8.sept-Agency and structure, intentions, interactions & institutions

Agency and Structure: How People Create and Are Shaped by Social Reality

• The main question of this lecture is how much control individuals really have over their own actions. We often think of ourselves as free individuals who make our own choices. At the same time, we live in a social world that already contains rules, traditions, institutions, organizations, expectations, cultures, and power relations. These things influence what we think is normal and what we believe we can or cannot do.

• The lecture therefore focuses on the relationship between agency and structure. Agency refers to people's ability to act, make choices, pursue goals, and influence their surroundings. Structure refers to the social arrangements that already exist around us, such as institutions, rules, norms, traditions, organizational hierarchies, cultures, laws, and systems of power.

• The important point is that agency and structure should not be treated as two completely separate things. People create social structures through their actions, but once these structures become established, they also shape people's actions. This creates a continuous relationship between the two. We are therefore both producers and products of social reality.

The employee theft example: how something becomes normal

• The example of employee theft in the Netherlands helps show how social reality is created.

• A construction worker explains that he once needed some window frames and went to his boss's storage with a friend. He noticed a staircase that was twice as long as he needed, so they cut it in half and took the other half. When asked whether he considered himself a thief, he explained that “everybody does it” and asked why he should be a thief of his own wallet.

• Another example involves a woman who takes bandages and medical patches from her workplace for her personal first-aid kit. When asked whether this is stealing, she initially says that she does not steal. When she is reminded that these items technically belong to her employer, she pauses and realizes that, if you look at it that way, she is taking someone else's property.

• These examples show that whether something is considered “stealing” is not always as straightforward as it seems. People's behaviour is influenced by shared social understandings about what is normal and acceptable.

• When people repeatedly say things such as “everybody does it”, they help make the behaviour seem normal. If enough people behave in the same way, the behaviour can become part of the culture of the workplace. People may eventually stop seeing it as something that needs to be questioned.

• This connects directly to Berger and Luckmann's idea of the social construction of reality, which Ybema discusses. What people repeatedly do can become a normal social pattern. Over time, people may forget that the pattern was originally created by human actions. It simply becomes “the way things are done.”

 

The agency–structure problem

• Agency and structure are part of one of the major debates in the social sciences.

• There are several similar debates, such as:

  • individual versus society;

  • micro versus macro;

  • subjective reality versus objective reality;

  • free will versus determinism;

  • action theory versus system theory.

• The problem with these oppositions is that they can make it seem as though we have to choose one side. We could either say that individuals create society, or that society controls individuals.

• The approach discussed in this lecture argues that we should not choose between the two. We need to look at both at the same time.

• People have agency. They make choices, pursue goals, solve problems, and sometimes challenge existing structures. But people never act in an empty space. They always act within a social world that already existed before them.

• For example, an employee can decide how to behave at work, but they do not decide from nothing what “being an employee” means. They enter an organization that already has rules, expectations, roles, hierarchies, and cultural norms.

• At the same time, the employee's behaviour helps maintain or sometimes change those very structures.

• This is why people create society, but society also creates and shapes people.

The idea

• There is an individual and there are other people, rules and structures

• The individual cannot control everything

• But the individual is also not just a pawn

• People have agency and can act, make choices and influence their surroundings

• At the same time, existing structures limit and guide what people can do

• Therefore, agency and structure are not opposites

• People create society, but society also creates/shapes people.

Agency: people are active participants

• Agency refers to people's ability to act intentionally in the social world.

• People have goals and desires, and they try to make things happen. They choose how to behave, solve problems, cooperate with others, resist things they disagree with, and try to influence their surroundings.

• Agency therefore exists everywhere in everyday life. Even small actions can have social consequences.

• For example, if several employees independently begin using the same shortcut to complete a task because they believe it is more efficient, their individual choices may eventually become a common workplace practice. New employees may then learn that this is “how we do things here.”

• This shows that individual actions can gradually produce something much larger than the individual.

• Our actions can create rules, routines, roles, institutions, cultures, and organizational practices that later influence us and other people.

Externalization: how our actions create the social world

• Berger and Luckmann describe this process through the idea of externalization.

