the level of the entire organization.

Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch, in the article  “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations” (1967), argued that organizations adapt to reflect the variety of their environments by developing structures that are appropriate to those environments. The volatility and uncertainty of the environment influence several areas of organizations: formalization of structure, decentralization of decision-making, time management, and internal divisions.

The behavioral theory of the firm approach to organizations was developed by Cyert and March, in their book A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (1963), which explores how complexity forces individuals to simplify their decision rules. They found that decision making is ‘‘boundedly rational", which means that the rational behavior of actors is bounded by cognitive and information limitations. Organizations are seen as adaptive systems that engage with a complex environment and ambiguous information.  Key challenges to the management of organizations are computational (threat of uncertainty) and political (securing cooperation between individuals with competing goals). The learning in organizations is achieved through organizational routines, but most of the organizational learning is, in its essence, conservative.

American sociologist Georg Ritzer developed a concept he called "McDonaldization", which is best illustrated in the book McDonaldization of Society (1993). Ritzer sees McDonaldization as the application of Max Weber's rationality to the overall structure of society, with McDonald's business taken only as an example that best reflects this process. Unlike the period in which Weber wrote, bureaucratization no longer represents the best model of rationalization;  McDonaldization has become the best way of rationalization in modern times. The type of rationalization that was introduced by McDonaldization seeks to achieve four main goals: 1) to increase efficiency, 2) to increase measurability, 3) to increase predictability, and 4) to increase control. An additional goal is, where possible, to replace human labor with mechanical labor.

McDonald's, through its business model, perfectly achieves four main goals, although it still retains human labor and has not replaced it with mechanical labor. McDonald's has managed to achieve these goals by standardizing every aspect of its business: retail outlets, menus, meal layouts, prefabricated ingredients, food preparation, customer relations, and the like. In addition, McDonald's has perfectly applied Frederick Taylor's workflow rationalization and Ford's model of automation - food is produced as cars are produced on the workbench. The essence of the process of McDonaldization is the application of these principles and models of work in as many companies as possible, but also in other organizations and institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, courts). Ritzer warns that behind such a formal rationalization of the work process, there is a danger of "the irrationality of rationality". As the main examples of irrationality, Ritzer cites: higher costs, dehumanization, loss of authenticity, increased environmental and health risks, etc. In more recent work, Ritzer examines how Starbucks' business models (coffee sales) and online shopping sites, such as Amazon and eBay, have influenced the McDonaldization process.

In the book Chains of Opportunity: System Models of Mobility in Organizations (1970), American sociologist Harrison White introduces an "algebra" of semi-groups to make his earlier scheme applicable to organizations and informal groups in a modern, Western context. He defines role structures as the positions of social actors through multiple networks of social relations (such as friendship, hostility, and providing assistance). White uses the concept of duality to denote the invariant in models of social structures and processes that relate to cases where individuals change their positions within the workplace or change jobs.

Free positions, not individual persons, are what, indeed, have the freedom to move between categories toward fixed transitional probability. Therefore, conventional mobility models should be applied to the analysis of vacancies, not directly to the mobility of individuals. White applied this scheme of analysis to the study of the mobility of priests between Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches. Career vacancies are not only dual but also have a causal priority over the careers of individuals. White introduces the term "structural equivalence", which refers to groups of individuals who are in similar positions in relation to other such groups of individuals, so it is possible to aggregate their relationships and mutual changes through multiple networks of relationships. This equivalence allows complex networks, which are obtained by aggregation of equivalent actors, to be presented in the form of "reduced-form images".

The institutional theory was developed in the 1970s in the USA by authors like John Meyer, Paul DiMaggio, and Walter Powell. The goal of the theory is to explore how institutions are created, function, and are diffused. The institutional theory focuses on legitimacy as a crucial concept and sees the fight for legitimacy as a force that creates isomorphism of organizations and institutions. Core assumptions of the institutional theory are: 1) institutions act as governance structures that use social rules to control individual behavior, 2) those who conform to these rules are given legitimacy, 3) institutions tend to be inert and resist change, 4) when change does happen, past structures and rules influence new institutional arrangements.

Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell’s 1983 article, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” is a foundational work in neo-institutional theory. This perspective examines how organizations are shaped less by internal goals and more by external environments, particularly the broader “organizational fields” in which they operate. An organizational field consists of all relevant actors—such as suppliers, consumers, regulators, and peer organizations—that together form a recognized domain of institutional life. Drawing on ideas from sociology, including phenomenology, structuration theory, and network analysis, DiMaggio and Powell conceptualize fields as socially constructed systems where shared meanings and relationships influence organizational behavior.

A central argument of the theory is that organizations within a field tend to become increasingly similar over time, a process known as institutional isomorphism. This homogeneity arises from three main pressures. First, coercive pressures stem from formal and informal regulations, such as laws or government mandates, which compel organizations to conform. Second, normative pressures emerge from professionalization, where shared standards, education, and norms—like those in accounting or law—encourage uniform practices. Third, mimetic pressures occur under conditions of uncertainty, prompting organizations to imitate successful or prominent peers as a strategy for legitimacy and survival.

As practices become widely adopted, they gain a taken-for-granted, rule-like status, reinforcing their legitimacy and further encouraging their spread. This process highlights how organizational conformity is often driven by the need for legitimacy rather than efficiency. In contrast to earlier “old institutionalism,” which emphasized internal values and agency, neo-institutionalism initially portrayed organizations as passively adapting to external constraints. However, later developments in the theory introduced more dynamic elements. Scholars began to explore institutional change, institutional entrepreneurship, and institutional work, emphasizing how actors can actively shape and transform their environments. These refinements blurred the distinction between old and new institutionalism by reintroducing agency into the analysis.

Neo-institutional theory also acknowledges that conformity may be superficial. Organizations sometimes adopt formal structures or policies to appear compliant with external expectations while leaving core practices unchanged—a phenomenon known as decoupling. This allows them to maintain legitimacy without fully altering their operations. Finally, the theory highlights the importance of symbolic power within organizational fields. Certain actors—such as regulators, professional bodies, or rating agencies—hold the authority to define legitimacy and assign value, not just in material terms but in symbolic resources like reputation or credibility. This power exists only through collective recognition, making it inherently tied to the perceptions and interactions within the field.

There are several other approaches in organizational theory. The strategic choice theory stresses the ability of decision makers within organizations to manipulate the organizational environment. Configuration theory focuses on processes, strategies, and structures of organizations that are strengthened by durable core values, which make changes difficult to implement. Transaction cost theory, developed by Oliver Williamson in his article “The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach” (1981), explains the boundaries of organizations based on the transaction cost of functions that are performed inside or outside an organization. Resource dependence theory sees organizations as seeking to control their environments by efficient management of scarce material and symbolic resources that are available to organizations. Agency theory focuses on the unequal relations between people (agents) who, within organizations, act on behalf of other people (principals). In this view, organizational structures are rational attempts to establish efficient cooperation, which depends on the informational asymmetry between agents and principals.

            Theoretical Approaches to Formal Institutions

Formal institutions are a type of organizations that are, because of their importance for culture, socialization, economy, and power relations in the whole society, become omnipresent and unavoidable. Some examples of formal institutions are the military, police, judicial system, prisons, churches, schools and universities, hospitals, etc.  

Michael Foucault argues that “discourse” is spread and controlled by institutions and their specialists, teachers, judges, and psychiatrists. Discourse is analyzed as historical and specific to a particular social group and its practice. In addition, Foucault seeks to discover how these discursive formations, over time, come to be seen as natural and common sense. Each epoch is governed by a unique "episteme" - an implicit internal structure that structures the way people think. Epistemes organize knowledge, not in relation to some objective and rational criteria, but in relation to the arbitrary structural codes of knowledge. Foucault seeks to unravel discursive knowledge that regulates the way of thinking and speaking, that gives rules of what is right and what is not, and what is generally considered to be knowledge. The key to the production of epistemes is the actions of institutions because they produce and control access to knowledge. 

