The Strength of a Weak State: The Rights
Revolution and the Rise of Human Resources
Management Divisions
Citation
Dobbin, Frank, and John R. Sutton. 1998. The strength of a weak state: The rights revolution
and the rise of human resources management divisions. American Journal of Sociology 104(2):441-476.

Published Version
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210044

Permanent link
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3322830

Terms of Use
This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available
under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://
nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA

Share Your Story
The Harvard community has made this article openly available.
Please share how this access benefits you. Submit a story .
Accessibility

The Strength of a Weak State:
The Rights Revolution and the Rise of
Human Resources Management Divisions1
Frank Dobbin
Princeton University
John R. Sutton
University of California, Santa Barbara

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal policy has
revolutionized employment rights. Equal employment opportunity
law, occupational safety and health legislation, and fringe benefits
regulation were designed to create employee rights to equal protection, to health and safety, and to the benefits employers promise. In
event-history analyses of data from 279 organizations, this researchfinds that these legal changes stimulated organizations to create personnel, antidiscrimination, safety, and benefits departments to manage compliance. Yet as institutionalization proceeded, middle managers came to disassociate these new offices from policy and tojustify them in purely economic terms, as part of the new humanresources management paradigm. This pattern is typical in the
United States, where the Constitution symbolizes government ruleof industry as illegitimate. It may help to explain the long absenceof a theory of the state in organizational analysis and to explain aconundrum noted by state theorists: the federal state is administratively weak but normatively strong.
INTRODUCTION

How does the weak and fragmented U.S. state influence employers? Until
the 1970s, sociologists tended to treat organizations as closed systems, immune from external influence. Economists were more attuned to inter1
We thank the National Science Foundation (grant SES-8511250) for support. The
first author is indebted to the Copenhagen Business School and to the Danish Social
Research Council for providing a research leave. Thanks to John W. Meyer and W.
Richard Scott for their collaboration on the larger project this article springs from,to Lauren Edelman and Ann Swidler for their contributions to the pilot study, andto Keith Allum, Bethany Bryson, Jessica Torres, and Roberta Stich for helping us tocollect the data. Thanks to Søren Christensen, Julian Dierkes, Paul DiMaggio, Michal
Frenkel, Erin Kelly, Donald Light, John W. Meyer, Morten Schmidt, Arthur Stinch-

 1998 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0002-9602/99/10402-0005$02.50

AJS Volume 104 Number 2 ( September 1998): 441–76

441

American Journal of Sociology
organizational exchanges but treated government as a transient and usually illegitimate influence on the market. The new organizational
institutionalism broke with these traditions by conceptualizing the state
as an important force shaping organizations (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983). The rediscovery of the state, encouraged by arenewed emphasis on polities in other areas of sociology (Evans,
Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol 1985), has had a salutary corrective effect onorganizational research. Recent research shows that, in the United States,
several distinct features of the federal government—its structurally limited administrative capacity, dispersal of authority across levels of government, decentralization of decision making at the national level, and ideological deference to the efficiency of the market and the natural virtues ofcivil society—influence how it regulates organizational life (Meyer 1983;
Hamilton and Sutton 1989; Dobbin 1994). The state issues ambiguous
mandates to organizations, changes rules frequently in response to protracted political negotiations and litigation, and enforces its rules in a fragmented and indecisive way. Although these features cause it to appear
weak, we argue that they produce a peculiar kind of state strength. First,
because the state leaves the terms of legal compliance unclear, organizations commit considerable resources to devising compliance measures.
Second, because the state signals uncertainty about the legitimacy of its
own authority, organizations develop rationales for those compliance solutions that locate authority in the market.
We analyze the effects of the federal employment rights revolution of
the early 1970s, which revolved around equal employment opportunity(EEO), health and safety, and benefits initiatives. Previous studies havedocumented that EEO law was characterized by policy ambiguity andcomplexity, by a gradual expansion in scope, and by administrative fragmentation (Dobbin et al. 1988; Edelman 1990; Skrentny 1996). We showthat these regulatory features also characterized safety and benefits initiatives and that employers responded in like ways to all three initiatives.
In all three realms, the state left implementation largely to managers andexperts. The uncertainties raised by legal reforms created opportunities
for ambitious personnel managers to expand their purview and contributed to the rise of the human resources management (HRM) paradigm.
We use retrospective data to show that these initiatives led employers toestablish entire new departments dedicated to HRM, EEO, health andsafety, and benefits. We show that the diffusion of these departments accombe, John Skrentny, Bruce Western, James Wooten, and the AJS reviewers forsuggestions. Correspondence may be directed to Frank Dobbin, Department of Sociology, Princeton University, 2-N-2 Green Hall, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1010.
E-mail: dobbin@princeton.edu

442Strength of a Weak Statecelerated after new federal initiatives and that they appeared first in organizations that were vulnerable to governmental scrutiny.
Our central contribution is to document how the U.S. regulatory framework leads managers to recast policy-induced structures in the mold ofefficiency. This is the key to the peculiar strength of America’s weak state.
Middle managers soon retheorized these offices with business and market
rationales, describing them not as means to compliance with federal regulations but as cost-effective administrative solutions to problems ofworker loyalty and productivity. As a consequence, employers continued
to adopt these offices even after Reagan curtailed enforcement of the lawsthat had popularized them. We suggest that, in the United States, justifications for policy-induced measures drift toward efficiency in this way
because constitutional constraints on federal authority symbolize government control of industry as illicit. Compliance measures are thereafter
sustained not merely by ephemeral public policies but by transcendental
economic laws.
Our argument engages debates about the character of the U.S. state(e.g., Skowronek 1982) and its comparative strength (e.g., Evans et al.
1985). How can the state be administratively weak but normatively
strong? How, in other words, can a state with such meager administrative
resources shape society so effectively? We argue that the administrative
weakness of the state is the cause of its normative strength, for this weakness ensures that Americans will come to see civil society and the market
as the sources of social phenomena that are in fact generated by the state.
Thus, in the case at hand, constitutional restrictions on federal power thatcause Congress to issue complex and ambiguous regulations, forcing employers to devise their own compliance measures, also symbolize federal
rule of private enterprise as illicit, encouraging employers to invent efficiency rationales to explain those measures. The Constitution expresses
the dangers of state domination of civil society and encourages Americans
to see organizational practices and social customs that originate in state
action as part of the natural order of things.
After sketching our conceptual argument, we chronicle how U.S. employers responded to new federal initiatives, spelling out hypotheses about
where and when they responded by creating new offices. We then review
alternative explanations of the creation of offices that emphasize scaleeconomies, unionization, transaction costs, and regulatory effort. Finally,
we present multivariate analyses of the diffusion of employment-related
offices. We observe 279 employers, many too small to divide personnel
functions. Between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, personnel/HRM
offices doubled in popularity to 70% of the sampled employers, benefits
offices doubled to 35%, health and safety offices doubled to over 30%,and equal employment units appeared in 40%.
443

American Journal of Sociology
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS REVOLUTION

Since the early 1960s, much of the elaboration of human rights has takenplace in the realm of employment. Congress has sought to extend rights
to life and liberty (via health and safety regulation), equal protection (viaequal opportunity law), and social citizenship (via regulations insuring
fringe benefits) to employees. While these protections are so unevenly institutionalized that they scarcely deserve to be called rights, they nonetheless represent a dramatic change.
None of the legislation encouraged employers to establish new offices,yet, by about 1980, large employers had come to see offices of health andsafety, benefits, and equal employment as imperative. These events follow
a pattern found in early employment regulation. Ambiguous and complex
regulations lead employers to create new departments to manage compliance, and soon, specialists promote these departments as all-purpose solutions to management problems. Conflict over the Wagner Act of 1935 led
employers to establish industrial relations (IR) offices and systems, which
IR specialists soon promoted for their labor management functions evento nonunion firms (Selznick 1969; Kochan, Katz, and McKersie 1986, p.
45). Complex labor controls during World War II led employers to establish bureaucratic personnel offices and systems, which personnel specialists heralded for their capacity to rationalize hiring and promotion evenafter wartime labor controls were removed (Baron, Dobbin, and Jennings1986). Similarly, federal regulations of the early 1970s led employers toestablish special compliance offices, which experts then promoted widely
for their capacity to optimize human resources and win worker loyalty.
The Character of U.S. Employment Law
Four characteristics of U.S. employment law contributed to the pattern
we describe. First, the ambiguity and complexity of compliance standards
led executives to believe that they would need experts to devise management practices that would comply with the law (Edelman 1992). Ambiguity and complexity result from the weak mandate the Constitution’s commerce clause gives Congress to govern private enterprise and thejurisdictional complexity caused by the separation of powers. Second, theexpanding scope of the law in each realm led executives to believe thatthey would need permanent offices to track legal changes and devise compliance schemes. The law tends to expand because the presidential system
encourages compromise legislation and because autonomous administrative and judicial branches are responsible for interpreting its meaning.
Third, the fragmented nature of regulation led executives to conclude thatorganizations would need not merely general compliance offices but special antidiscrimination, benefits, and health and safety offices to (in the444Strength of a Weak State
new jargon) “interface” with different regulatory agencies. In the UnitedStates, each organization is “likely to have officers that symbolize safety,
the environment, affirmative action” to handle interactions with the fragmented bureaucracy (Meyer and Scott 1992, p. 275). Finally, antistatist
elements of the state encouraged management specialists, intent on justifying their own positions, to retheorize their new offices in efficiency terms
and to disassociate them from policy. The Constitution’s separation of
powers, dispersion of political authority to communities, and limits onfederal power symbolize state domination of private enterprise as illicit
and inefficient. As Jackall found in studying employer safety practices of
the 1970s, “productive return is the only rationale that carries weight
within the corporate hierarchy” (1983, p. 58). In consequence, the very
journals that in 1975 advised executives to establish specialty offices topursue legal compliance were by 1985 arguing that these offices helped
to rationalize the management of human resources.
Professional groups were at the heart of these developments. Human
resources specialists, benefits accountants, tax lawyers, safety engineers,and equal employment managers saw in employment legislation new possibilities for professional growth. They insisted to top managers that new
offices could ensure legal compliance, exaggerating the risk of litigation
to win organizational resources (see Edelman, Abraham, and Erlanger1992). In recasting these departments in terms of efficiency, middle managers played to top managers’ preoccupation with the bottom line anddesire to avoid costs associated with legal compliance.
While we cannot undertake a comparative analysis here, we emphasizethat the administratively weak U.S. state differs in significant ways fromadministratively strong states, among which France is often cited as theparagon. The French state differs on the four characteristics we identified.
First, because its constitution does not severely limit state control of private enterprise or fully separate state powers, the French state tends to
mandate substantive employment outcomes rather than creating ambiguous and complex regulations (Cummins 1986). For instance, whereas the
U.S. state vaguely outlawed discrimination against the handicapped, theFrench state instructed employers to set aside 3% of jobs for them (Levy
1974). As a consequence, until very recently, French firms had not developed the kinds of internal legal codes of employment that U.S. firms developed (Gavini 1997; Sutton et al. 1994). Second, because the semipresidential system creates a strong president and a unified prime minister,
parliament, and administration (a “fusion of powers”), French employment laws are not typically compromise measures that undergo graduallegislative and administrative expansion after passage (Duhamel 1987;
Lovecy 1992). For instance, the French state established safety standards,
but it has avoided the gradual elaboration of administrative guidelines,
445