• Externalization means that people express their ideas, needs, intentions, and solutions through their actions.

• For example, an employee might decide to organize their work in a particular way because they find it easier. If they keep doing this, other people may start copying the behaviour. Eventually, it may become a common way of doing the task.

• Therefore, something that started as an individual choice can eventually become a shared social practice.

• Structures do not simply appear. They are produced through human action.

Structure: the social world that already exists

• Structures include laws, traditions, institutions, workplace rules, social expectations, and hierarchies. They already exist when we enter many situations, and they influence how we behave.

• Structures help us understand what is expected of us. They can show us what is normal, acceptable, or possible in a particular situation.

• For example, when someone starts a new job, they enter an organization that already has rules, managers, routines, and expectations. The new employee must learn how things work and how they are expected to behave.

• Structures can make life easier because they give us clear expectations but they can also limit our choices. Some actions may be difficult or unacceptable because they go against existing rules.

• Although structures can feel natural and permanent, many of them were originally created by people. They continue to exist because people keep following and repeating them.

Internalization: how society becomes part of us

• Internalization is the process through which people learn the rules and expectations of society and make them part of how they think and behave.

• We learn what is right, wrong, normal, and expected from parents, teachers, friends, colleagues, and other people around us. Over time, these ideas can become part of our own beliefs and identity.

• For example, a new employee might initially follow a workplace rule because their manager tells them to. After some time, the employee may accept the rule as the correct way to behave. Eventually, they follow it even when the manager is not watching.

• This shows that social rules do not only influence us from the outside. We can also learn to control our own behaviour because we have accepted these rules as part of ourselves.

Institutions: How Social Patterns Become Normal

• Institutions develop when repeated actions become established ways of behaving.

• First, people repeat certain actions until they become habits. When several people share these habits, they develop common patterns and expectations. Over time, these patterns can become established parts of society.

• For example, people learn to stand in a queue when they are waiting for something. Most people understand that they should wait their turn, even if nobody explains the rule.

• Eventually, following the queue becomes so normal that people rarely question it. They simply accept it as the correct way to behave.

• This shows how human actions can develop into social rules that feel natural. People create these patterns, but later generations may learn them without knowing how they first developed.

Externalisation and internalisation happen simultaneously

• We should not think that people first create structures and then, later, structures shape people

• These processes happen at the same time

• When we follow an organisational routine, we are being shaped by the organisation

• But by following the routine, we are also helping to reproduce the organisation

• Therefore, social reality is constantly being (re)produced

The Relationship Between Agency and Structure

• Agency and structure constantly influence each other.

  • Agency creates structure: People develop rules, routines, and shared ways of behaving through their actions.

  • Structure shapes agency: Once these rules and routines exist, they influence how people act and what choices they make.

• This relationship works in both directions and continues over time.

• For example, employees may create a workplace routine by repeating certain actions. New employees then learn the routine and begin following it. By doing so, they help keep the routine alive.

• However, employees can also challenge the routine and introduce new ways of working. If these new practices become accepted, the structure can change.

• This means that people are influenced by society, but they also have the ability to reproduce or change it.

1. Duality: Two Sides of the Same Coin

• Agency and structure should not be understood as completely separate things. They are two connected sides of social life.

• Social reality exists at both an individual level and a wider social level. At the individual level, people have their own thoughts, feelings, experiences, and actions. At the wider level, society has organizations, rules, traditions, and institutions.

• These levels influence each other. People act within an existing social world, but their actions also help maintain or change that world.

• We are therefore not completely free to do whatever we want, but we are not simply controlled by society either. We have some freedom to act, although our choices are shaped by the situations we live in.

2. Institutionalization: From Actor to Institution

• Institutionalization explains how people's actions can develop into established social rules and patterns. It describes the movement from agency to structure.

• An individual action may start as a personal choice. If it is repeated and shared by others, it can eventually become a normal part of society. People may then follow it without questioning where it came from.

Four step model for Institutionalization

Explain how the process from individual to institution plays out

1. Habituation – “That’s how I do it”

• Habituation happens when people repeat an action until it becomes a habit.

