Division of Research Graduate School of Business Administration The University of Michigan August 1975 AN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY ANALYSIS OF THE UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA Working Paper No. #115 by William F, Maloney The University of Michigan FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY None of this material is to be reproduced without the express of the Division of Research. quoted or permission

An Organizational Theory Analysis of the United Steelworkers of America One of the fundamental needs of industrial relations is the integration of its concepts and theories with those of organization theory and organization behavior. Each of these disciplines can contribute much to developing a greater understanding of the others, This paper will attempt to integrate the theory of labor union structure with the organization theories of Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch as well as with Malcolm Warner's work on the interaction between unions and their environment based on the structure of the United Steelworkers of America, Lawrence and Lorsch related the structure of organizations to the certainty of their environment on the basis of the observation that an organization that operates in an uncertain and diverse environment will most likely have subunits which are highly differentiated in terms of structure and the unit members' goal, time, and interpersonal orientation. Organizations in this type of environment are typically flatter and less hierarchical than an organization having a more stable and less diverse environment. An organization operating in the more stable environment will rely more on the hierarchy to achieve integration between its various units. Before proceeding, it is necessary to define terms utilized in the following analysis. Organization: "a system of interrelated behaviors of people who are performing a task that has been differentiated into several distinct subsystems, each system performing a portion of the task, and the efforts of each being integrated to achieve effective performance of the system. -1 -

-2 -Differentiation: "the state of segmentation of the organizational system into subsystems, each of which tends to develop particular attributes in relation to the requirements posed by its relevant external environment (includes behavioral attributes). Integration: "the process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of the organization's task. Task: "a complete input-transformation-output cycle involving at least the design, production, and distribution of some goods or services,"1 It is evident from these definitions that the states of integration and differentiation are basically antagonistic in that increased differentiation requires increased integration, which is increasingly difficult to obtain. Every organization has a state of differentiation arising from the division of labor along functional lines. These various functions must be integrated to obtain a unified effort. How much integration is necessary is determined by the concept of requisite integration which measures "whether task characteristics make it possible for subsystems in an organization to operate independently of each other, or require continual collaboration in making decisions,,2 before a given subsystem may act.2 The more differentiated an organization becomes, the more and varied integration devices will be required. In evaluating organizations, the primary question that must be answered is: What pattern of differentiation and integration is most appropriate for an organization functioning in a given external environment? A factor influencing the state of integration is the type of interdependence required between the organization's subsystems. Three types of interdependence are possible:

-3 - Pooled: "each part renders a discrete contribution to the whole and each is supported by the whole, but no direct interaction is required between the units of the organization. Sequential: "direct interdependence can be pinpointed between them [the units], and the order of the interdependence can be specified." The interdependence is not symmetrical. Reciprocal: "the outputs of each (unit) become the inputs for the others...under conditions of reciprocal interdependence each unit involved is penetrated by the others."3 Movement along a continuum from pooled interdependence to reciprocal interdependence increases the pressure on communication channels and decision-making mechanismp within the organization, because the movement is from a relatively simple situation to one which is much more complex. All three types of interdependence are present to some extent in all organizations, but as one type becomes dominant, it significantly influences the internal structure of the organization. For example, if pooled interdependence is dominant, coordination between the subunits would be accomplished through reliance on standardization and development of standardized operating procedures. An organization dominated by sequential interdependence would achieve coordination through the development of extensive plans, such as production plans. Organizations characterized by reciprocal interdependence would rely on mutual adjustment between the subunits involved. Thus, the movement from pooled interdependence to reciprocal interdependence is a movement from a more structured to a less structured organization, Structure is not a tangible or measurable item, but should be viewed as existing along a continuum. It can be analyzed through several characteristics, such as a pattern of formal relationships and duties evidenced by organization charts, job descriptions, and