American Journal of Sociology
covering hundreds of toxins, that occurred in the United States (Brickman
and Jasanoff 1980). Third, because the state is centralized, administrationof employment policy is situated in the Ministry of Labor rather thanfragmented in a series of autonomous agencies (Meyer 1983). This discourages the fragmentation of the employment function within firms. Fourth,because France’s constitution does not contain severe restrictions on government power, it does not symbolize state power as illicit in the waythat the U.S. Constitution does (Dobbin 1994). In consequence, French
managers face less pressure to recast policy-induced activities in terms ofpure efficiency.
ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE TO EEO, OSHA, AND ERISA

From the early 1970s, management specialists argued that employers
would need offices staffed by experts to comply with new laws. From theearly 1980s, they borrowed rhetoric from the emerging human resourcesmanagement paradigm to argue that these offices improved efficiency generally. Next, we chronicle these events to develop specific hypotheses
about the effects of legal shifts, in the process considering the mediating
effects of public accountability, organizational age, and employer links toprofessional groups. In this section, we use John Stuart Mill’s (1988 [1974])
method of similarity to show that in three different policy realms, similar
regulatory conditions produced similar organizational responses.
The Ambiguity and Complexity of Compliance
Compliance standards in each of these realms were ephemeral, because
the law created abstract rights and proscribed various abuses rather thanprescribing employer behavior. Civil Rights law established a right tonondiscrimination without specifying how that right was to be protected.
Safety and health law established a right to a safe and healthy workplaceand defined conditions that threatened employees but did not specify how
employers should prevent these conditions. Pension reform law established a right to promised fringe benefits and complex regulations to enforce that right but did not impose a uniform structure for pensions orother benefits. Employers established specialty departments to devise
compliance strategies.
Ambiguity in EEO and AA law.—In 1961, John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order (EO) 10925 encouraged federal contractors to take “affirmative
action” to reverse the effects of past discrimination, and in 1965, Lyndon
Johnson’s EO 11246 expanded the order and created the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to enforce it. In 1964, Title VII

446

Strength of a Weak Stateof the Civil Rights Act prohibited all private employers with 15 or more
employees from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce the law (Burstein 1985; Edelman 1990).
Neither Kennedy nor Johnson defined “affirmative action” in their orders to federal contractors, and neither established practical guidelines.
Likewise, Title VII made discrimination illegal but did not define it. The
act appeared to cover employment practices intentionally designed to discriminate (see Shaeffer 1973, p. 65). Most employers had little idea thatthe law might apply to them. During the 1960s, the ambiguity of theselaws caused only modest concern among employers because sanctions
were rare. In the early 1970s, enforcement was increased in both realms,
but little was done to clarify the terms of compliance. EEO enforcement
was increased by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which
extended coverage to very small employers and gave the EEOC power
to bring lawsuits itself (Skrentny 1996, p. 127). This came in the wake of
the Supreme Court’s 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power decision, which ruled
illegal employment tests that had a “disparate impact” on different groups
absent evidence of intentional discrimination. The number of Title VII
suits skyrocketed, from several hundred a year in the early 1970s to over
5,000 a year in the late 1970s (Burstein and Monaghan 1986). Employers
now paid close attention to EEO law (see Petersen 1974).
The OFCCP’s Order 4, revised in late 1971, expanded affirmative action coverage to small federal contractors and subcontractors. The majority of U.S. enterprises were now subject to affirmative action law—80%
according to a 1973 estimate (Stryker 1996, p. 16). The order required
contractors to submit detailed statistical reports and to write annual “affirmative action programs,” specifying goals and timetables (Shaeffer
1973, p. 11; Edelman 1992, p. 1537; DuRivage 1985, p. 362). Order 4 required employers to redress inequality but did not clarify how they wereto do so beyond stipulating that they could not use rigid hiring quotas.
From 1972, employers were expected to invent EEO and AA compliance strategies that would stand up in court, but the courts repeatedly
flip-flopped on standards of compliance. As one popular personnel management text warned, “judges interpret [EEO] law differently, and decisions are often reversed in higher courts” (Burack and Smith 1977, p. 183).
Management journals extolled voluntary hiring quotas, written job tests
to ensure objective selection of employees, and bureaucratic hiring andpromotion systems to undermine cronyism (Dobbin et al. 1993), but the
courts proved unpredictable, vacillating on the legality of hiring quotas,
employment tests, and a variety of other measures. So variable was thelaw that the Bureau of National Affairs published the Equal Employment447

American Journal of Sociology
Opportunity Manual in the form of a serial (Ropp 1987). Managers devised an astonishing diversity of antidiscrimination practices—by the endof the 1970s, Kenneth Marino found 33 new practices in wide use (1980).
The continuing ambiguity of compliance standards led management
writers to advocate permanent antidiscrimination offices to track legal
shifts. Because the courts were so fickle, Marino (1980, p. 25) advised
executives to adopt the “Good-Faith-Effort Strategy,” the heart of which
was a special office designed to signal that the employer was making every
effort to figure out how to comply. In a Harvard Business Review article,
Antonia Chayes (1974, p. 81) noted that “vigorous enforcement” hadbrought “serious top management attention to antidiscrimination legislation. . . . Now the penalties imposed under employment discrimination
laws are seen as posing a severe financial threat.” She advised executives
to set up EEO and AA programs that could prevent lawsuits. Meanwhile,
compensation of upper managers was being tied to affirmative action performance, and this led them to support dedicated antidiscrimination departments (Vernon-Gerstenfeld and Burke 1985, pp. 59–60; Johns andMoser 1989; Ropp 1987).
Indefinite safety and health regulations.—The Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 represented a revolution of sorts, for it required all
employers to take steps to prevent illness and injury rather than merely
making restitution after the fact through Workmen’s Compensation. The
act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
with the power to codify safety and health regulations as they emergedin legislation, case law, and administrative law. It gave states the optionof using OSHA inspectors or state safety inspectors to monitor workplaces
and respond to complaints (Bardach and Kagan 1982, p. 46).
Administrative health and safety guidelines outlawed specific workplace conditions in excruciating detail rather than prescribing how to prevent those conditions, in part because the Constitution checked Congress’s capacity to dictate to private enterprises. OSHA wrote countless
guidelines that made particular conditions illegal but left local safety engineers to figure out how to comply. In the case of health hazards, OSHA
established guidelines for exposure to hundreds of toxins. It specified acceptable levels of asbestos particulates, for instance, without dictating
how factories should achieve those levels—whether by changing production techniques, installing filters, or automating work. In the case of safety
hazards, OSHA established broad guidelines and encouraged plantspecific solutions. Guides to compliance, such as Richard Anderson’s(1975) OSHA and Accident Control through Training, suggested that employers set up safety departments, training programs, safety committees,
grievance mechanisms, and “practice” federal safety inspections (Foulkes
and Morgan 1977; Ritter and Wagel 1989).
448

Strength of a Weak StateAs John Meyer and Brian Rowan argued, government safety controls“make it important for organizations to create formal safety rules, safety
departments, and safety programs” to symbolize their commitment (1977,
p. 350). The personnel journals suggested that such offices served a public
relations function, contributing to “the appearance of social responsibility”(Mendelhoff 1979, p. 92), and could help inoculate firms against damaging
legal judgments by signaling that the employer was making a “good faitheffort” to comply with complex and changing regulations (Anderson 1975;
Ewing 1983).
Ambiguity and complexity in benefits regulation.—The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 was designed to guaranteethat employers would make good on pension and benefit promises. ERISA
also used tax incentives to encourage employers to offer benefits democratically, to all employees. It regulated not only common retirement schemes
but the whole range of employee benefits (Gill 1985, pp. 2–8). The act
was a maze of esoteric legal language and was widely viewed as “the mostcomplex piece of legislation ever passed by Congress” (Tepper 1977, p.
105). It did not dictate a universal form for pensions or other benefits, but
it regulated them in fine detail. As amended through 1984, the act and its
Internal Revenue Code amendments ran to 320 pages (Gill 1985). For bothpension plans and benefit plans, the act established (a) federal reporting
requirements, (b) requirements for disclosure to employees, (c) fiduciary
requirements, and (d ) investment regulations. For pension plans, the act
also established (e) pension plan insurance, ( f ) eligibility and participation
rules, (g) vesting guidelines, and (h) funding regulations (Coleman 1985).
Despite the tremendous complexity of the legislation, key stipulations
remained ambiguous. The act demanded that pension plan managers exercise “fiduciary responsibility” but offered neither a definition nor a litmus test. As one primer on benefit regulation warned: “no one knows what
the judicial interpretation” may be (Logue 1979, p. 65). The act requiredthat pensions be backed by certain levels of investment, without specifying precisely how funds were to be invested. It gave employers threedifferent sets of pension vesting guidelines to choose from. Compliance
was not simply a matter of following a blueprint—it required accountants
and tax attorneys who could weigh a dizzying mix of options.
While compliance standards were complex and ambiguous, the costs
of noncompliance were high. Rather than requiring employers to comply,
as safety and health legislation did, the act created financial incentives.
First, for complying plans, employer expenses are tax deductible, employer contributions are not taxed as current income to employees, andearnings on invested funds are not taxed (Klein 1986, p. 72; Skolnik 1976).
Second, the act guaranteed pensions both through insurance and with theassets of the employer, permitting employees to make claims not only449