• Someone might always sit in the same chair when they arrive at work. After doing this repeatedly, they begin to do it without thinking.

• Habits make everyday life easier because people do not have to make a new decision every time they do something.

• At this stage, the behaviour may still be personal. It has not necessarily become a shared rule.

2. Reciprocal typification – “That’s how we do it”

• Reciprocal typification happens when people develop shared habits and expectations about how they and others should behave.

• People begin to understand what is expected in different situations. They also develop expectations about different roles, such as managers and employees.

• For example, employees may expect their manager to give instructions, while the manager expects employees to complete their tasks. These expectations make their interactions more predictable.

• When these shared patterns continue, they can become established ways of doing things within a group or organization.

3. Legitimation – “That’s why we do it”

• Legitimation happens when people develop explanations for why certain rules and practices should be followed.

• People use stories, sayings, beliefs, and explanations to make existing behaviour seem reasonable or acceptable.

• For example, someone who takes something from work might say, "Everybody does it," or "If I don't take it, someone else will." These explanations help the person justify their behaviour.

• Another person might say, "That's how we have always done it," to explain why a workplace routine should continue.

• These explanations can make a practice seem right or necessary, even when people could question whether it is fair or appropriate.

4. Objectification – “That’s just the way it is”

• Objectification happens when a human-created rule or practice begins to feel natural, fixed, and independent of the people who created it.

• People stop asking why the practice exists. Instead, they accept it as simply the way things are.

• For example, employees might follow a workplace rule without knowing who introduced it or why it was created. The rule may seem like a necessary part of the organization.

• The important point is that people created the rule, but over time they may forget this. The rule starts to feel like something that has always existed.

People repeat actions until they become habits. Shared habits become common practices. People explain why these practices should continue. Eventually, the practices seem natural and no one questions them.

3. Socialization: From Institution to Actor

• Socialization describes the opposite direction of institutionalization. Instead of people creating social structures, existing social structures become part of people.

• Through socialization, we learn how to behave in society and in different groups. We learn rules, values, expectations, and social roles from the people around us.

• Over time, we may begin to accept these expectations as part of who we are.

1. Initiation and Imitation of significant others “They want me to be like this” “I want to be like them”

• We learn how to behave by watching and copying people who are important to us.

• These people might include parents, teachers, managers, friends, or other people we look up to.

• For example, a new employee may copy how experienced colleagues speak to customers or behave during meetings. The employee learns what is expected by observing others.

• At this stage, behaviour is strongly influenced by specific people and their expectations.

2. Generalization – “They all want me to be like this”

• As people grow and gain experience, they begin to understand that expectations do not come only from one person.

• They realize that similar rules and expectations exist across a wider group or society.

• For example, an employee may learn that being on time is not only important to one manager. It is also expected by colleagues and the organization as a whole.

• The person begins to understand the wider social rules behind individual people's expectations.

3. Internalization – “This is really me”

• Eventually, people may accept social rules so deeply that they become part of how they see themselves.

• They no longer need someone else to tell them what to do. They follow the rules because they believe this is the right or normal way to behave.

• For example, an employee may arrive on time even when nobody checks their attendance. Being punctual has become part of how they think a responsible employee should behave.

• The person now controls their own behaviour according to expectations they have learned.

• This shows how socialization helps create people who understand and follow the rules of their society or organization.

Socialization and Subjectification

• Socialization is about learning how to become a member of society or an organization. Through this process, people learn which behaviours are accepted and what kind of person they are expected to be.

• Subjectification is closely connected because it focuses on how social rules and power can shape our identity and how we understand ourselves.

• For example, an organization may encourage employees to see themselves as hardworking, loyal, and always willing to help. Employees may eventually use these ideas to judge themselves, even when nobody directly tells them what to do.

• Social expectations can therefore influence not only our actions but also our sense of who we are.

Social construction of reality

• The social construction of reality means that much of the world we live in is created and maintained through people's actions and interactions.

• Rules, traditions, institutions, and social expectations are not always natural or permanent. Many develop because people create them, accept them, and continue to follow them.