-4 -manuals or a pattern of formal rules, procedures, control, and measurement systems, and the incorporation of goal and time dimensions in formal practices. Other characteristics that could be considered indicative of structure would be the average span of control for supervisors, number of levels to a shared supervisor, and the time span and specificity of the review of subsystem performance. There is no one best organization or structure because of factors such as the goals of the organization and the environment in which the organization functions. Lawrence and Lorsch postulated that the organization faces an environment that is differentiated into various subenvironments. For industrial organizations these subenvironments are market, science, and techno-economic. Subsystems within the organization develop to enable the organization to meet the demands of its environments. For example, marketing and sales units are concerned with the market subenvironment, production units work with the techno-economic subenvironment, and research and design units operate within the science subenvironment. The structure of these units is not constant from organization to organization but varies, according to Lawrence and Lorsch, with the certainty of the subenvironments facing the organization. They have established the following indicators of subenvironmental certainty: 1. rate of change of conditions over time in the subenvironment, 2. the certainty of information about conditions in the subenvironment at any particular time, 3. modal time span of definitive feedback from the environment on the results of subsystem behavior, 4. relative number of environmental opportunities, 5. complexity of the required tasks of the organizations.

-5 -Certainty, as structure, exists along a continuum from certainty to uncertainty, and how similar the various parts of the environment are on this continuum determines the homogeneity or diversity of the total environment. Research results from the Lawrence and Lorsch studies show that as the certainty of the relevant subenvironment increases, the structure of the subsystem becomes more formalized. This is evident where a subsystem facing a relatively certain environment is able to increase its effectiveness through a highly formalized structure with a bureaucratic form such that there is a pattern of formal relationships and duties and a pattern of formal rules, procedures, control, and measurement systems. Rules are standardized and standard operating procedures are developed. With little variation in the environment, the organization can specify tasks and methods of accomplishing those tasks without fear of unforeseen events disrupting normal procedures. It thus appears that each of the organization's subsystems develop attributes that could be predicted by the characteristics of the relevant external environment. Another finding of the research was that subsystems functioning in environments of relatively moderate certainty will have members with more social-interpersonal orientations, which is in contrast to the subsystems exposed to relatively certain or relatively uncertain environments who will have members with taskoriented interpersonal orientations. A third result was obtained from Lawrence and Lorsch's attempt to relate time orientation to the time required to get definitive feedback from the environment. They found

that the time orientations of subsystem members varies directly with the modal time required to obtain definitive feedback from the relevant subenvironment. For example, in the production subsystem where feedback is obtained in a relatively short time, the time orientations of members of the subsystem will reflect the feedback time such as the time between production status reports. As the required degrees of differentiation and integration increase as a result of uncertainty in the sub environments confronting the organization, integrating devices will begin to emerge within the organization. These integrating devices coordinate the activities intra- or inter-subsystem, and they are required for the organization to perform effectively. The degree of differentiation has an important impact on the integrating devices used. Particular devices are suitable in specific situations, i.e., managerial hierarchy would be applicable when the activities of two departments need to be coordinated, but only when the state of differentiation between the departments is such that their activities are related in some mannere It would be inappropriate for the research and development department and the accounting department to be coordinated by means of a shared supervisor. Examples of commonly used integrating devices are an integrating department or individual, cross-functional teams on a permanent or temporary basis, direct managerial contact, managerial hierarchy, and a paper system with prescribed forms and routing procedures. It would appear that integrating departments could be manned best by people having prior experience in the basic departments doing work requiring coordination. Lawrence and Lorsch found that the goal, time, and

-7 - interpersonal orientation and structure of the integrating devices are midway between the two subsystems they seek to integrate. A production planning department coordinating activities between sales and production units would have members who have a balance between the orientations of the two units. It is possible for organizations to achieve too much differentiation and consequently too much integration. As Lawrence and Lorsch found, overall performance in coping with the external environment is related to there being a degree of differentiation among subsystems consistent with requirements of their relevant subenvironments and a degree of integration consistent with requirements of the total environments.5 A primary objective of organization design and development is to analyze the subenvironments confronting the subsystems of the organization to determine the states of differentiation and integration consistent with the demands of the environment. Unions have been in existence since the latter part of the 1800s. Recently, however, there has been some discussion of the unions' ability to meet the demands of present day environments. Although the basic structure of a union may have been stable for a long time, its "structure has accommodated itself to the requisite level of organizational performance to cope with changes in the environment,"6 The structure of the union may not have appeared to change, but the practices, procedures, and activities of the union's subsystems may have become increasingly complex to meet the demands of the environment. An analysis of union structure can be highly misleading if