American Journal of Sociology
against pension funds but also against employers. This meant that employers bore the risk of subscribing to poorly managed plans (Logue 1979,
p. 62; Wooten 1994).
Employers had to rewrite virtually all pension plans and many otherfringe benefit plans to comply with the new regulations (Hakala and Huggins 1976; Meyer and Fox 1974). One unanticipated consequence of theact was that thousands of small companies chose to abandon their pension
plans rather than bear the costs of compliance (Davey 1978, p. 4; see also
Achenbaum 1986, p. 149; Logue 1979, p. 68). Most of the rest rewrote
their plans—at least 300,000 companies did so immediately (Klein andMoses 1974).
The personnel journals counseled executives to consult tax lawyers andaccountants in writing plans and to establish departments to monitor
plans and prepare reports for the government. A new breed of “benefits
consultants” emerged to argue that experts alone could devise schemesthat would guarantee tax deductions, fend off litigation, and minimize
employer outlays (Meyer and Fox 1974, p. 53; Meyer 1981).
The Expanding Scope of the Law
In each realm, the scope of the law was expanded frequently via newlegislation, administrative rulings, and case law. As a consequence, personnel specialists, antidiscrimination experts, safety engineers, and benefits accountants lobbied for special departments to track changes in thelaw and create new compliance measures.
New classes of discrimination.—Congress first expanded the scope of
the Civil Rights Act in 1967, adding employees over 40 to the list of protected groups (Farley 1979, p. 12). Following the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which signaled that the EEOC would enforce EEO
law with vigor, Washington expanded the scope of the law often. In 1973,
Congress required federal contractors to extend affirmative action to thehandicapped, and in 1974, it required them to include Vietnam-era veterans (Pati and Adkins 1980).
Administrative and judicial rulings were responsible for much of thegrowth in the law. For instance, neither sexual harassment nor maternity
leave were initially covered under sex discrimination law, but during the1970s, both the EEOC and the courts came to treat harassment and refusal to grant maternity leave as sex discrimination (Bradshaw 1987, p.
51). Sexual harassment guidelines illustrate how management specialists
responded. In 1980, the EEOC issued formal guidelines that read, “Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Section 703 of Title VII,”but offered no hints about how to prevent harassment (quoted in Spann
1990, p. 58). Key management journals—Personnel, Public Personnel
450

Strength of a Weak StateManagement, the Harvard Business Review—warned of the potential for
litigation and advised managers to establish a “good faith effort” to prevent harassment by creating training programs for supervisors, hiring ombudspersons, establishing grievance mechanisms, and publishing guidelines (Spann 1990). They advised executives to establish equal
employment opportunity/affirmative action (EEO/AA) offices to undertake these measures.
OSHA’s growing list of dangers.—The scope of OSHA regulation expanded dramatically as a result of administrative rulings. By the late1970s, OSHA had developed standards for some 400 dangerous substances, covering the issues of air sampling, personal protection, handlingprocedures, and medical exams (Northrup, Rowan, and Perry 1978, p.
49). As OSHA regulations grew, management writers implored firms tohire safety specialists. In Regulating Safety, John Mendelhoff (1979) argued that OSHA regulations had become so complex that firms could notdepend on line managers for compliance. As early as 1978, a study of thechemicals and aerospace industries found that the act had caused the typical firm to create a safety department or to enlarge the existing department(Northrup et al. 1978, p. 224).
It was the instability of the law that made a safety department imperative. As Burton Malkiel argued in 1979 in the Harvard Business Review,“changing health and safety regulations” undermine corporate planning:“It is not so much the direct cost of regulation that has inhibited investment and R&D but rather the unpredictability of regulatory changes”(1979, p. 90). Administrative and judicial decisions constantly altered therules of the game.
The expansion of benefits regulation.—After 1974, Congress altered thetax code and amended ERISA a number of times, complicating the matterof compliance and expanding the scope of the law. Details of the tax treatment of various retirement plans were amended in new tax code legislation in 1975, 1978, 1981, 1982, and 1984 (Coleman 1985, p. 10). Eachchange required employers to review and rewrite their pension plans(Meyer 1981; Bixby 1986). The biggest change to ERISA came in 1980,
when Congress expanded regulation of small employers, making those inshared pension plans liable for up to 100% of their assets and spurring
even tiny firms to hire experts to manage pension programs (Figgie 1981).
The scope of ERISA coverage also grew for individual employers, as
they switched from one-size-fits-all benefits programs to myriad pension
and health insurance options and as they added such benefits as permanent disability insurance and on-site daycare. The management journals
advised firms to hire full-time specialists who could design benefit plans
to comply with the law and to anticipate future legal changes. For instance, as employers added 401k plans, benefits accountants advised them451

American Journal of Sociology
to make low-wage workers eligible, so as to ensure tax-exempt status, andto sell the plans to low-wage workers, in case the courts should decideto treat plans that discriminate de facto as taxable (Moody and Higgins
1984).
The Fragmentation of Enforcement
Enforcement of these laws was carried out by autonomous federal agencies with distinct charges. Management writers argued that all-purpose,
employment-law experts would not suffice in America’s fragmented regulatory environment. A 1977 article in the Harvard Business Review advised: “The various requirements of state and federal regulations . . . makeincreasing demands on both profit and nonprofit organizations. . . . Compliance with the laws relating to OSHA, EEOC, and ERISA demands
expertise” (Foulkes and Morgan, p. 160).
Interfacing with the EEOC and OFCCP.—The EEOC and OFCCP
were established as independent agencies to enforce EEO and AA law
respectively. While nothing in the law required employers to establish
antidiscrimination offices, from the early 1970s, the management journals
counseled them to do so in articles with titles such as “A Total Approach
to EEO Compliance” (Giblin and Ornati 1974, p. 37). Special offices could
create antidiscrimination programs to preclude litigation by the EEOC
and could deal with OFCCP demands for employment statistics, written
affirmative action goals and timetables, and on-site “compliance reviews.”
Barbara Boyle (1973, pp. 88–89) wrote in the Harvard Business Review
that costly litigation made an autonomous antidiscrimination office “atthe highest practicable level in the organization (i.e., outside the personnel
office)” well worth the price: “The establishment of an affirmative action
program is not costly—its absence is.” Antonia Chayes (1974) followedwith an article in the same journal, titled “Make Your EEO Program
Court-Proof,” that recommended naming an affirmative action officer at
a minimum. A 1974 article in Personnel suggested that the law provided
an opportunity to establish personnel departments and full-blown personnel systems: “Viewing the [antidiscrimination] guidelines in strictly negative terms, executives have failed to see that the government concern forprograms of EEO compliance actually provides the impetus for developing a personnel system” (Froehlich and Hawyer 1974, p. 62). Employers
responded by creating EEO and AA departments (Giblin and Ornati 1974,
p. 45; Johns and Moser 1989, p. 56).
Interfacing with OSHA.—OSHA’s powers extended beyond data collection and litigation to inspection of workplaces. The threat of inspection
loomed large because OSHA regulations were already daunting and were452

Strength of a Weak State
proliferating quickly. As Herbert Froelich and Dennis Hawyer counseledin the journal Personnel in 1974 (p. 67): “Some years ago, a vice-presidentof General Motors said that ‘safety is good business.’ He may not haveanticipated the tough regulatory crackdown of OSHA, but there is a parallel in the current government regulations: Compliance is good business.”
Compliance manuals suggested that employers have safety experts on
hand: “An excellent person to guide the [OSHA] inspector would be thesafety manager or safety engineer” (Anderson 1975, p. 243). The engineer
might direct the inspector’s attention to major safety innovations andaway from minor technical violations (Rees 1988, p. 53). Rees found thatby the mid-1980s, executives had hired safety experts with the specificgoals of tracking case law and educating OSHA inspectors (1988, p. 52).
From the early 1970s, engineering journals, personnel journals, andmanagement treatises advised that safety experts could now win permanent positions and even their own departments. The authors of a study
conducted in the mid-1970s concluded: “There was general agreement
among safety personnel in a broad range of firms that the passage of the
Act had served to increase their own status and credibility and that of
their function within the company” (Northrup et al. 1978, p. 224). The
act had boosted the importance of safety units: “The net effect has beena substantial increase in the status of health and safety personnel. . . .
They are regarded as necessary defenders against costly and embarrassing
mistakes that threaten corporate viability” (Northrup et al. 1978, p. 49)
Interfacing with the IRS and the PBGC.—Enforcement of ERISA wasdivided between the Treasury Department’s Internal Revenue Service(IRS), which held the authority for tax disqualification and which governed most funding issues, and the Labor Department’s Pension Benefit
Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), which governed fiduciary issues andhandled reporting and disclosure. The PBGC demanded a range of different reports from employers, including an annual disclosure statement foreach employee (Klein 1986; Coleman 1985, p. 7).
Writers in insurance and management journals argued that the paperwork alone augured well for the creation of personnel and benefits
offices. ERISA and Social Security changes, a 1980 article in Personnel
concluded, had boosted executive support: “Personnel activities in manyorganizations are becoming increasingly important—largely because of
the high cost of labor and benefits [and] the negative impact of government regulations” (Zippo 1980, p. 66). As a 1977 article in the Harvard
Business Review concluded, “Personnel must have the ability to understand the needs both of the line organization and of the various branchesof state and federal government. . . . We suggest that a team be developed”
that includes specialists in benefits and in the law (Foulkes and Morgan