• However, people do not create society from nothing. They are born into a world where many rules and institutions already exist.

• Marx expressed this idea in the following quote:

• "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please..."

• The point is that people help shape society, but they do not have complete freedom to create whatever they want. They inherit existing rules, traditions, and institutions that influence what they can do.

• For example, someone who starts a new job does not get to decide every rule in the organization. They enter a workplace where certain ways of working already exist. They can follow these practices, question them, or try to change them, but they cannot ignore the fact that the existing structure influences their choices.

"The Whole Is More Than the Sum of Its Parts"

• This phrase means that when people come together, they can create something larger than what each person could create alone.

• An organization, for example, is made up of individual people. However, once the organization has established rules, roles, and routines, it becomes something that influences all of its members.

• The organization is created by people, but it also shapes the people who work there.

• Social structures continue to exist because people keep acting in ways that support them. If people stopped following a rule or repeating a routine, that structure might eventually change or disappear.

4. Dialectics: How People and Society Shape Each Other

• Dialectics refers to the ongoing relationship between people and the social world.

• People create social structures through their actions. Once these structures exist, they influence people's actions. People then continue to follow, reproduce, or challenge these structures.

• This process keeps happening over time.

• For example, employees develop a routine for completing a task. New employees learn the routine and continue using it. The routine then shapes how future employees work.

• If employees later develop a better method and others begin using it, the old routine may change.

• The main point is that people and society are always influencing each other. Neither side can be fully understood without looking at the other.

5. Unintended consequences

• Unintended consequences happen when people's actions lead to results they did not originally plan or expect.

• People may start something with one goal in mind, but the final result can be different because of how other people react and how events develop.

• For example, a manager might introduce a new system to make employees work faster. Instead, employees may become stressed, make more mistakes, or find ways to work around the system. The change then creates problems the manager did not expect.

• This is important because social reality does not always develop according to one person's plans. Many different actions and reactions come together to create the final result.

• A useful quote for this idea is: "People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what-they-do does."

• This means that people may understand their own actions and reasons, but they may not understand the wider effects of those actions.

• In organizations, this means that managers cannot always control what happens after introducing a new rule or system. They need to pay attention to how people respond and be willing to change their plans.

6. Recalcitrant instrument

• Recalcitrant means difficult to control or change.

• An organization is created by people, but once it becomes established, it can be very difficult to change. Its rules, routines, and expectations may continue even when the people who created them want something different.

• For example, a manager might want to change how an organization works but discover that employees are used to the old system. The existing rules, habits, and ways of thinking make change difficult.

• This shows that social structures can become stronger than the individuals who first created them.

• Organizations can therefore be seen as things that people build but cannot always control. They may continue to work in the same way even when there are good reasons to change.

7. Enabling and Constraining

• once established, structures start to act back upon us, enabling or constraining us, and thus imposing their ‘will’ on us, like the Frankenstein monster

• Enabling:

  • Structures are enabling when they make it easier for people to act.

  • Rules, routines, and clear roles can help people understand what they need to do. They create order and make everyday situations more predictable.

  • For example, clear workplace procedures can help employees understand their responsibilities and work together without needing to discuss every small decision.

• Constrain:

  • Structures are constraining when they limit people's choices or make certain actions difficult.

  • Rules can prevent people from doing things differently. They can also maintain unequal power relationships and make it harder for people to challenge the existing system.

  • For example, an organization may have strict rules that prevent employees from questioning their managers, even when they believe a decision is unfair.

  • This shows that structures can help organizations function while also creating problems for the people within them.

  • Established structures can therefore be compared to Frankenstein's monster. People create something, but once it exists, it can become difficult to control.

• Once organization is in place it may have created social injustices

8. ‘Of our own making’

• Many of the rules and systems we follow were created by people. However, once these rules become established and accepted, they can start to feel natural, necessary, or impossible to change.

• We often follow social rules without thinking about them because we have learned them over time.

• For example, most people know that they should wait their turn in a queue. They usually do this without anyone needing to explain the rule. If someone pushes ahead, other people may complain or tell them to go to the back.

• This shows that people do not only follow social rules. They also help enforce them by expecting others to behave in the same way.