-8 -viewed strictly from a structural point of view, because even though the union may have become highly structured, it may have done so in response to an environment which has become relatively certain and activities which have become routine in nature. In analyzing a union (or any organization) it is convenient to view the organization and its environment as a series of concentric circles with the core organization at the center; this core organization would consist of the presidents office. Surrounding the core would be the territory, that segment of the environment that the union attempts to dominate. The subsystem of the union functioning in this area would be units such as the district directors and international representatives and would cover the firms organized by the union. Outside of the territory would be the domain, the inner or task environment with which the organization has constant interchange for inputs. The final circle, outside of the domain, is that of the distant environment, which is partly controlled by the federal government. Within the union organization, the subsystems concerned with the domain and the distant environment are the various staff departments of the union. Another useful concept in the analysis of organizations is that of organization-set which consists of those bodies with which the core organization interacts. Bodies comprising the organization-set would be enterprises in the industrial environment, other unions, and other organizations including local and central government bodies. The distant environment could be thought of as being comprised of the general economy and economic and political conditions. Therefore,

-9 -in terms of the formal authority structure, the regions, districts, and branches of the union along with the core organization constitute the organization. The nature of the industry within which the union operates and its organizational set are not parts of the organization, even though they have a significant impact in terms of the relationship between the union and the socio-technical system of which it is a part. There is the possibility that the bodies or organizations existing between the core organization and the environment could act as buffers between the two. Instead of acting as information exchanges with the core organization, these bodies in the organization-set could be acting as insulators by preventing the core organization from obtaining the necessary inputs required to function effectively. Warner develops the concepts of organizational space or distance, which is the "numbers of levels of decision-making or dependency which might exist between the core of the organization and the environment," and organizational time, which is the "speed of response of messages from the core of the organization to the environment and vice-versa."8 Union structure can be analyzed through these two concepts which are similar to ones Lawrence and Lorsch use when organizational space is analogous to several structural characteristics, such as the number of hierarchy levels to a shared supervisor, and when organization time could be considered analogous to the modal time span of definitive feedback from the environmentregarding the results of subsystem behavior. Continuing the similarity, Warner's concept of the organization-set's exposure to the border environments is analogous to Lawrence and Lorsch's concept of the organization's subsystems interacting with

-10 -the relevant subenvironments. The certainty-uncertainty of the subenvironments in the Lawrence and Lorsch studies is similar to Warner's environmental variation, which he defines as a "fair rate of change of "9 environmental activities relevant to its functions and functioning." In addition to variability within the distant environment, there is variability in the organization-set as the bodies and institutions within the organization-set respond to the demands of their respective environments. Warner, similar to Lawrence and Lorsch, found that "the level of required organizational integration, coordination, and control is influenced by the degree of environmental variability and complexity." The variability and complexity of environmental activities confronting the organization may be considerable, given the extensive organization-set with which the organization must deal. Kerr has stated that "the environment of a collective bargaining system is the aggregate of the external forces which affect its development and its character."l An analysis of these external factors delineates the constraints within which the parties must act and the influences on the attainment of a healthy relationship between them. The industrial environment is outside the formal organization as defined by its membership and core organization, and is more analogous to the domain and distant environment discussed by Warner:...the industrial environment relates to the concept of domain and may be the equivalent of the task environment...and in which we find the organization-set which examines those parts of the total environment with which the organization is in more or less constant interaction for transactions of material, informational, financial, and other sources.12

