Compliance Theory

Compliance theory provides a vehicle for the examination of the relationship between those who hold power and those who are subject to that power in various organizations. In other words, the power used by superiors to control subordinates and the reaction of the subordinates to that power compose the compliance relationship. Amitai Etzioni has posited a typology of organizational compliance based on three types of power and three degrees of member involvement. Organizational control, for Etzioni, represents the power an actor has to induce or influence another actor to carry out his or her directives or any other norms he or she supports. According to Etzioni, power can take three forms: coercive, remunerative, or normative. Coercive power is physical force. It rests on the application or the threat of application of physical sanctions, such as infliction of pain. Remunerative power is based on control over material resources and rewards through allocation of salaries and wages, commissions and contributions.

Normative power is defined as symbolic means used as means of control. It rests on the allocation and manipulation of symbolic rewards and deprivations.

Individual responses to power or control, the intensity of individual involvement, take three forms: alien, calculative, and moral. Each form comprises both intensity (high to low) and direction (either positive or negative). Alien member involvement is typically intensely low and negative, as in prison inmates. The orientation of members experiencing calculative involvement is materialistic, as in pay for additional services. It is low in intensity and can be either negative or positive. Moral member involvement is characterized as idealistic, of high intensity, and positive. These individuals are idealistically committed to the organization.

When presented as a grid or typology, there are nine possible compliance types (see Table 1). Numbers 1, 5, and 9 are considered congruent or stable; they reflect congruent organizational member involvement for the type of power used.

Number 1, the coercive-alienative relationship, is referred to as “coercive compliance”; physical or [Page 186]coercive power results in involuntary or hostile involvement. Number 5, the remunerative-calculative relationship, is referred to as “utilitarian compliance”; remunerative or material power results in neutral or materialistic involvement. Number 9, the normativemoral relationship, is referred to as “normative compliance”; symbolic power results in moral or idealistic committee involvement.

According to Etzioni, noncongruent compliance relationships were less effective and less stable than congruent ones. Organizations possessing congruent relationships tend to make every effort to remain congruent, while organizations with noncongruent relationships will naturally shift from incongruence to congruence.