453

American Journal of Sociology
1977, p. 162). By failing to adhere to ERISA’s complex pension guidelines,
the journals pointed out, employers risked losing tax deductions for contributions, having their plans terminated by the PBGC, and being sued bycurrent and former employees. The journals advised firms to hire benefits
experts with accounting and legal backgrounds who could document compliance and make sense of emerging legal standards.
In sum, in each realm, new employment laws were ambiguous and complex, were subject to frequent expansion, and were enforced by distinct
federal agencies. We hypothesize that executives responded to these laws
by creating specialized departments. The journals advised employers toestablish personnel offices as a first step, thus, we expect personnel offices
to rise from the time of the first legislative change.
Hypothesis 1.—The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, coupled with the OFCCP’s Revised Order 4 from late 1971, caused the adoption of EEO/AA offices to rise from 1972.
Hypothesis 2.—Passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
caused the adoption of health and safety offices to rise from 1970.
Hypothesis 3.—The Pension Reform Act caused the adoption of benefits offices to rise from 1974.
Hypothesis 4.—Equal employment, safety and health, and pension reform legislation caused the adoption of personnel offices to rise from 1970,
when the first legislative landmark occurred.
We argue that public accountability and age should mediate the effectsof legal shifts.
Public accountability and the symbolization of justice.—W. Richard
Scott and John Meyer (1987) argue that public and nonprofit organizations
are first to embrace new norms because they are judged more by theiractivities than by their performance. Marshall Meyer (1979, p. 285) adds
that public organizations can more readily pass on the costs of new structures. We expect that public and nonprofit organizations will be more
likely to install new offices despite the fact that government offices were
exempt from many of these regulations.
Hypothesis 5.—Public and nonprofit organizations adopted newrights-related offices more readily than did private organizations.
Organizational age and institutionalization.—Stinchcombe (1965) argues that managers adopt the organizational structures prevalent at thetime of the industry’s birth. New organizations and industries are most
likely to have the latest practices as a consequence. Studies have confirmed this and have shown that older organizations are more highly institutionalized in Selznick’s (1949) sense: they are resistant to change.
Hypothesis 6.—Older organizations were less likely to adopt each typeof office.

454

Strength of a Weak State
Antistatist Elements and the Reconstruction of Offices
as Efficiency Centers
Middle managers initially promoted equal employment, health and safety,
and benefits departments to manage legal compliance. During the late1970s and early 1980s, however, they reconstructed these departments ascomponents of human resources management and articulated theories of
how each contributed to productive efficiency. Managers did this, we argue, because the Constitution paints state domination of private enterprise
as illicit. By the time the Reagan administration cut enforcement in thesethree realms, the new justifications had succeeded so well that employers
continued to create new departments.
Here our predictions contrast sharply with those of legal analysts whonote that Reagan cut federal regulation with much fanfare and who thus
predict a weakening of organizational compliance. Students of law andregulation, discussed below, suggest that compliance efforts will be proportional to the threat of regulatory sanction. Rather than declining in
popularity during the early 1980s, we expect these offices to increase inpopularity.
The reconstruction of the EEO/AA office as the “diversity” center.—
The renovation of antidiscrimination offices as efficiency centers beganalmost immediately. First, personnel specialists argued that formal hiringand promotion rules inspired by EEO law would not only help employers
fight discrimination suits but would help them to rationalize the placement of employees. As early as 1974, Froelich and Hawyer (pp. 62–63)
argued in Personnel that equal employment opportunity law had spawned
performance-based personnel systems, which should be “as much a component of sound business planning as financial, manufacturing, and market planning are.” By 1979, a Wall Street Journal poll of top executives
found that nearly two-thirds favored government programs to increasehiring of women and minorities (Harvard Law Review 1989, p. 661). Earlyin the 1980s, management specialists described affirmative action practices as an “essential management tool which reinforces accountability
and maximizes the utilization of the talents of [the] entire work force”(Feild 1984, p. 17). When Reagan sought to end enforcement, he encountered substantial opposition from business leaders on just these grounds(Harvard Law Review 1989).
Second, personnel specialists came to argue that diversity in the workplace increases efficiency in and of itself. From the late 1970s, management consultants extolled the secondary benefits of workforce diversity.
“Leading consultants, academics and business leaders . . . point out thata well managed, diverse workforce holds potential competitive advan-

455

American Journal of Sociology
tages for organizations” (Cox and Blake 1991, p. 45). In human resources
parlance, “diversity” came to replace “affirmative action” as the code word
for efforts to integrate the workforce. Proponents argued that diversity
offers design, production, and marketing advantages because it brings
people with varied skills and backgrounds together. In 1986, the National
Association of Manufacturers described affirmative action as a “business
policy which has allowed industry to benefit from new ideas, opinions andperspectives generated by greater workforce diversity” (quoted in Harvard Law Review 1989, p. 669; see also Bureau of National Affairs 1986,
p. 93). We expect, following Edelman (1992), that despite Reagan’s cutsin EEOC enforcement, diffusion of personnel and EEO/AA offices continued apace.
The reconstruction of health and safety as HRM and publicity functions.—Middle managers transformed OSHA-inspired safety programs
into efficiency measures in three ways. First, they argued that new safety
initiatives demonstrated the firm’s commitment to employees, the key towinning employee commitment to the firm according to the HRM paradigm. As a popular HRM text suggested as early as 1977: “A manager
can use health and safety to motivate workers” by decreasing “the senseof alienation” and increasing “identification with the organization’s purposes” (Burack and Smith 1977, p. 419).
Second, during the 1970s and 1980s, executive remuneration came tobe linked to stock price, causing top managers to become acutely sensitive
to negative publicity. In 1983, Robert Jackall reported in the Harvard
Business Review that executives believed that “the bad publicity fromone serious accident in the workplace can jeopardize years of work andscores of safety awards.” In the words of one high-ranking chemical company executive: “In the corporate world, 1,000 ‘Attaboys!’ are wiped away
by one ‘Oh, shit!’ ” (Jackall 1983, p. 128). Engineers thus sold health andsafety departments to executives to prevent accidents that bring negative
publicity, threatening stock price, market share, and executive compensation.
Third, managers argued that new safety technologies spurred them toreplace antiquated production facilities and gave them a first-mover advantage in a global economy with a growing market for safe and environmentally sound technologies. The response to OSHA’s 1978 lowering of
the permissible level of airborne cotton dust illustrates this point. The
textile industry fought cotton dust controls designed to end brown lungdisease, but the Supreme Court eventually upheld OSHA’s ruling. Meanwhile, managers at one company automated cotton manufacture to reduce
cotton dust exposure. They sold the changes to executives by documenting
productivity gains, arguing that “OSHA’s regulation on cotton dust has

456

Strength of a Weak State
been the main factor in forcing technological innovation in a centuriesold and somewhat stagnant industry” ( Jackall 1983, p. 50).
The reconstruction of benefits as the new corporate “welfare work.”—In the 1920s, many employers joined the “welfare work” bandwagon, convinced by arguments that generous fringe benefits could win employee
commitment and undermine unionism (Brandes 1976). From the late1970s, parallel arguments for corporate welfarism were proffered by benefits and management specialists. First, they argued that the key to winning
employee commitment and solving recruitment and retention problems
was to display the employer’s commitment to the employee with pension,
health, training, and family programs. Second, they advised that wellconceived benefit plans benchmarked to those of competitors could stem
union efforts (Foulkes 1980, p. 227).
Experts clothed the new welfarism in the rhetoric of modern management, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning and integration
with other management functions. One benefits textbook marveled that,“prior to the early 1980s, strategic planning [of compensation and benefits]
was rare” (McCaffery 1986, p. 18). Robert Greene and Russell Roberts
wrote in 1983 that sophisticated benefits packages should take employer
resources into account, with an eye to “what will be required to meet thestrategic goals of the organization” (p. 82). In Fred Foulkes’s (1980) studyof personnel and benefits systems, managers cited competitive advantage
in the labor market, not legal compliance, as the key function of benefits
departments. Consultants argued that a professional department charged
with maximizing benefits while minimizing cost can save the employer
huge sums on turnover costs, antiunion efforts, and benefits packages
themselves.
We expect that despite cutbacks in federal enforcement in these three
realms during the Reagan administration, which we detail below, the reconstruction of new departments in efficiency terms caused them to diffuse even after 1980.
Hypothesis 7.—Despite the reduction in enforcement after 1980, thereconstruction of EEO/AA, health and safety, and benefits offices in efficiency terms caused adoption to remain high. Despite the reduction in
enforcement, the rise of the human resources management paradigm
caused adoption of personnel/HRM offices to remain high.
The Stages-of-Institutionalization Thesis
The reconstruction of policy-induced structures as efficient should not
only cause diffusion to continue after the Reagan administration cut enforcement but should produce the pattern that Tolbert and Zucker (1983)

457

American Journal of Sociology
discovered in the case of early civil service reforms. First, the structure isprescribed as a solution to a particular problem, whether it be a functional
problem (e.g., hazardous work) or a problem of legal compliance. Next,
the structure is prescribed as part of accepted management practice; “Thelegitimacy of the procedures themselves serves as the impetus for the lateadopters” (Tolbert and Zucker 1983, p. 35). In consequence, the organizational factors that predict early adoption do not predict late adoption. We
expect to find that the organizational characteristics that predict adoptionof personnel, benefits, health and safety, and antidiscrimination offices
will decline in importance over time, as these offices are transformed fromcompliance centers into productivity centers.
Hypothesis 8.—The institutionalization of personnel, EEO/AA,
health and safety, and benefits units caused characteristics predicting
adoption to decline in importance over time.
Professionals as Agents of Diffusion
Professional groups theorized the importance of these offices (Strang andMeyer 1994; Sutton and Dobbin 1996). Three groups were particularly
important: personnel professionals, labor relations specialists, and lawyers. We argue that even loose links to such professionals should affectadoption of offices.
Personnel, labor relations, and legal offices.—A personnel office isfrequently the first line of defense executives establish against employment litigation. While the personnel journals frequently advocatedthe creation of separate EEO, health and safety, and benefits offices as
further defenses, previous studies have shown that when other factors
are controlled, personnel offices are negatively associated with the creation of antidiscrimination offices (Dobbin et al. 1988; Edelman 1992).
Personnel managers apparently prefer to take on new functions themselves.
Hypothesis 9.—Organizations with personnel offices were less likely
than others to adopt benefits, health and safety, and EEO/AA offices after
legal landmarks.
Labor relations specialists, by contrast, make organizations sensitive toemployment law but do not compete for resources with antidiscrimination, benefits, or health and safety offices. We expect that the presence ofa labor relations unit will have a positive effect on these offices.
Hypothesis 10.—Organizations with labor relations offices were more
likely to adopt benefits, health and safety, and EEO/AA offices after legal
landmarks.
Legal offices also make organizations sensitive to employment law (Sut-458