Thus, the environment of a union is not only the industry or industries in which it operates, but also all other industries and governmental bodies which are subject to the influences of political culture and administrative tradition. Uncertainty is related to organizational distance. Assuming the unions are,in many cases, poorly equipped with regard to resources and may be further handicapped by an outmoded organization structure, they may be unable to monitor their environments as closely as required to insure organizational effectiveness. This creates a problem in that the union's perception of uncertainty in the environment may be different from the actual uncertainty in the environment. The union's perception of the environment, therefore, has a significant impact on the structure adopted by the union to deal with the environment. To function effectively a union should treat its environment as information and take an active role vis-a-vis the environment such that it should not have to rely on the press for information concerning either the causes or the results of phenomena in the environment. It is useful to distinguish between feedback from the environment regarding simple information and feedback concerning outcomes of specific behavior. Feedback of simple information may be lost within the organizational structure and delayed in reaching the core organization, while information on outcomes of specific behavior, such as the results of a representational election, may bypass the organizational structure and proceed directly to the core organization.

-12 - Unions have a unique relationship with institutions comprising their organization-sets, as Tannebaum has stated: First and foremost, the union relates to a private or public enterprise or group of enterprises. A union's attachment to an enterprise implies dependency since the union cannot exist without the other organization. The enterprise implicitly defines the membership of the union, sustains the membership, and provides the (primarily economic) benefits for members which it is the purpose of the union to achieve. Customarily, these benefits are not offered willingly; the union must extend them. Thus, the union is dependent upon the enterprise and at the same time is in conflict with it.13 A union is in the unenviable position of having maximization of benefits as one of its criteria for organizational success, but attaining this success could possibly destroy the business organization as a result of exorbitant benefit settlements. The relationship the union has with management should therefore be at the center of the union's activity, especially inasmuch as the union faces the same product and labor markets as does the industrial enterprise. Thus the future of the union rests with the future of the enterprise, Organizational performance is difficult to assess for industrial enterprises and even more difficult for unions. Warner stated that: One important criterion of performance surely should be the degree to which the organizational structure (1) enables the environment to be economically monitored, (2) the degree to which information inputs travel successfully and effectively between the environment and the core organization, (3) the speed of response of the core organization to the environmental signals, (4) the degree of control of the behavior of the core organization and the membership to these signals, and (5) the degree to which conflict is managed, whether in the achievement of industrial peace or the manipulation of conflict in relation to both short- and long-term goals of the membership organization.14

-13 -Regardless of how organizational performance is assessed, the members' perception of it and the members' satisfaction in attaining that level of performance should be closely related. Union organizations are structured in two basic ways. One is a highly centralized national union located in an extremely competitive industry, characterized by the acceptance of centralization of authority within the union structure as a necessary condition for the existance of an effective collective bargaining organization. The second structure is evident in local product markets where local unions have a high degree of autonomy vis-a-vis the national union. Generalizing from these two structures, it appears that a high degree of competition in the product market will result in a high degree of centralization within the union structure. There are two distinct divisional structures within unions, the local union and the national or international union. Analysis of the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) will be restricted to the international union in order to provide a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between the organization's structure and its environment. The USWA is a national union operating in many industries. Its basic structure developed from its organization of the steel industry, which now constitutes approximately one-fourth of total union membership. The basic steel industry in the United States has: (1) a high degree of short-run essentiality as an input in a large number of industries manufacturing durable goods, and (2) techniques of production which have been characterized by very high costs of plant

-14 - and equipment and also by rather high labor-cost ratios [direct labor costs regularly exceed a third of gross revenue].5 As a result of the economics of the industry, steel producers in the early 1900s were large, liquid, and profitable even at low levels of operation such as during economic downturns. This profitability enabled the employers to withstand organizational strikes. Steel producers were able to defeat organizational efforts at various plants by transferring work to other plants. This forced the union to realize that success depended on company-wide organization, at the least. United Mineworkers President John L. Lewis formed the Steelworkers Organizing Committee (SWOC), with Philip Murray as its leader, to organize the basic steel industry and establish a national steelworkers'union before establishing local steel unions, The level of demand for basic steel is extremely responsive to cyclical downturns and is price inelastic in the short run. Producers had adopted pricing policies that were high enough to break even at the lower production levels which resulted from rigid prices in economic downturns. For the producers to maintain a policy of price administration and price leadership, they needed wage administration and wage leadership1 The industry saw the SWOC as an effective institutional support for wages, and consequently prices, in periods of economic contraction in that price increases resulting from negotiated wage contracts fight be less subject to reduction than those brought about by increased demand. If the steel producers acted in concert with regard to wage administration, they could

