Group structure and organizational theory in Calprig

¶ … Theory

Whether formal, every group has a structure regardless of the nature of their activity or the length of time they have been together (Freeman, 1970). Whether the group is a large nonprofit organization, a multibillion dollar corporate empire, a community or grassroots organization, or a group of friends who get together on a regular basis to discuss politics and the weather, each is a structured entity whether formal or informal, with flexible or stringent rules and guidelines. What aids in the solidification of the group is the issuance of tasks and responsibilities, power and resources spread amongst the membership. The simple notion that a group of individuals with various talents have come together for a common cause makes it a group (Freeman, 1970). Freeman posits that it is not natural to refuse to interact or related to one another which are described as structurelessness, as these tendencies are considered outside of human nature.

Freeman asserts that in order for everyone to have the opportunity for involvement in a particular group and to participate in the groups' activities the structure of the group must be explicit. As such, roles of decision making must be available and open to everyone and can only occur in a formalized process. In this way, the informal structure that frequently has control of the rules and structure are no longer dominant (Freeman 1970).

The following is a presentation of the group Calprig; its purpose nature and activity base as compared to organizational theories. The goal of this project is to provide a critical examination of the theories that govern group behavior and compare and contrast to the activities of Calprig in an effort to determine similarities, differences, and new insights into group functioning.

Theories

A social movement, as generally defined is "an organized group or collection of organized groups that use non-routine action to challenge institutions, to change particular policies, redirect resources, recognize new cultural meanings, or all of these" (Saxton & Benson 2005, p.1). The institutions, as described can represent sexuality, schools, corporations, the government, or the church. According to the literature, ofttimes movements that challenge institutions also challenge any cultural meanings these institutions support. Tocqueville, in his description of the change in social condition that fosters social movement as equality in economic conditions became more evidence. He posited that a new political science would be necessary and it would

Instruct democracy, if possible to reanimate its beliefs, to purify its mores, to regulate its movements, to substitute little by little the science of affairs for its inexperience, and knowledge of its true instincts for its blind instincts; to adapt its government to time and place; to modify it according to circumstance and men; such is the first duty imposed on those who direct society in our day (Tocqueville, 2000, p. 7).

There have been a number of theories and philosophies posited regarding group function. A number of theories associate power, expressed politically and/or financially, and the level of influence these organizations, formally or informally have on those around them, locally, nationally and/or internationally. Even from the times of nobility when kings governed the land, a certain share of political rights was given to the people (Addams 1889, p. 5). Even though is a great deal of disagreement with regard to how to refer to them nongovernment organizations commonly referred to as nonprofits have been described as formal organizations that have long-term existence, appointed leaders, separate from government, not designed to generate profit for the CEO, and are self-governing. These organization use volunteers primarily, to get the organization's mission and message out to the people. Nonprofit organizations by definition are posited to serve some pubic good, for the benefit of the public (Salamon & Anheier 1997, p. 32).

According to the QCEW data files on nonprofit organizations, these charitable entities employed nearly 9 million individuals in 2002 or 8.2% of the country's private employment. According to Salamon and Sokolowski (2005), nonprofit organizations employ nearly three times as many workers as the country's entire agricultural sector, twice as many workers as the country's transportation industry, 60% more workers than the nations' wholesale trade industry and its finance and insurance industry, and nearly as many workers as are those employed in durable goods manufacturing (p.20).

Steven Rathgeb Smith and Michael Lipsky (1993) in "Nonprofits for Hire" suggest the mindset of many Americans regarding nonprofit organizations. Many Americans make the assumption that nonprofits because they are 'charitable' are trustworthy; more trustworthy that government or government run organizations because of the underlying assumption that they are primarily grassroots, more closely tied to the local community, and more genuine or authentic. These assumptions are based on the fact that many Americans don't understand the connectivity between government funding, thereby government influence, and nonprofit organizations.