Strength of a Weak State
ton and Dobbin 1996), and like labor relations offices, they do not competewith the other offices.
Hypothesis 11.—Organizations with legal offices were more likely toadopt benefits, health and safety, and EEO/AA offices after legal landmarks.
Weaker links to the personnel and legal professionals.—As we haveseen, the journals of personnel associations, such as Personnel and Personnel Journal, actively promoted the creation of new personnel, equal employment, benefits, and health and safety positions. Other studies havefound that personnel association membership increases the likelihood thatan organization will adopt legal compliance measures (Dobbin et al. 1993).
We expect this to hold true for HRM divisions.
Hypothesis 12.—Membership in a personnel association encouraged
adoption of personnel, benefits, health and safety, and EEO/AA offices
after legal landmarks.
Links to labor and employment-law attorneys should have a particularly strong effect on the creation of compliance departments. We asked
employers when, if ever, they kept a labor or employment-law attorney
on retainer.
Hypothesis 13.—Organizations keeping a labor or employment-law attorney on retainer were more likely to create personnel, benefits, healthand safety, and EEO/AA offices after legal landmarks.
Labor Relations Law
We have argued that several offices were popularized by the rights revolution of the early 1970s. But it is also possible that personnel-related offices
diffused as part of a secular trend. To rule this out, we analyze labor
relations offices. Between 1955 and 1985, there were no major legal reforms that might have increased their popularity. The most importantfederal legislation, the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, regulated union finances and strike activity rather than expanding union rights. The mostimportant state legislation, “right to work” laws adopted by 20 states by
the end of the 1970s, actually curtailed union rights.
Hypothesis 14.—In the absence of landmark labor legislation, theadoption of labor relations departments did not rise significantly during
the 1970s.
Two important changes in labor relations did occur, however. First,
there was a general decline in unionization. Because this change occurred
largely through the founding of nonunion firms in new industries, we do
not expect to find that employers closed existing labor relations offices.
Second, unionization grew among white collar employees in the govern-

459

American Journal of Sociology
ment and nonprofit sectors during the 1970s. We expect that this helped
to institutionalize labor relations offices. Thus, we expect to see an increasein labor relations departments in those sectors, even statistically controlling for whether the employer is unionized in the current year.
Hypothesis 15.—Due to growing government and nonprofit unionization, the adoption of labor relations departments rose in those sectors during the 1970s.
Next, we review competing theories of office creation, which point toscale economies, unionism, transaction costs or labor segmentation, andregulatory effort. In the section that follows, we explore hypotheses with
event-history analyses of data collected from 279 organizations for theperiod 1955–85.

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF OFFICE CREATION

Several theories offer hypotheses about where and when personnel, benefits, health and safety, equal employment, and labor relations offices willappear.

Scale Economies
In “A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations,” Peter Blau
(1970) argues that increases in scale are accompanied by the proliferationof subunits. Blau sees increases in size leading to specialization within theorganization, as in Adam Smith’s celebrated pin factory, and consequently
to differentiation. Blau implies that personnel administration will be differentiated from general management once the organization reaches a certain size and that functions such as benefits administration will be differentiated once the organization reaches another threshold (see also Blau
and Schoenherr 1971). Empirical studies have shown a declining effect ofsize, represented by a logged measure.
Hypothesis 16.—Large organizations were more likely to install all
five types of offices.

Unionism
Safety and fringe benefits are two of the pillars of union politics in the
United States. Early studies of personnel practice show that unions caused
employers to create new offices to deal with these issues (National Industrial Conference Board 1940). More generally, from the time of the
Wagner Act, unionized firms have installed both personnel and labor relations departments to stem the growing power of unions ( Jacoby 1985).
460

Strength of a Weak State
Hypothesis 17.—Unionized organizations were more likely to adopt
health and safety, benefits, personnel, and labor relations offices.

Transaction Costs and Labor Segmentation Theories
Transaction costs and labor segmentation theorists find that firms in core,
capital-intensive sectors go to great lengths to secure long-term employment (Williamson 1975; Gordon, Edwards, and Reich 1982; see also Doeringer and Piore 1971). They use internal promotion systems, seniority
rules, and benefits linked to job tenure, establishing personnel and benefits
offices to administer these programs. They establish labor relations offices
to handle unions ( Jacoby 1985). They should also create safety offices toprevent accidents and equal employment offices to prevent disaffectionof women and minorities. Among the 13 sectors in our sample, chemicals
and electrical manufacturing are most easily classified as core. Machinery
is a mixed bag, containing core firms and small machine shops (Gordon
et al. 1992, pp. 199–201), but our sample probably contains few machine
shops because it is limited to firms with at least 50 employees and $500,000
in assets as of 1985. As early as the 1940s, a similar sample of machinery
firms showed a high incidence of personnel departments (Baron et al.
1986).
Hypothesis 18.—Organizations in the chemicals, machinery, and electrical industries were more likely to adopt all five kinds of offices.

Regulatory Effort
Students of law and regulation from both left and right agree that active
enforcement and the threat of sanctions increase corporate complianceactivities (Sunstein 1996; Posner 1997). Enforcement of employment law
was most active during the 1970s. Ronald Reagan ran for president on apromise to reduce federal regulation of business and made good on thatpromise soon after taking office in 1981. Reagan officials directed theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to curtail litigationand loosen standards and halved staffing at affirmative action’s oversightagency, the OFCCP (Edelman 1992, p. 1541; Skrentny 1996; DuRivage
1985, p. 364). Reagan cut PBGC and Department of Labor enforcement of
the Pension Reform Act, and, by cutting antitrust enforcement, he enabledfirms to acquire others for the purpose of raiding their pension schemes(Achenbaum 1986, pp. 155–56). Reagan directed OSHA to curtail inspection of workplaces, to halt ongoing litigation against employers, and to
reduce the number of regulated toxins ( Jackall 1983; Ewing 1983; Hartnett 1996). Perhaps most important, Reagan’s judicial and quasi-judicial
461

American Journal of Sociology
appointees opposed workplace regulation and thus weakened enforcement efforts.
Hypothesis 19.—Employers were more likely to adopt EEO/AA, benefits, health and safety, and personnel offices in the 1970s when regulatory
efforts were greatest, and they were less likely to adopt these offices from1981, when regulatory efforts declined.
DATA AND METHODSIn the previous section, we chronicled the history of policy in three realms
to show that the federal government’s policy style produced a similar
chain of events in each. New policies generated specialty compliance departments. Antistatist sentiments led incumbents in those departments todevelop efficiency justifications for their existence. In consequence, thewithdrawal of federal enforcement did not stall the diffusion of those departments. And because those departments had been theorized as enhancing efficiency in general, the factors associated with early adoption becameless important over time. Next we test these claims with data from several
hundred employers.
The Sample
We selected a stratified random sample of public, for-profit, and nonprofit
organizations in 1985, collecting retrospective data from 279 organizations. We generated the sample in three states with different legal environments: California, New Jersey, and Virginia (Sutton et al. 1994). We sampled from 13 diverse sectors to make tests of sector effects possible.
The difficulties associated with sampling organizations have been well
documented (Kalleberg et al. 1990). We sampled randomly from the best
published list of organizations available for each sector. For firms in banking, chemicals, electrical manufacturing, machinery, retail trade, andtransportation, we went to Dun’s Million Dollar Directory, which lists all
publicly traded firms with assets of $500,000. We sampled hospitals fromthe directory of the American Hospital Association (1983) and nonprofits
from the Encyclopedia of Associations (Akey 1984). For public organizations, we used state and federal agency directories and telephone directories to sample equal numbers of city, county, state, and federal employers.
Before identifying a final sample, we contacted employers to ensure thatthey were located in one of the three states, operated in one of the 13
sectors, and employed at least 50 persons.
Response rate.—We contacted 620 organizations and received completed questionnaires from exactly 300, for a response rate of 48%. After
follow-up telephone calls to fill in missing data, we excluded 21 organiza462

Strength of a Weak State
tions due to poor data quality. This brought the survey completion rate
down to 45%, which compares favorably with other organizational studies: Blau and colleagues (1976) completed 36%, Lincoln and Kalleberg(1985) completed 35%, and Edelman (1992) completed 54% in a telephoneinterview. The sample may suffer from selection bias, because organizations with personnel offices were probably more likely to respond. However, the over-time framework minimizes the problem by ensuring manycases (annual organizational spells) without personnel departments, particularly in the early years.
Measurement
Dependent variables.—We examine the creation of five structures:personnel/HRM, benefits, health and safety, EEO/AA, and labor relations. We do not distinguish between personnel and HRM departments,
because they are functional equivalents. In the cases of personnel/HRM,
benefits, health and safety, and labor relations, we analyze the establishment of offices.
In the case of EEO/AA, we analyze creation of either an office or an
officer for several reasons. First, management journals often advocatedaffirmative action “officers”; whereas, they advocated benefits and health/safety “offices” or “departments” (see Chayes 1974). Second, Edelman(1992) found that the average size of corporate affirmative action offices
was less than two employees. Thus, the difference between an “office” andan “officer” is often semantic—either may involve a single expert. Third,
because the average affirmative action office in a public agency has overseven employees (see Edelman 1992), we found that public employers tend
to use “office” and private employers tend to use “officer.”
Our data cover 1955–85. For EEO/AA office or officer, we begin theanalysis in 1961, the year in which John Kennedy required “affirmative
action.” For other offices, which existed in some organizations before 1955,
we begin the analysis in that year. For all outcomes, organizations bornafter 1955 enter the risk set upon birth. Organizations that abandon aparticular office reenter the risk set. None of these offices was abandonedby more than a handful of employers.
Independent variables.—Table 1 lists the independent variables. Allvary over time. We expect the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970, the Pension Reform Act of 1974, and the EEO Act of 1972 to increase the adoption of related departments. We expect these three changes
to affect personnel/HRM departments from 1970, and we examine
whether the diffusion of labor relations offices rises in the same year.
For each department, we start the third time period in 1981 to examine
whether Reagan’s cuts in enforcement stalled diffusion. If we are correct
463