In his book Asylums (1961), Goffman explores „total institutions“ and how the interactional order develops within them. Total institutions are those in which a person spends all their time, such as prisons, monasteries, and boarding schools. In a concrete empirical study for the book, Goffman explored life within a mental hospital. He divided the so-called "moral career" of the patient into three phases: before, during, and after the hospital stay. The period before going to the hospital was marked by a "betrayal funnel" by people close to the patient who reported his behavior. After entering the institution, the patient experiences a "civil death", because he loses most of his human and civil liberties. In addition, patients experience "mortification of self" through the standardization of clothing, as well as many other inconveniences. Patients who do not cooperate with the hospital staff are punished, and those who cooperate, which is perceived as a sign of improving mental health, receive certain benefits. Patients are constantly forced to choose between a reduced sense of self, if they follow all the instructions, or, otherwise, to create strategies to restore self-autonomy; however, such strategies carry with them the risk of causing punishment or being interpreted as a worsening of the mental state. Goffman came to the controversial conclusion that psychiatrists lack real knowledge about mental illness and that they instead apply common-sense criteria when interpreting patient behavior.

Arnold Gehlen, in Man: His Nature and Place in this World (1940), claims that humans are “not yet finished animals”, as they lack sufficient instincts to function by themselves and are dependent on culture and society to shape them during the period of maturation. This ontological frailty and existential precariousness imply that in the modern world, humans need institutions to provide them with discipline. Institutions stabilize tensions and create lasting motivations. Because it is hard to establish institutions and it is easy to destroy them, any emancipatory effort carries a lot of risk. On the other hand, man does not only follow rules established by institutions, but also uses language to become an ‘active being’ that uses action to constantly reproduce its world.

The interpretive institutional ecology, developed by Everett Hughes, is a meso-sociological approach focused on “institutional setting”, that is, the institutional environment. Within one institution (hospitals, schools, etc.), people enter into complex interrelationships where their social roles, at the same time, can be overlapping, conflicting, or complementary. On the other hand, people try to achieve many long-term goals (careers, as Hughes calls them), both inside and outside institutions. It is this focus of people on different careers that they pursue that is central to the analytical logic of interpretive institutional ecology.

Hughes uses ecology and functional analysis to explore the “natural history” of institutions. The natural history of institutions refers to the processes of creation, shaping, and changing institutions, in order to survive within complex and constantly changing natural and social environments. Hughes uses Durkheim's idea of ​​the division of labor and Radcliffe-Brown's functional analysis to explore the ecological and functional adaptations of institutions throughout their natural histories. Institutions are created to serve social and individual needs. Institutions survive because their members adopt strategies that help them achieve their careers, but at the same time, these strategies also serve to increase the ability of institutions to adapt to their environment. Simultaneously with the adaptation to the environment, institutions specialize in order to perform specific functions within society.

Illich was very critical of modern society and its institutions, and he developed this critique in several books. He criticized the way in which institutions and professions dehumanize the world by creating artificial needs, on the one hand, and the exert control over the way these needs are met by those institutions, on the other. Both of these aspects constitute a "radical monopoly" of experts over needs. He believed that technological development negatively affects human relations, the human spirit, and the natural environment.

Ivan Illich is best known for his critique of education, and he best expressed his views in the book Deschooling Society (1970). In this book, he explains how the traditional school system has made all students helpless before the capitalist organization of society. Schools are becoming repressive institutions that stifle imagination and creativity and impose conformism. Schools are ineffective in teaching students skills, and they also prevent students from developing their talents and abilities. Students who obey the rules acquire credentials from schools, as proof that they can join the capitalist system and the established order. The school system emphasizes grades, qualifications, and diplomas, which in no way reflect skills, knowledge, and abilities. The final product of education is a person who will be an obedient worker, a large consumer of goods and services sold on the market, and a person who obeys the authority of experts, doctors, and state laws and institutions.