-15 -protect themselves from new entries in the industry, and prevent the undercutting of wages by new firms. SWOC was recognized by U.S. Steel and subsequently by the other producers partially for the wage administration factor. Once the SWOC had been recognized by the producers (it became the USWA in 1942), the union began a movement to centralize bargaining within the basic steel industry and thus eliminate geographic wage differentials. The union viewed this movement as a means of furthering recognized national objectives and increasing the influence of the national body. Employers acquiesced to the union demands as a means of furthering their policy of price stability. The early history of the USWA bargaining with the basic steel industry resulted in a highly centralized national union having much more authority and control over the local unions than other unions. As the USWA organized workers in other industries, it maintained its highly centralized structure in spite of the decentralizing influences of the other industries. A union's structure is, in large part, determined by its goals. The USWA's goals are embodied in its constitution; the following goals greatly influence the structure of the International: To unite in this industrial union, regardless of race, creed, color, or nationality, all workers and working men and working women eligible for membership, employed in and around and in transportation related to iron, steel, aluminum, non-ferrous metal and allied manufacturing, mining, processing, and fabricating mills, factories, and establishments in the United States and its territories, Canada, and insular areas adjacent thereto.

-16 - To establish through collective bargaining adequate wage standards, shorter hours of work, and improvements in the conditions of employment for workers in industry. To engage in educational, legislative, political, civic, social, welfare, community, and other activities; to advance and safeguard the economic security and social welfare of the workers in industry, the International Union, its local Unions, and the free labor movements of the United States, Canada, and the world; to protect and extend our democratic institutions and civil rights and liberties; and to perpetuate and extend the cherished traditions of democracy and social and economic justice in the United States, Canada, and the world community.16 Implementation of these goals will necessarily influence the structure of the International, An analysis of this structure should reveal the International's ability to work toward these goals. The executive officers of the Ihternational will be considered as the core organization in the Warner framework, which is somewhat more narrow than the definition of organization employed by Lawrence and Lorsch. These officers are the international president, the international vice-president, and the secretary-treasurer. The core organization interacts with the organization-set and the environment. Although not technically part of the core organization, the organizationset —the district director, international representatives, and staff departments —is the linkage between the core organization and the environment, with the environment influencing the structure and relationship of these units and the core organization. Warner segmented the environment on the basis of distance from the core organization while Lawrence and Lorsch segmented it along functional lines, but the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Lawrence and Lorsch differentiated the environment into three

-17 - subenvironments: market, science, and technoeconomic. Unions face a different environment than do industrial organizations. Applying this differentiation concept to unions would reveal subenvironments in the market, corporate, and politico-legal areas. The market subenvironment includes all activities related to organizing new workers, servicing existing workers and local unions, and generally providing expertise and services to current and potential union members. While the market subenvironment is concerned with the union member, current or potential, the corporate subenvironment is responsible for developing and maintaining relationships with corporate employers, which would include such areas as contract bargaining and administration, discussion of mutual problems, and related activities between the union and the corporate employer. The politico-legal subenvironment would be concerned with lobbying on national, state, and local levels, development of fringe benefit programs, research into contract terms contained in contracts in industries not organized by the union, and legal researchO Combining these three subenvironments with Warner's could be graphically depicted as Figure 1. The functionally differentiated subenvironments would overlap with the subenvironments differentiated on the basis of distance from the core organizaion. Both the market and corporate subenvironments would be present in the territory and the domain t not in the domaindistant environment, while the politico-legal subenvironment would include all of the distant environment as well as part of the domain.