American Journal of Sociology
TABLE 1
Variable List
Variable

Definition

Log employment ..................... Natural logarithm of number of employees
Union ....................................... Presence of a union contract
Personnel/HRM office ............ Presence of a personnel or human resources management office
Labor relations office ............. Presence of a labor relations office
Personnel association ............. Member of a personnel association
Age of organization ................ Age of organization in years
Periods ..................................... Periods of relevant policy regimes (see text)
Legal office .............................. Presence of a legal office
Labor attorney on retainer .... Organization has a labor/employment attorney on retainer
Sectors:*
Electrical and machinery
Chemicals
Local government ............... Includes local and county
State and federal
Nonprofit
Note.—All variables are measured at the start of the year. All vary over time.
* Omitted categories: printing, transportation, trade, banking, hospitals.

in arguing that these offices had been justified in purely economic terms,
the rate of adoption should not decline.
We include binary variables representing each of the sectors of theoretical interest. To operationalize transaction costs and labor segmentation
theories, we include capital intensive industries with firm-specific skills:
chemicals, machinery, and electrical machinery. To operationalize institutional arguments about public accountability, we include public and nonprofit sectors. To operationalize the argument that public and nonprofit
unionization drives of the 1970s popularized labor relations offices there,
we look at industry by period effects. With unionization controlled, public
and nonprofit status should have positive effects in 1971–80. The omitted
sectors are printing, transportation, trade, banking, and hospitals.
The Time Trend
Figures 1 and 2 show striking increases in the popularity of all offices
but labor relations. Between 1955 and 1985, the prevalence of personnel,
benefits, and health and safety offices more than doubled, with the largest
gains coming after new federal employment rights were created in theearly 1970s. The first EEO/AA offices and officers appeared in 1968, and,464

Fig. 1.—Proportion of employers with personnel/human resources office

Fig. 2.—Proportion of employers with each of the four structures

American Journal of Sociology
by 1985, fully 40% of employers had them. While we can only make tentative inferences from the raw plots, they appear to support our argument
about the rights revolution. For personnel, benefits, health and safety, andEEO/AA units, the slopes change notably at the end of the 1960s. For
each of these, the slope does not decline after 1980, when regulatory effort
declined.
Estimation
Table 2 presents piecewise exponential models, estimated with maximum
likelihood techniques using Nancy Tuma’s (1979) RATE program. Overthe 30-year time frame we cover, the 279 organizations yield 6,701 annual
spells of observation (organization-years). Organizations are excluded
from the risk set before their birth and after they have adopted a practice,thus, those that had the modeled unit in 1955 are left-censored. The number of at-risk spells ranges from 3,506 to 5,779, and the number of transitions ranges from 41 to 146.
Piecewise exponential models allow us to present a vector of variables
hypothesized to have stable effects over time, constants for each time period to pick up changes in the legal environment, and interactions between
time periods and other variables. To evaluate period effects, we constrained the coefficient for the constant in period 1 to equal zero.
FINDINGS

In table 2 we present one equation for each of the outcomes of interest.
For comparability, we present parallel models for each of the outcomes,
varying only the relevant time periods. For simplicity, we include variables that showed consistent effects across periods in the first, crossperiod, vector. We include variables that showed inconsistent effects
across periods for any outcome in the time-dependent vectors.
Legal Landmarks of the 1970s
The legal changes of the early 1970s had marked effects on employers. For
personnel, benefits, and EEO/AA units, the second period, representing alegal landmark, shows a significant positive coefficient. Additional support for the role of regulation is found in our analysis of labor relations
offices. Was the creation of new offices simply part of a secular trend
toward differentiation? There were no regulatory landmarks that might
have spawned labor relations offices, and as we predicted, there is noevidence of a general rise.

466

Strength of a Weak State
Regulatory Effort versus the Reconstruction of Departments
as Efficient
The Reagan era shows a significant positive effect. Comparisons of constant terms for periods 2 and 3 show that the diffusion of personnel, benefits, health and safety, and EEO/AA offices did not slow after 1980. For
three of the offices, adoption rose in the 1970s and continued at about thesame rate (net of the effects of covariates) after 1980. Adoption of healthand safety offices rose only after 1980. These findings show that the weakening of regulation during the Reagan years did not slow adoption, as theregulatory effort hypothesis predicts. They support our argument thatthese offices had been successfully retheorized in terms of efficiency. We
find not simply that existing offices survived the first Reagan term butthat offices continued to be established apace.

Efficiency Rationales and the Declining Importance of Covariates
Further evidence that these offices had been retheorized in efficiency
terms comes from changes in the effects of covariates. Among the four
structures stimulated by the rights revolution, there is a decline over timein the importance of functional needs and susceptibility to the law. In thefirst period, before legal landmarks, a total of 15 coefficients for covariates
are statistically significant. In the second period, a total of six are significant. In the third period, only one is significant. As these departments
were reconstructed in terms of their generic efficiency, organizations of
all sorts adopted them.

Middle Managers as Purveyors
We argued that professional groups promoted new offices. Having a legal
office increases the chance of creating each structure in the first period andtwo of them in the second period. Having a labor/employment attorney on
retainer shows generally positive effects. Having a labor relations officeincreases the chance of adopting benefits and health and safety offices,and this effect does not vary over time. Previous studies suggested that
personnel managers oppose the creation of competing departments, yet
above, we presented evidence that their associations promoted new positions to handle EEO, health and safety, and benefits. Accordingly, in table
2, we show that employers that belong to personnel associations are more
likely to create benefits and EEO/AA units but that employers with personnel departments are no more likely to create EEO/AA and safety units
and are less likely to create benefits units.

467

468

Constant .............................................................
Legal office ........................................................
Labor attorney on retainer ..............................
Sector:Electrical and machinery .............................
Chemicals ......................................................
Local government .........................................
State or federal .............................................
Nonprofit .......................................................

Period 1:

Cross-period:
Constant .............................................................
Log employment ...............................................
Union .................................................................
Personnel/HRM office ......................................
Labor relations office .......................................
Personnel association .......................................
Age of organization ..........................................

Outcome Variable

(.48)
(.32)
(2e⫺3).85.50⫺6e⫺3*

0
1.45**.15.75
1.99**
1.50*
1.20*
1.60*

1.64**(.60)
1.30(1.09)
1.05(.57)
1.89**(.60)
2.16*** (.58)

(.68)
(.71)
(.63)
(.62)
(.64)

0
(.46)
(.47)

1955–73⫺6.31*** (.61)
.26**
(.09)
⫺.29
(.38)
⫺.63*
(.31)
1.36**
(.48)
.95**
(.32)
⫺2e⫺2*** (4e⫺3)

Benefits Office00
2.10*** (.50)
.89
(.48)

1955–69

(.57)
(.07)
(.30)

⫺6.22***.26***⫺.45

Personnel/HRM
Office

⫺.69
1.39*
.68
⫺.03
1.67**(1.08)
(.60)
(.58)
(.67)
(.62)

0
0
1.85*** (.46)
.58
(.42)

1955–69⫺6.71*** (.63)
.26**
(.08)
⫺.39
(.35)
⫺.31
(.32)
1.88*** (.38)
.53
(.29)
⫺1e⫺2** (4e⫺3)

Health and Safety
Office⫺.06
1.61**
⫺1e⫹1
⫺1e⫹1
⫺1e⫹1

(.69)
(.54)
(7e⫹1)(8e⫹1)(1e⫹2)

00
2.02*** (.51)
1.01*
(.50)

1961–71⫺6.84*** (.65).24*** (.07)
.15
(.26)
.04
(.15)
⫺.16
(.17)
.54*
(.23)
⫺2e⫺3
(2e⫺3)

EEO/AA Officeor Officer

Estimates of the Creation of Five Structures among 279 American Organizations, 1955–86

TABLE 2(.30)
(3e⫺3)

(.87)
(.09)
(.37)
(.24)

⫺8.49
1.19
⫺.20
1.28
.49

0
1.05
.61

(.79)
(1.18)(1.19)(.86)(1.20)

0
(.76)
(.74)

1955–69

⫺.31
⫺2e⫺3

⫺7.22***
.25*
.89*
⫺.58*

Labor Relations
Office469

Note.—Nos. in parentheses are SEs.
* P ⬍ .05.
** P ⬍ .01.
*** P ⬍ .001.

Chi-square .............................................................
Number at risk .....................................................
Left-censored cases ...............................................
Number created ....................................................
At-risk spells (N) ..................................................

Constant .............................................................
Legal office ........................................................
Labor attorney on retainer ..............................
Sector:Electrical and machinery .............................
Chemicals ......................................................
Local government .........................................
State or federal .............................................
Nonprofit .......................................................

Period 3:

Constant .............................................................
Legal office ........................................................
Labor attorney on retainer ..............................
Sector:Electrical and machinery .............................
Chemicals ......................................................
Local government .........................................
State or federal .............................................
Nonprofit .......................................................