The posited goal of the government financing nonprofit and grassroots organizations is allegedly to empower them by creating active citizenry, smarter citizens, and caring citizens. Over the past ten years, there has been a plethora of empirical and scholarly literature on the significance of social capital on a number of social, economic and political phenomenon (Saxton & Benson 2005, p. 16). Research has demonstrated a positive association between the extent of a community's social capital and economic development (Romo & Schwartz, 1995); while at the organizational level, researchers have determined strong associations between corporate entrepreneurship and social capital, firm morality, and the creation of greater intellectual and human capital (Chung & Gibbons, 1997; Coleman, 1998; Pennings, Lee, & Witteloostuijin, 1998). For the individual, it has been purported that social capital has been linked to better health, happiness, and increased earnings (Putnam, 2000, p. 319).

As previously advised, there has been significant growth in the nonprofit sector, particularly in the United States over the course of the past 25 years. As of the statistical report of 2001, there were nearly 1.2 million nonprofit organizations in the United States. However, Saxton and Benson (2005) argue that the growth has not been even. There are regional and local disparities in the nonprofit sector in many communities were some are decidedly healthy and others are not. Saxton and Benson attribute these disparities to social capital. Social capital is determined by its function. All social capital consists of social structure that facilitates certain actions on the part of individuals within the structure (Coleman 1990, p. 302); social capital is the ability of individuals to secure benefits by virtue of their membership in social networks, organizations or other social structures (Portes, 1998, p. 6); and social capital refers to connectivity between individuals and the norms of trustworthiness and reciprocity that derives from participation in organizations or social structures (Putnam 2000, p. 19).

One of the theoretical approaches most applicable to this project and the nonprofit organization I worked with is the ecological approach as this theory focused on population dynamics or ecological issues. Preexisting organizational density on current organizational founding is one of the first tenants of the ecological approach, either through legitimation or competition. Legitimation processes lead to the prevalence of nonprofit organizations in society. With high existing density has also been suggestedly an increase of the founding rate or the expansion of relevant social and skills networks. Because of the mission of Calprig not being a new idea but rather the expansion on existing tenants of nonprofit organizations and organizational focus, the ecological model is applicable. There is a certain level of carrying capacity (Hannah & Freeman 1987). There is an expectation in this model that the more individuals become involved in civil social activities and engagement in good citizenship interests through the creation of new and existing organizations, the greater the carrying capacity in the nonprofit sector in general. This would suggest an overall positive impact of both prior founding and density in the nonprofit sector as a whole.

The environmental approach seeks out factors in the institutional, economic and social environment that would serve as an explanation of the changes in organizational founding patterns. In the nonprofit literature, it is often purported that particular environmental variables such as the size of the community and the lack of financial resources by nature increases the demand for nonprofit organizations and services (Corbin 1999) and service to increase the numbers or supply of financial and human resources that can be mobilized (Hannah & Freeman 1987).

Nevertheless, there has been ongoing contentious debate over the relationship between the scope and size of the nonprofit organizational sector and government spending. On one side of the scholarly discourse, is the argument that because of the expanse in bureaucracy, there is a crowding out of community-based organizations. These kinds of theories highlight zero sum and conflictual government and nonprofit sectors (Saxton & Benson 2005). However, according to cross-national, large scale research conducted by Salamon and Anheier (1997, 1998) exhibit doubt on the government/market failure explanations of the nonprofit sector and their subsidiary role to government. Instead, as evidenced by many nonprofit organizations that receive government funding, there is more of a partnership between the two sectors where the relationships is posited to be complementary and cooperative.

While there are clearly circumstances where the civil society sector is at odds with the state, there are at least as many where the relationship is one of interdependence and mutual support…. The state has thus emerged in the modern era not as a displacer of nonprofit activity but as perhaps the major philanthropist… (Salamon & Anheier 1997, p. 63-64).