-18 -/^^ Distant \n -,'* *.D om a in / //' Territory \. 9 /''- 'rganiza Ma ket - Corp rate \rat Legal. Fig. 1. The union environment. In order to meet the demands of the various subenvironments, the International Union differentiated itself into functional specializations to increase the effectiveness of the overall organization. General departments and committees have been established to allow the organization to meet the demands of the relevant subenvironments. Although there will be overlap between the subenvironments, hence the departments and committees that were established, the departments and committees can be classified under the relevant subenvironments:

-19 -Market Corporate Politico-legal Civil Rights Civil Rights Civil Rights Education Contract Insurance, Pension, and Insurance, Pension, and Administration Unemployment Benefits Unemployment Benefits Public Relations Legal Office and Technical Safety and Health Legislative Organizing District Directors Political Action Retired Workers International Public Relations Safety and Health Representatives Research-Contract District Directors Staff Representatives Safety and Health, International Representatives Staff Representatives The three subenvironments appear to be related through pooled interdependence. As such, integration can be achieved through the standardization of activities and use of a standard reporting system whereby reports are channeled through the appropriate departments. If closer integration is required, such as in the case where sequential interdependence is necessary, it could be obtained through crossfunctional teams or a temporary matrix organization. The district directors, of which there are twenty-four, function as integrating individuals within the structure. They are elected by the membership to head the districts which are determined by geography and population, The district directors are members of the International Executive Board. They preside over periodic district conferences at which decisions are made concerning the affairs of the district and representatives are elected to the International Wage Policy Committee which is responsible for formulating the Union's general bargaining goals for basic contract negotiations. International representatives and staff representatives, appointed by the international president, work actively with the local unions assigned to them and report to the district directors, thus also integrating activites of the local unions.

-20 -Local unions are formed into one of the following eighteen basic industry conferences: Basic Steel Nonferrous Metals Aluminum Containers Valves, Fittings, Pumps, Foundaries and Forgings Compressors, Engines, and Blowers Furniture and Fixtures Industrial Machinery and Equipment Chemicals and Allied Products Transportation Equipment Nonmetallic Minerals Cutlery, Hand Tools, and Tableware Structural Steel, Boiler Shops, Sheet Metal Work and Stampings and Nuts and Bolts Electrical Machinery and Equipment Heating and Air Conditioning Miscellaneous Manufacturing and Equipment other Industries Metal Warehouses, The purpose of the industry conferences is to discuss common needs, interests, and objectives using research data on contracts in order to coordinate bargaining to bring about uniformity of wages, benefits, and contract expiration dates. Conference delegates also attempt to establish safety and health programs to protect workers from hazards peculiar to the respective industries. The industry conferences thus serve to integrate activities between locals and to channel information and demands to the core organization. The core organization receives information from the subenvironments through the departments, committees, conferences, and individuals outlined above. The International Executive Board was established to coordinate and integrate the information received from the subenvironments. It is composed of the three international executive officers, the twenty-four district directors, and the national director of Canada. The board is charged with implementing the decisions of the International Convention and making decisions between the conventions. The International Convention is part of the organization-set interacting

-21 -with the core organization and is comprised of delegates elected from the local unions,; Analyzing the USWA in terms of Lawrence and Lorsch's certaintyuncertainty continuum, it becomes evident that uncertainty increases with distance from the core organization. Organizations operating in the territory segment of the environment have a relatively more certain environment than do those operating in the domain or distant environment segments of the total environment. Members of the organization-set in the territory segment will have a more structured organization. The departments of the International operating in the market and corporate subenvironments have relatively routine tasks and are more structured than the departments operating in the politicolegal subenvironment. They have more hierarchical levels, a greater reliance on formal practices and procedures, and a shorter time orientation, in that they are oriented toward a time frame of approximately one year or less. When these same departments function in the domain segment of the environment, the procedures are relaxed and the time orientation lengthens to approximately three years. Modal time of definitive feedback also increases from the territory to the domain and to the distant environment. Figure 2 illustrates the characteristics of certainty with respect to the subenvironments.