Period 2:

(.33)
(.61)
(.36)
(.45)
(.36)

.22
⫺.26
.54
.21
.78*

(.55)
(.68)
(1.07)(.63)(1.07)

.22
.80
⫺.71
.51
⫺.07
154.18
235
44
146
3,506

(.57)
(.92)
(.55)

2.06***.22.78

1981–85

(.51)
(.41)
(.29)

2.09***.80*.68*

1970–80

(.77)
(.68)
(.62)
(1.07)
(.80)

⫺.74
.82
.01
⫺1.30
.51

(1.07)(2e⫹2)(.68)(.63)(2e⫹2)

⫺1.38
⫺.10
.56
.83
⫺.11
100.84
260
19
74
5,111

(.65)
(.84)
(.54)

1.36*
⫺1.45
1.23*

1981–85

(.58)
(.55)
(.46)

1.37*
.36
.84

1974–80

(.72)
(.90)
(.79)
(.68)
(.73)

(.70)
(.58)
(.48)

(.63)
(.82)
(.52)
(.80)
(1.09)(.71)(.62)(2e⫹2)

114.66
256
23
72
5,388

⫺.81
.09
.69
.71
⫺.11

1.66**⫺1.09.63

1981–85

.69
1.22
.72
1.35*
1.27

.53
.31
.88

1970–80
(.59)
(.31)
(.28)

(.73)
(.84)
(.64)
(.74)
(1.13)(1.15)(.79)(1.13)

226.31
279
0
111
4,728

.29
⫺.08
⫺.78
1.12
⫺.97

1.52*
1.14
⫺.06

1981–85

⫺.27
(.44)
⫺1.13
(1.04).30(.37)
1.31*** (.33)
⫺.70
(.51)

1.91**
1.01*.42

1972–80

(.92)
(.08)
(.86)
(.83)
(.90)

(.98)
(.57)
(.47)

(1e⫹1)(1.25)(1.09)(1.05)(1e⫹3)(1.10)
(.87)
(.89)

78.59
267
12
41
5,779

⫺1e⫹1
.60
.54
1.46
⫺1e⫹1

.16
.83
1.25

1981–85

1.28
⫺.13
1.79*
2.86***
1.85*

⫺.33
.91
.88

1970–80

American Journal of Sociology
Age and Public Accountability
Other institutional hypotheses fare well. Older organizations are less likely
to create personnel/HRM, benefits, and health and safety offices, as the
Stinchcombe/Selznick hypothesis suggests. Public and nonprofit employers are more likely to adopt these same three offices before legal shifts,
which suggests that they are most likely to anticipate new legal norms.
After legal landmarks, public and nonprofit employers remain more likely
to adopt personnel, health and safety, and EEO/AA units.

Scale Economies, Unionism, Transaction Costs, and Segmentation
The other theories show mixed results. Size, measured as log employment,shows robust effects on all five outcomes, lending support to functional
arguments. The union drive of the 1970s increases labor relations offices
among public and nonprofit employers, even with current union status in
the equation. This can be seen in the period 2 effects of local government,
state and federal government, and nonprofits on labor relations offices.
The strength of these sector effects, even with establishment unionization
controlled, suggests that it was not the signing of a union contract that
produced new offices but wider union gains. It appears that the growthof labor relations in the 1970s, evident in figure 2, is a consequence ofunion gains among public and nonprofit employers alone, because the constant term for period 2 shows no effect.
Transaction costs and labor segmentation theories gain some support
here. In the first period, before legal landmarks, firms in capital intensive
industries that depend on firm-specific skills—electrical manufacturing,machinery, and chemicals—are more likely to install benefits, health andsafety, and EEO/AA structures. This effect declines over time, however,as predicted.

CONCLUSION

The federal employment rights revolution of the early 1970s was designed
to expand rights to equal protection, life and liberty, and social citizenshipin the workplace. We have argued that the ambiguity of compliance standards, expanding scope of the law, and fragmentation of administration
led organizations to establish specialty departments to signal a commitment to compliance, to import and invent compliance strategies, and tohandle federal regulators. Organizations created new offices not because
the law dictated that they do so but because the law did not tell them
what to do. Management journals defined specialized offices, with expert
staffs, as the best protection against costly lawsuits. Our analyses show
470

Strength of a Weak State
that shortly after each legal landmark, employers began to create new
offices to handle compliance.
The strength of the weak U.S. state is evident in what happened next.
Justifications for these offices drifted away from compliance and toward
pure efficiency. By 1980, managers were advocating each kind of officein the rational language offered by the new human resources management
paradigm. We argue that this occurred in part because constitutional protections against the rise of federal tyranny signal that government domination of private enterprise is inefficient and illicit. It occurred in part because the law gave employers a particularly active role in devisingcompliance mechanisms, and hence, middle managers came to see thosemechanisms as their own. And it occurred in part because ambiguousfederal mandates are a thin reed on which to build elaborate new personnel programs.
It is not that managers deny that the law affects them. It is, rather, thatthey develop efficiency rationales for the offices they establish in responseto the law. By the early 1980s, the new human resources management
movement was championing diversity as the key to expanding markets
and improving innovation, safety and health programs as the key to winning employee commitment and renovating antiquated technologies, andbenefits programs as a means to reducing alienation and improving
worker attitudes.
Our data show dramatic effects of this retheorization. When Reagan
cut enforcement in 1981, the diffusion of these offices did not falter. As
further evidence that departments handling benefits, health and safety,
and equal employment opportunity had become disassociated from policy,
over time, the policy-related covariates that predict adoption declined inimportance. Whereas at first, employers with legal offices, those depending on the primary labor market, and those in public and nonprofit
sectors were establishing these offices, by the 1980s, all sorts of employers
were doing so.
Does this mean that the employment rights revolution has been an unmitigated success? While these offices continued to diffuse even during
the Reagan years, there is evidence that cuts in enforcement led employers
to circumvent the law. Employers raided pension funds in response to
weakened enforcement of ERISA (Achenbaum 1986, pp. 155–56) and cut
affirmative action programs in response to weakened enforcement by the
OFCCP (see Bureau of National Affairs 1976, 1986). Moreover, due tothe nonuniversal coverage and spotty enforcement of these laws, many
workplaces continue to have few protections against discrimination, inadequate safety measures, and no pension or health coverage.
We found managers identifying market forces as the source of structures they had adopted to comply with the law, thereby reinforcing the471

American Journal of Sociology
authority of the market and sapping the authority of the state. This pattern helps to explain the federal government’s combination of administrative weakness and normative strength, which has puzzled students of thestate (e.g., Evans et al. 1985). We contend that the pattern is found in
business regulation more widely, notably in antitrust law. After antitrust
law forced firms to adopt new business practices, industry invented efficiency explanations for those practices. As James Q. Wilson (1980) argues,
the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, adopted to protect the rights of small
business by undermining cartels, spawned price competition. Businesssoon replaced the cooperative theory of the modern economy, which defined the cartels of the 1880s as efficient, with a natural selection theory,
which defined new price competition as efficient (Dobbin 1994). As Neil
Fligstein (1990) argues, the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, adopted to undermine the power of vertically integrated firms, caused firms to expand
into unrelated fields. Business soon replaced the coordination and control
theory of the firm, which defined vertical links as efficient, with portfolio
theory, which defined conglomeration as efficient.
This pattern, in which Americans develop collective amnesia about thestate’s role in shaping private enterprises, may explain the long absenceof a theory of the state in organizational sociology. Americans subscribe
to the theory that firms operate in a Hobbesian economic state of nature,in which behavior depends very much on managerial initiative and markets and very little on political initiative and law. We argue that this theory of the firm is a consequence of the administrative weakness of thefederal state, which in the process of constructing public authority as illicit
and policy as inconsequential, constructs market authority as legitimate
and managers as prepotent.

REFERENCES
Achenbaum, W. Andrew. 1986. Social Security: Visions and Revisions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Akey, Denise S., ed. 1984. Encyclopedia of Associations. Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research.
American Hospital Association. 1983. Hospitals. Chicago: American Hospital Association.
Anderson, C. Richard. 1975. OSHA and Accident Control through Training. New
York: Industrial Press.
Bardach, Eugene, and Robert A. Kagan. 1982. Going by the Book: The Problem ofRegulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Baron, James N., Frank R. Dobbin, and P. Devereaux Jennings. 1986. “War andPeace: The Evolution of Modern Personnel Administration in U.S. Industry.” American Journal of Sociology 92:350–83.
Bixby, Ann Kallman. 1986. “Social Welfare Expenditures, 1963–83.” Social Security
Bulletin 49:12–24.

472

Strength of a Weak State
Blau, Peter. 1970. “A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations.” American
Sociological Review 35:201–18.
Blau, Peter M., Cecilia McHugh Falbe, William McKinley, and Phelps K. Tracy.
1976. “Technology and Organization in Manufacturing.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 21:20–40.
Blau, Peter M., and Richard A. Schoenherr. 1971. The Structure of Organizations.
New York: Basic.
Boyle, M. Barbara. 1973. “Equal Opportunity for Women Is Smart Business.” Harvard Business Review 51:85–95.
Bradshaw, David. 1987. “Sexual Harassment: Confronting the Troublesome Issues.”
Harvard Business Review 32:50–52.
Brandes, Stuart D. 1976. American Welfare Capitalism, 1880–1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brickman, Ronald, and Sheila Jasanoff. 1980. “Concepts of Risk and Safety in Toxic
Substances Regulation: A Comparison of France and the U.S.” Policy Studies Journal 9:394–409.
Burack, Elmer H., and Robert D. Smith. 1977. Personnel Management: A Human
Resource Systems Approach. New York: West Publishing.
Bureau of National Affairs. 1976. Equal Employment Opportunity: Programs and Results. PPF Survey no. 112. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
———. 1986. EEO Policies and Programs. PFF Survey no. 141. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of National Affairs.
Burstein, Paul. 1985. Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Burstein, Paul, and Kathleen Monaghan. 1986. “Equal Employment Opportunity andthe Mobilization of Law.” Law and Society Review 16:355–88.
Chayes, Antonia Handler. 1974. “Make Your Equal Opportunity Program CourtProof.” Harvard Business Review 52:81–89.
Coleman, Barbara J. 1985. Primer on Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.
Cox, Taylor H., and Stacey Blake. 1991. “Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications
for Organizational Competitiveness.” Academy of Management Journal 5:45–56.
Cummins, Richard J. 1986. “The General Principles of Law, Separation of Powers,
and Theories of Judicial Decision in France.” International and Comparative Law
Quarterly 35:592–628.
Davey, Patrick J. 1978. “Current Directions in Pension Fund Management.” Conference Board Information Bulletin, no. 39. New York: Conference Board.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American
Sociological Review 35:147–60.
Dobbin, Frank. 1994. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, andFrance in the Railway Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dobbin, Frank, Lauren Edelman, John W. Meyer, W. Richard Scott, and Ann
Swidler. 1988. “The Expansion of Due Process in Organizations.” Pp. 71–100 in
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge,
Mass.: Ballinger.
Dobbin, Frank, John Sutton, John Meyer, and W. R. Scott. 1993. “Equal Opportunity
Law and the Construction of Internal Labor Markets.” American Journal of Sociology 99:396–427.
Doeringer, Peter B., and Michael J. Piore. 1971. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Duhamel, Olivier. 1987. “Remarques sur la notion du régime semi-présidential.” Pp.
581–90 in Droits, institutions et systèmes politiques: Mélanges en hommage à Mau-