• The rule continues to exist because people keep following it and correcting those who break it.

• The important point is that we help maintain the very rules that later influence our own behaviour. Something created by people can eventually seem like it exists independently of them.

Bureaucracy example

• Bureaucracy is a way of organizing work through clear rules, roles, responsibilities, and procedures.

The Intended Consequences of Bureaucracy

• Bureaucracy was meant to make organizations more organized, fair, and efficient.

• Clear rules and responsibilities help people understand what they need to do. Decisions can be made according to established procedures rather than depending entirely on personal relationships or individual preferences.

• For example, a company may use clear procedures for hiring employees so that applicants are assessed according to the same requirements.

The Unintended Consequences of Bureaucracy

• Although bureaucracy can make organizations more organized, it can also become too controlling.

• Employees may become so focused on following rules that they stop thinking about whether those rules are useful. They may have little freedom to make decisions or try new approaches.

• The system can also become more important than the people it was meant to serve.

• For example, an employee may be required to follow a procedure even when it clearly does not work well for a particular situation.

Weber's "Iron Cage"

• Max Weber used the idea of an iron cage to describe how modern systems of rules and efficiency can limit people's freedom.

• The cage is made by people themselves. We create rules and systems to make life and work more organized, but those systems can later control us.

• Once bureaucracy becomes deeply established, it can be difficult for individuals to escape its rules or change how it works.

• This is another example of how people create structures that later shape and limit their own actions.

9. Products of sociality

• People often think that they make decisions entirely by themselves. However, their thoughts, feelings, and actions are strongly influenced by society.

• This influence can be difficult to notice because we learn social rules gradually, often from a young age. By the time we are adults, many of these rules feel completely normal.

• For example, people may have ideas about what makes someone a good employee, a good student, or a responsible adult. They may believe these expectations come from their own personal values, even though society has helped shape them.

• People also continue to reproduce social structures without always realizing it. Because the process happens every day, it can be difficult to see how much society influences us.

• This does not mean that people have no freedom. It means that their freedom is shaped by the social world they live in.

POWER

• Power can work through direct actions or through wider social structures. These are known as episodic power and systemic power.

Episodic Power

• Episodic power refers to specific actions through which someone tries to influence what another person does.

• For example, a manager may give an employee an order, or someone may use their position to influence a decision.

• This form of power focuses on identifiable actions and interactions between people.

Systemic Power

• Systemic power is built into the rules, values, beliefs, and structures of society or an organization.

• It does not always require someone to give a direct order. Instead, existing rules and expectations can influence what people think is normal, acceptable, or possible.

• For example, an organization may have a culture where employees believe that working long hours proves commitment. Even if managers never directly order them to stay late, employees may feel pressure to do so.

• Systemic power can therefore continue through everyday practices and shared beliefs.

Four faces of power

Episodic theories agency

• Coercion - Direct Pressure

  • Coercion happens when someone uses direct pressure or the threat of consequences to make another person do something.

  • For example, a manager tells an employee to complete a task or risk losing their job.

  • The person knows that someone is trying to control their behaviour. Power is being used directly.

• Manipulation - Influencing What People Focus On

  • Manipulation happens when someone influences other people's choices without giving them a direct order.

  • Instead of telling people exactly what to do, someone may influence which issues they pay attention to and which options they consider.

  • For example, a manager may only share information that supports their preferred decision. Employees may then support that decision because they have not been given the full picture.

  • The person is being influenced, even though the control is less obvious than a direct order.

Systemic theories structure

• Domination - Making Certain Beliefs Seem Normal

  • Domination happens when certain beliefs and values become so widely accepted that people start to see them as common sense.

  • People may accept these ideas without questioning who benefits from them or whether things could be different.

  • For example, employees may believe that managers should always have the final say because this is how organizations are expected to work. They may not question this hierarchy because it seems natural.

  • Power works through the beliefs and rules that people accept as normal.

• Subjectification - Shaping How People See Themselves

  • Subjectification happens when power influences people's identity and how they understand themselves.

  • Power does not only affect what people do. It can also affect what kind of person they believe they should be.