-22 - Territory Domain Distant Environment Politico-legal Market Corporate Organizationset Industry Conferences International Convention District Directors International and Staff Representatives Staff Departments Staff Departments Staff Departments Certainty of Information about<E Environment Low Rate of Change of Conditions< — Over Time Short Time Span of Definitive< --- Feedback Low Number of Environmental< --- Opportunities Low Complexity of Required Tasks<More Structure —. _!. i.-T _-_T ~.If'.'! ' --- ~ Uncertainty of ------— Informat ion about Environment High Rate of Change -—.*>of Conditions Over Time Long Time Span -—...of Definitive Feedback High Number of --— nEnvironmental Opportunities High Complexity -—.>of Required Tasks --— >Less Structure Fig. 2. Certainty in the subenvironment. From this illustration, it is much easier to judge the influence of environmental uncertainty on the structure of the subset of the organization-set which comprises the portion of the organization

-23 -outside of the core organization. Thus, with movement from the territory through the domain to the distant environment, the overall uncertainty of the environment increases while the members of the organization-set become less structured. The concepts developed by Lawrence and Lorsch, and Warner have proven extremely useful in analyzing the structure of the United Steelworkers of America specifically, and unions in general. In combination,s the two concepts of environmental differentiation provide the opportunity to obtain additional insights into environmental interaction. The examination of the USWA reveals that, from a structural viewpoint, the union has become well organized for the tasks required of it as a result of the demands imposed upon it by its environments. Further analysis is necessary to fully understand the roles of industrial relations, organization behavior, and organization theory. Evaluating the USWA in terms of performance criteria indicates that the union must be judged successful. Additional research is necessary to allow an analysis of the departments within the union to determine the structure of the departments and the relationship between that structure and the particular environment in which the department functions.

FOOTNOTES 1. Paul R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, "Differentiation and Integration inComplex Organizations," Organizations 2; Ed. by J. Litterer. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969), p. 230. 2. Ibid., p. 233. 3. Jay W. Lorsch and Paul R. Lawrence, eds. Organization Planning: Cases and Concepts. (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, The Dorsey Press, 1972), pp. 40-41. 4. Lawrence and Lorsch, "Differentiation and Integration...," p. 232. 5. Lawrence and Lorsch, "Differentiation and Integration," p. 234. 6. Malcolm Warner, "Trade Unions and Organizational Theory: A Preliminary Analysis of Union Environment, Structure, and Performance," The Journal of Industrial Relations 14. No. 1 (March 1972) p. 48. (Sydney, Australia: Industrial Relations Society of Australia.) 7. Ibid., p. 55. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid., p. 57. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., p. 56. 12. Ibid., p. 50. 13. Ibid., p. 52. 14. Ibid., pp. 59-60. 15. Llyod Ulman, "Influences of the Economic Environment on the Structure of the Steel Workers' Union," Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association (Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1962), p. 228. 16. How the Union Serves (Pittsburgh, Pa.: United Steelworkers of America, 1974).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Burns, T. and G. Stalker. "Mechanistic and Organic Systems." Organizations 2. Ed. by J. Litterer. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969. Lawrence, Paul R. and Jay W Lorsch. Organizaton and Environment. Boston: Harvard University, 1967. Lawrence, Paul R. and Jay W. Lorsch. "Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations," Organizations 2. Ed. by J. Litterer. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* 1969. Lorsch, Jay W. and Paul R. Lawrence, eds. Organization Planning: Cases and Concepts. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., and The Dorsey Press, 1972. Morse, John J. and Jay W. Lorsch. "Beyond Theory Y." Concepts and Controversy in Organizational Behavior. Ed. by Walter R. Nord. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., 1972. Perrow, Charles. Complex Organization: A Critical Essay. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1972. Ulman, Lloyd. "Influences of the Economic Environment on the Structure of the Steel Workers' Union." Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association. Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1962. Warner, Malcolm. "Trade Unions and Organizational Theory: A Preliminary Analysis of Union Environment, Structure, and Performance." The Journal of Industrial Relations 14, March 1972. Sydney, Australia: Industrial Relations Society of Australia. United Steelworkers of America. How the Union Serves. Pamphlet No. PR-225-A. Pittsburgh, Pa.: United Steelworkers of America, 1974.