473

American Journal of Sociology
rice Duverger, edited by Dominique Colas and Claude Emeri. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
DuRivage, Virginia. 1985. “The OFCCP under the Reagan Administration: Affirmative Action in Retreat.” Labor Law Journal 36:360–68.
Edelman, Lauren. 1990. “Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The
Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace.” American Journal of Sociology 95:1401–40.
———. 1992. “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediationof Civil Rights Law.” American Journal of Sociology 97:1531–76.
Edelman, Lauren B., Steven E. Abraham, and Howard S. Erlanger. 1992. “Professional Construction of the Legal Environment: The Inflated Threat of Wrongful
Discharge Doctrine.” Law and Society Review 26:47–83.
Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing theState Back In. London: Cambridge University Press.
Ewing, David W. 1983. “Your Right to Fire.” Harvard Business Review 61:32–52.
Farley, Jennie. 1979. Affirmative Action and the Woman Worker. New York:
Amacom.
Feild, John. 1984. Affirmative Action: A Fresh Look at the Record Twenty-two Years
after the Beginning. Washington, D.C.: Center for National Policy Review.
Figgie, Harry E., Jr. 1981. “Defusing the Pension Liability Bomb.” Harvard Business
Review 69:157–87.
Fligstein, Neil. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Foulkes, Fred K. 1980. Personnel Policies in Large Nonunion Companies. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Foulkes, Fred K., and Henry M. Morgan. 1977. “Organizing and Staffing the Personnel Function.” Harvard Business Review 55:142–77.
Froehlich, Herbert, and Dennis Hawyer. 1974. “Compliance Spinoff: Better Personnel
Systems.” Personnel 51:62–69.
Gavini, Christine. 1997. “Vers un droit interne d’entreprise?” Sociologie du Travail
39:149–69.
Giblin, Edward J., and Oscar Ornati. 1974. “A Total Approach to EEO Compliance.”
Personnel 51:32–43.
Gill, Kathleen D. 1985. ERISA: The Law and the Code. Washington, D.C.: Bureau
of National Affairs.
Gordon, David M., Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich. 1982. Seqmented Work,
Divided Workers. London: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, Robert J., and Russell G. Roberts. 1983. “Strategic Integration of Compensation and Benefits.” Personnel Administrator 28:82.
Hakala, Donald R., and Kenneth M. Huggins. 1976. “ERISA: Impact on Business
Financial Management.” Michigan Business Review 28:19–23.
Hamilton, Gary G., and John R. Sutton. 1989. “The Problem of Control in the Weak
State: Domination in the United States, 1880–1920.” Theory and Society 18:1–46.
Hartnett, John. 1996. OSHA in the Real World: How to Maintain Workplace Safety
while Keeping Your Competitive Edge. Santa Monica, Calif.: Merritt.
Harvard Law Review. 1989. “Rethinking Weber: The Business Response to Affirmative Action.” Harvard Law Review 102:658–71.
Jackall, Robert. 1983. “Moral Mazes: Bureaucracy and Managerial Work.” Harvard
Business Review 61:118–58.
Jacoby, Sanford. 1985. Employing Bureaucracy: Managers Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900–1945. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Johns, Horace, and H. Ronald Moser. 1989. “Where Has EEO Taken Personnel Policies?” Personnel 66:63–66.

474

Strength of a Weak State
Kalleberg, Arne L., Peter V. Marsden, Howard E. Aldrich, and James W. Cassell.
1990. “Comparing Organizational Sampling Frames.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 35:658–88.
Klein, Alfred. 1986. “Why You Can’t Afford to Ignore ERISA.” Personnel Journal
65:72–83.
Klein, Michael F., Jr., and Robert H. Moses. 1974. “Pension Plans: What’s at the Endof the Rainbow.” Price Waterhouse and Company Review 19:10–17.
Kochan, Thomas A., Harry C. Katz, and Robert B. McKersie. 1986. The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books.
Levy, Michel. 1974. “La Politique sociale francaise et les personnes handicapèes, acquis et perspectives.” Analyse et Prevision 18:243–316.
Lincoln, James R., and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1985. “Work Organization and Workforce
Commitment: A Study of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan.” American
Sociological Review 50:738–60.
Logue, Dennis E. 1979. Legislative Influence on Corporate Pension Plans. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
Lovecy, Jill. 1992. “Comparative Politics and the Fifth French Republic: La fin del’exception francaise.” European Journal of Political Research 21:385–408.
Malkiel, Burton. 1979. “Productivity: The Problem behind the Headlines.” Harvard
Business Review 57:81–111.
Marino, Kenneth. 1980. “Conducting an Internal Compliance Review of Affirmative
Action.” Personnel 57:24–34.
McCaffery, Robert M. 1986. Employee Benefit Programs: A Total Compensation Perspective. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing.
Mendelhoff, John. 1979. Regulating Safety. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Meyer, John W. 1983. “Centralization of Funding and Control in Educational Governance.” Pp. 179–98 in Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, edited
by John W. Meyer and W. Richard Scott. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations:
Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83:340–
63.
Meyer, John W., and W. Richard Scott. 1992. Organizational Environments. Newbury
Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Meyer, Marshall. 1979. “Organizational Structure as Signaling.” Pacific Sociological
Review 22:481–500.
Meyer, Mitchell. 1981. Profile of Employee Benefits. 1981 edition. New York: Conference Board.
Meyer, Mitchell, and Harland Fox. 1974. Profile of Employee Benefits. New York:
Conference Board.
Mill, John Stuart. 1988 (1974). A System of Logic, edited by J. M. Robson. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Moody, Hiram F., Jr., and Edward D. Higgins. 1984. “Selling the 401(k) Plan to Employees.” Harvard Business Review 62:68–78.
National Industrial Conference Board (NICB). 1940. Personnel Activities in American Business. New York: NICB.
Northrup, Herbert, Brian Rowan, and Charles Perry. 1978. The Impact of OSHA.
Labor Relations and Public Policy Series, no. 17. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Industrial Research Unit.
Pati, Gopal C., and John I. Adkins, Jr. 1980. “Hire the Handicapped: Compliance Is
Good Business.” Harvard Business Review 58:14–29.
Petersen, Donald J. 1974. “The Impact of Duke Power on Testing.” Personnel 51:31–
37.
Posner, Richard A. 1997. “The Rise and Fall of Administrative Law.” Chicago-Kent
Law Review 72:953–63.

475

American Journal of Sociology
Rees, Joseph. 1988. Reforming the Workplace: A Study of Self-Regulation in Occupational Safety. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ritter, Anne, and William H. Wagel. 1989. “Special Awards for Special Achievers:
Personnel Winners.” Personnel 66:17–32.
Ropp, Kirland. 1987. “How the Courts Affect Management Policy.” Personnel Administrator. 32:45–50, 100.
Scott, W. Richard, and John W. Meyer. 1987. “Environmental Linkages and Organizational Complexity: Public and Private Schools.” Pp. 128–60 in Comparing Publicand Private Schools, edited by Henry M. Levin and Tom James. New York:
Falmer.
Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
———. 1969. Law, Society and Industrial Justice. New York: Russell Sage.
Shaeffer, Ruth G. 1973. Nondiscrimination in Employment: Changing Perspectives,
1963–1972. New York: Conference Board.
Skolnik, Alfred M. 1976. “Twenty-five Years of Employee-Benefit Plans.” Social Security Bulletin 37 (3): 3–22.
Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Skrentny, John D. 1996. The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spann, Jeri. 1990. “Dealing Effectively with Sexual Harassment: Some Practical Lessons from One City’s Experience; Madison, Wisconsin.” Public Personnel Management 19:53–82.
Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1965. “Social Structure and Organizations.” Pp. 142–93 in
Handbook of Organizations, edited by James March. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Strang, David, and John W. Meyer. 1994. “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion.”Pp. 100–12 in Institutional Environments and Organization: Structural Complexity
and Individualism. Edited by W. Richard Scott and John W. Meyer. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Stryker, Robin. 1996. “Law, Sociology, and Public Policy Issues in Equal Employment
Opportunity.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological
Association, New York.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1996. “The APA at Fifty: Health-Health Tradeoffs.” University of
Chicago Law Review 63:1533–71.
Sutton, John, and Frank Dobbin. 1996. “The Two Faces of Governance: Responses
to Legal Uncertainty in American Firms, 1955–1985.” American Sociological Review 61:794–811.
Sutton, John, Frank Dobbin, John W. Meyer, and W. Richard Scott. 1994. “The Legalization of the Workplace.” American Journal of Sociology 99:944–71.
Tepper, Irwin. 1977. “Risk vs.” Harvard Business Review 55:100–115.
Tolbert, Pamela S., and Lynne G. Zucker. 1983. “Institutional Sources of Change inthe Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform,
1880–1935.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28:22–39.
Tuma, Nancy B. 1979. Invoking RATE. Palo Alto, Calif.: DMA Press.
Vernon-Gerstenfeld, Susan, and Edmund Burke. 1985. “Affirmative Action in Nine
Large Companies: A Field Study.” Personnel 62:54–60.
Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Wilson, James Q., ed. 1980. The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic.
Wooten, James A. 1994. “Regulating the ‘Unseen Revolution’: Private Pension Policies
and Politics, 1960–1987.” Working paper. SUNY-Buffalo, School of Law.
Zippo, Mary. 1980. “Roundup.” Personnel 57:65–66.

476