![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Having been thinking over my collected psychology knowledge of DOOM for my upcoming grad school interview, I'm prone to theory earworms. This one got stuck in my head, and thus I stick it out here, in order to get it out of my head, and into yours. It's a theory about how to describe different types of social environments, and the dynamics thereof. Except without the academese.
A 'social environment' for the purposes of this discussion is a group of people present (physically or metaphorically) in the same place, for a broad common purpose. Every social environment has a certain number of open 'roles', essentially jobs which must be done to fufill the purpose of the group. In a business this will be actual jobs with formal requirements, while in a group of friends, this may be The Guy Who Keeps Track Of Stuff or the Let's Do Something Girl. What the roles /are/ isn't important, merely that they exist. Every social environment also has a certain number of people. The ratio of roles-to-people can largely determine the strength and stability of the environment, by being role-impoverished, role-balanced, or role-oversaturated.
Role-impoverished: A social environment of this type has more people who identify as part of that society (or who /wish/ to identify as part of that society) than there are roles for them to play. Open slots are fiercely fought over, and those who already have roles get to exercise more control over who gets in and who doesn't. This leads to ingroup/outgroup strife, as well as an emphasis on specialists rather than generalists. Exploration of other roles is not encouraged, both because slots are usually full, and because failure to improve in the way your fufill the role you currently have means that you may lose it. This type of environment is vigorous but prone to decay (as people become burned out or seek out more welcoming groups) or assault from without (as those who cannot earn a role through the dictates of the group attempt to usurp one). Most large social environments, including corporations and nations, are role-impoverished.
Role-balanced: Social environments of this type have exactly (or almost exactly) the number of people needed to fufill their roles. This may be because the environment is isolated from newcomers, or because the task of the group is expanding at the same rate as it acquires new members. Either way, this tends to be a stable, but stagnant, system. Innovation and creativity doesn't carry much risk, but there often isn't a great push for it, either. The group tends to be even more resistant to role-hopping than the previous group, as any change will destabilize the system. Isolated small towns, certain family and friends circles, and other long-existing, relatively insular groups fit this pattern.
Role-oversaturated: A social environment of this type has /more/ roles than it has people to fill them. Group members are encouraged to explore different roles, take on multiple roles, or divide role tasks among themselves. Innovation and creativity are encouraged, and ingroup identification is strong...this is also the easiest environment to integrate new members into, because there are plenty of open slots to fill without threatening existant members' roles. This is a vigorous but highly unstable group dynamic; most role-oversaturated groups will soon become balanced or impoverished, depending on how vigorously they recruit new members. Most groups go through this phase in the beginning of their development. The interpersonal bonds formed in this environment often encourage original group members to stick together as a seperate entity even after the environment has expanded...they may be called the 'inner circle', 'cabal', 'clique', or so forth. As the group membership expands, members may resent being pushed back into one role, when previously they could move from role to role as it suited them.
Of course, there are more variables in defining a given group than just role ratios, but this is the thing that's running through my head at the moment.
A 'social environment' for the purposes of this discussion is a group of people present (physically or metaphorically) in the same place, for a broad common purpose. Every social environment has a certain number of open 'roles', essentially jobs which must be done to fufill the purpose of the group. In a business this will be actual jobs with formal requirements, while in a group of friends, this may be The Guy Who Keeps Track Of Stuff or the Let's Do Something Girl. What the roles /are/ isn't important, merely that they exist. Every social environment also has a certain number of people. The ratio of roles-to-people can largely determine the strength and stability of the environment, by being role-impoverished, role-balanced, or role-oversaturated.
Role-impoverished: A social environment of this type has more people who identify as part of that society (or who /wish/ to identify as part of that society) than there are roles for them to play. Open slots are fiercely fought over, and those who already have roles get to exercise more control over who gets in and who doesn't. This leads to ingroup/outgroup strife, as well as an emphasis on specialists rather than generalists. Exploration of other roles is not encouraged, both because slots are usually full, and because failure to improve in the way your fufill the role you currently have means that you may lose it. This type of environment is vigorous but prone to decay (as people become burned out or seek out more welcoming groups) or assault from without (as those who cannot earn a role through the dictates of the group attempt to usurp one). Most large social environments, including corporations and nations, are role-impoverished.
Role-balanced: Social environments of this type have exactly (or almost exactly) the number of people needed to fufill their roles. This may be because the environment is isolated from newcomers, or because the task of the group is expanding at the same rate as it acquires new members. Either way, this tends to be a stable, but stagnant, system. Innovation and creativity doesn't carry much risk, but there often isn't a great push for it, either. The group tends to be even more resistant to role-hopping than the previous group, as any change will destabilize the system. Isolated small towns, certain family and friends circles, and other long-existing, relatively insular groups fit this pattern.
Role-oversaturated: A social environment of this type has /more/ roles than it has people to fill them. Group members are encouraged to explore different roles, take on multiple roles, or divide role tasks among themselves. Innovation and creativity are encouraged, and ingroup identification is strong...this is also the easiest environment to integrate new members into, because there are plenty of open slots to fill without threatening existant members' roles. This is a vigorous but highly unstable group dynamic; most role-oversaturated groups will soon become balanced or impoverished, depending on how vigorously they recruit new members. Most groups go through this phase in the beginning of their development. The interpersonal bonds formed in this environment often encourage original group members to stick together as a seperate entity even after the environment has expanded...they may be called the 'inner circle', 'cabal', 'clique', or so forth. As the group membership expands, members may resent being pushed back into one role, when previously they could move from role to role as it suited them.
Of course, there are more variables in defining a given group than just role ratios, but this is the thing that's running through my head at the moment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
And, if your academic writing is always as clear as this, I don't think you'll have any trouble in grad school. :)
From:
Re:
And were this an actual paper, it would have been much longer, and filled with mumbo-jumbo and research cites. ;P
From:
Re:
I'll point out, though, that in today's changing economy, the first two types of systems might not necessarily be stable on a long-term basis, as changes can open up new roles and make old ones obsolete. So there would be some degree of flux in many organizations, and perhaps a mixture of the different types.
It would be interesting to see this theory tested to find out how closely organizations do follow these categories. :)
From:
Re:
No system is stable on a long-term basis, depending on how you define 'long-term' (and how you define 'stable', for that matter), regardless of the economy or the details of the system. Systems are only as stable as their components, and human beings are not very stable at all.
It's not my theory, by the way. :) I'm just blanking on the formal name and researchers who did the studies on it, unfortunately. And my textbooks are not helping, so I think I might have sold that book back. Now I feel the need to go to the library, dang it.
It's worth mentioning, however, that no one theory describes anything exactly. The trick is in finding the theories that are right /most/ often, and then bringing a flexible, useful hybrid out of them, which can be applied to a wide variety of situations.