      Institutions and the Reproduction of Gender Inequality

Barbara Risman claims that institutions and organizations reproduce gender inequalities at the institutional level. The most important are economic structures that create and maintain different expectations and opportunities for women and men in employment and other aspects of work (earnings, advancement, commitment). The different distribution of material resources between the two genders also maintains structural gender inequalities. Formal legal inequalities are becoming rarer, but even when official laws are formally gender neutral, institutions and organizations (courts, churches, companies) still have different attitudes towards men and women. And, finally, often the official ideology, long after the introduction of formal legal gender equality, retains androcentrism.

Sylvia Walby argues that patriarchal cultural institutions - media, religion, and educational system - portray women in ways that suit the patriarchal model, and this practice shapes women's identities and patterns of behavior. Rubin Gayle, in the article „Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” (1984), explores how society shapes sexuality and sexual identity. She concludes that medical and legal institutions create and maintain sexual differences and norms of deviant sexual behavior in order to achieve political goals.

In Men and Women of the Corporation (1977), Kanter developed the concepts of tokenism and homosocial reproduction to explain the workplace experiences of minorities, based on her study of women in a large corporation. Tokenism occurs when a subgroup makes up less than about 15% of a group, leaving them with little power or influence. Individuals in this position—often women or racial minorities—tend to experience isolation, heightened pressure, limited career opportunities, exclusion from networks, and a lack of respect.

Kanter identifies three main effects of token status: 1) Increased visibility – tokens are highly noticeable and face greater scrutiny, leading them either to overperform or try to stay unnoticed. 2) Boundary heightening – differences between the dominant group and tokens are exaggerated, reinforcing separation. 3) Stereotyping – tokens are expected to conform to predefined roles, and may either resist these stereotypes or assimilate into them, often reinforcing the stereotypes further. Overall, tokenism creates significant barriers to equality, performance, and career advancement for minority group members in organizations.

For information regarding international organizations, see the entry Globalization.

References:

Ahrne. Class and Social Organization in Finland (1989);

     -     Agency and Organization: Towards an Organizational Theory of Society (1990a);

     -     Social Organizations: Interaction Inside, Outside and Between Organizations (1994);

     -     Meta-Organizations (2008);

     -     Organization outside Organizations: The Abundance of Partial Organization in Social Life (2019);

     -     The Construction of Social Bonds A Relational Theory of Globalization, Organizations and Society (2021);

Albrow. Do Organizations Have Feelings (1997);

Aldrich, Howard, and Jeffrey Pfeffer.“Environments of Organizations“, in Annual Review of Sociology (1976);

Allport, F. H. Institutional Behavior (1933);

Berle, Adolf A., and Gardiner C. Means. The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932);

Berger, P. L. and Luckman, T. The Social Construction of Reality (1967);

Blau, P. M. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (1955);

Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (1974);

Burawoy, Michael. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism (1979);

Burrell, G. Pandemonium: Towards a Retro-Organization Theory (1997);

Blau. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (1962);

     -     On the Nature of Organizations (1974);

Burns. The Management of Innovation (1961);

     -     The BBC: Public Institution and Private World (1977);

Carroll, Glenn, and Michael Hannan (eds). Organizations in Industry: Strategy, Structure, and Selection (1995);

Castoriadis, C. The Imaginary Institution of Society (1987);

Chandler, Alfred. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (1962);

Coleman. Foundations of Social Theory (1990b);

Collins R. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science (1972);

Connell. The Good University: what Universities Actually do and Why its Time for Radical Change (2019).