Conclusion

Although a nationwide organization, Calpirg is still considered a social organization or a social movement because it doesn't receive government funding. There are both trained and professional members as well as volunteers. From my experiences with the organization, there was a great deal of transparency and accountability as argued by Steven and Lipsky (1993) are considered significantly important. As Freeman (1970) posited, there are some who know the rules, however, in my experience, the rules were not kept from the rest of the group. The Calprig group, in my estimation, even though a social movement, has some formalized propensities such as leaders who have some authority and governership over the other members, and may also have greater insight then say the volunteers, there was not a sense that things were being hidden from anyone. For example, during the course of one of the meetings when a campaign leader disclosed how much money was earned for their campaign, and when Ann openly disclosed how much Calprig had collected the previous year, if this information was proprietary or not meant for everyone to be privy to, then those things would not have been disclosed in an open meeting.

The ecological theory maintains that legitimation and competition are basic to how nonprofits come into existence and how they are maintained or whether they survive. As previously indicated, the causes that Calprig works toward such as feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, environmental awareness and ecological protection are not exclusive to Calprig. There are many organizations that work on behalf of these same causes. As such, according to the ecological model, a way was paved for the existence of Calprig. Because other organizations work on behalf of the same causes, and because of marketing and multimedia resulting in heightened consumer awareness, Calprig is seen as trustworthy as evidenced by the amount of money the organization has been able to successfully achieve year after year. Moreover, because of perceived trust, the campaign that was initiated November 8th although not resoundingly successful, was not a total failure. Calprig does have a national platform where other nonprofits that may work in the same causes may not. There is no way to assess whether or not the competition presented by Calprig has summarily squeezed any other organization out.

Although much of what is posited in the ecological approach I agree with, I do disagree in part. Because the issues that Calprig and other agencies working on behalf of people and the environment are so pervasive and so much work is needed, there is room for everyone who wants to enhance their citizenry and respond to an ever demanding need. Regardless of whether other nonprofit organizations receive government funding or not, or whether they are more grassroots than say Calpirg is, there is plenty of work available for everyone. Nonetheless, I do summarily agree with the notion of carrying capacity as posited by the ecological model. The more individuals become vested in helping, then the greater the carrying power for nonprofit organizations on the whole.

The environmental theoretical approach to nonprofits suggests that there are two possible outcomes for government involvement in the nonprofit sector. One side of this contentious argument suggests that an adversarial relationship exists and must exist between the two as the goals are dichotomously opposed; which in many ways is like the move toward the welfare state. The other side of the argument is that the government and nonprofit organizations have more in common than they do differences, and as such can work in a complementary and cooperative manner. Although Calprig does not receive government funding, again as evidenced by the statements made by Ann during the meeting, there are many nonprofit organizations that do receive government funds. Whether these organizations are seen by the public as more or less trustworthy is not for me to decide. However, larger nonprofit organizations such as the Red Cross, who do receive government funding were one of the organizations that some people deferred to when Calprig asked for donations.

As evidenced by the many organizations that receive government funds for their nonprofit activities, more of a complementary and cooperative relationship exists between private and public sector. So in many ways, I agree with part of the argument posited by the environmental approach. Moreover, some of the ideologies argued from that position seem to be more relevant to how things were previously done and not so much how things are done now.

I have learned a great deal through my practical experience with Calprig about the inner workings of a nonprofit organization. Because of the information and knowledge I have gained in class, I have been able to apply some of the theoretical tenets to this real life experience. The goals of the organization are admirable and the individuals who regularly work within the organization are passionate and dedicated to what they do. There do seem to be some hard feelings regarding other organizations that may receive additional funding and there is the perception that because they do not use the money to work toward the same causes that Calprig works on, that somehow the money is not used in the best way, but overall, the mentality of the Calprig members was upbeat and positive. There were no expressed plans on different ways for the organization to secure additional funding, whether or not they are or would consider becoming a government funding nonprofit organization. But as a nationwide social movement, Calprig makes a powerful impact in society that facilitates greater citizenship for those who are involved.