Crozier. The World of the Office-Worker (1965, in French 1956);

DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W.“The Iron Cage Revisited“, in American Sociological Revue (1983);

Domhoff, G. William. Who Rules America? Power and Politics, and Social Change. 5th ed. (2006);

Douglas, M. How Institutions Think (1986);

Durkheim, E. The Rules of Sociological Method (1982);

Emerson. „Exchange Theory: Part I: A Psychological Basis for Social Exchange”, and „Exchange Theory: Part II: Exchange Relations and Networks”, in Sociological Theories in Progress Joseph Berger (ed.) (1972);

Etzioni. The Semi Professions and their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, and Social Workers (1969);

     -     A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates (1975);

Foucault. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (1973, in French 1963);

     -     Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1977, in French 1975);

Galbraith. The New Industrial State (1967);

Gehlen, A. Man: His Nature and Place in the World (1988);

Goffman. Asylums (1961);

Granoveter. „Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”, in American Journal of Sociology (1985);

Hughes. The Chicago Real Estate Board: The Growth of an Institution  (1979); 

Illich. Deschooling Society (1970);

Janowitz. The New Military (1964);

     -     Institution Building in Urban Education (1969);

Komarovsky, Latour. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (1979);

Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. Organization and Environment (1967);

Luhmann. Introduction to Systems Theory (2012, in German 1991);

Malinowski, B. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays (2002);

March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations (1958);

Meyer. Organization and Instruction in Elementary Schools (1976);

     -     The Structure of Educational Systems: Explorations in the Theory of Loosely-Coupled Organizations (1977);

     -     Environments and Organizations (1978);

     -     Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality (1983);

     -     Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual (1987);

     -     Institutional Environments and Organizations (1994);

     -     Globalization and Organization (2006);

     -     Hyper-Organization: Global Organizational Expansion (2015);

     -     The University and the Global Knowledge Society (2020);

     -     Institutional Theory (2021);

Merton, R. Social Theory and Social Structure (1949);

Mills. New Men of Power (1948);

     -     White Collar: The American Middle Classes (1951);

Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia Allegretto. The State of Working America, 2004/2005 (2005);

Morgan, G. Images of Organization (1997);

Newell, S. et al. Managing Knowledge Work (2002);

Offe. Institutional Design in Post-Communist  Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea (1998);

Parsons, T. (1991); The Social System

Perrow, Charles. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (1972);

Perrow, C. Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism (2002);

Piven. Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing (1984);

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (1978);

Prechel, Harland. “Steel and the State: Industry, Politics, and Business Policy Formation, 1940–1989”, in American Sociological Review (1990);

Prechel, Harland. “Economic Crisis and the Centralization of Control over the Managerial Process: Corporate Restructuring and Neo-Fordist Decision Making”, in American Sociological Review (1994);

Prechel, Harland. Big Business and the State: Historical Transitions and Corporate Transformation, 1880s–1990s (2000);

Reed, M. “Organizations and Modernity: Continuity and Discontinuity in Organization Theory”, in J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds.). Postmodernism and Organizations (1993);

Ritzer. The McDonaldization of Society (1993);

Silverman, D. The Theory of Organizations (1970);

Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. 2nd ed. (1957);

Stinchcombe. „Social Structure and Organizations”, in March, J. G. (ed.) Handbook of Organizations (1965);

     -     Creating Efficient Industrial Administrations (1974);

     -     Stratification and Organizations (1986);

     -     Information and Organizations (1990);

     -     When Formality Works: Authority and Abstraction in Law and Organizations (2001);

Starbuck, W. H. “The Origins of Organization Theory”, in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory (2003);

Strauss. Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions (1964);

Walby. Patriarchy at Work: Patriarchal and Capitalist Relations in Employment (1986);

Weber Max. Economy and Society : A New Translation (2019, in German 1922);

Weick, K. The Social Psychology of Organizing (1969);

White. Chains of Opportunity: System Models of Mobility in Organizations (1970);

Wiese. Systematic Sociology (1977, in German 1924/1929);

Wilensky. Organizational Intelligence: Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry (1967);

Willer. Networks, Exchange and Coercion (1981);

     -     Theory and the Experimental Investigation of Social Structures (1987);

     -     „Power Relations in Exchange Networks”, in American Sociological Review (1988);

     -     Network Exchange Theory (1999).