  • For example, an organization may encourage employees to see themselves as loyal, hardworking, and always available. Employees may begin to feel guilty when they take breaks or refuse extra work.

  • They may control themselves because they have accepted the organization's expectations as part of their identity.

  • This is a deeper form of power because people may start to control themselves without needing someone else to tell them what to do.

Analytical purchase?

• Analytical purchase means that a concept or theory helps us understand something more clearly.

• Agency and structure are useful concepts because they help us look at social life from two connected sides. We can study how people act and how the social world around them influences those actions.

• Agency and structure are not necessarily two completely separate things that we can observe independently. They are ways of looking at the same social situation.

• For example, if we want to understand why employees follow a workplace rule, we can look at their individual choices. We can also look at the organization's culture, hierarchy, and expectations.

• Using both perspectives gives us a better understanding than focusing only on the individual or only on the organization.

• The concepts can therefore be used as tools to help us ask better questions about social life.

12. zooming in & out

• Agency and structure help us understand what happens at different levels of social life.

• We can zoom out to look at the wider social world, or zoom in to look at individual actions and experiences.

  • Wider society: Laws, the economy, traditions, and cultural beliefs influence how people live.

  • Organization: Workplace rules, management, and hierarchies shape how employees behave.

  • Everyday interactions: Conversations, meetings, and relationships influence how people treat each other.

  • Individual experience: People's thoughts, feelings, identities, and personal choices are also important.

• For example, if an employee feels unable to disagree with their manager, we should not only look at the employee's personality. We should also consider the manager's position, the organization's culture, and wider beliefs about authority.

• Looking at different levels helps us understand that individual behaviour is often connected to larger social structures.

13. process, conflict, power

• The social construction of reality helps explain how social order develops and continues. However, it can sometimes make society seem more stable and peaceful than it really is.

• In reality, social life also involves conflict, disagreements, power struggles, and change. People do not always agree about the rules they should follow or how society should work.

• Some people benefit from existing structures, while others may be limited or treated unfairly by them. This can lead people to challenge the system and try to change it.

• Social change can happen slowly, but it can also happen quickly. For example, globalization can gradually change how people work and interact, while a financial crisis can cause sudden changes across society.

• Large changes can also happen because of many smaller events and actions coming together. No single person necessarily controls the final result.

• This can be compared to an avalanche. Many things combine and create a much larger event that is difficult for any one person to control.

• We therefore need to study not only how social structures remain in place, but also how power, conflict, and unexpected events can change them.

1) How do temporary organizations such as film sets differ from traditional hierarchical organizations? What particular challenges do these organizations face and what does this require/ call for?

Temporary organizations, such as film sets, are different because they are created for one specific project and for a limited amount of time. Once the film is finished, the organization ends and the workers move on to other projects. In a traditional organization, people usually stay in the same organization for a much longer time, and there is a more stable hierarchy with managers, rules, and clear levels of authority.

One challenge for film sets is that people often have to work with others they have never worked with before. They still need to coordinate their work quickly because film production can be complicated and time-sensitive. They cannot spend months getting to know each other and learning how the organization works.

Because of this, temporary organizations need quick and flexible ways of coordinating work. Workers need to already understand what different roles mean and what they can expect from people in those roles. This allows them to start working together quickly without having to create everything from the beginning.

2) What type of organizational control mechanisms emerge in these more flexible forms of organizing?

In these organizations, control is less about having a manager constantly telling everyone what to do. Instead, workers themselves help maintain control through shared expectations about their roles.

For example, workers know what a person in a particular role is normally expected to do. If someone does their job well, other workers might thank them. If someone behaves in a way that does not fit their role, another worker might politely correct them. They can also use jokes to point out when someone is not following the normal expectations of their role.

control is mainly based on social interaction, professional expectations, and reputation, rather than only on formal rules and managers.

Workers also care about their reputation because they will probably work on other projects in the future. If someone develops a bad reputation, it could make it harder for them to get future work.

3) How does a structurationist approach help to enlighten the interplay between structure and agency, or in this case, between role structure and role enactment?

A structurationist approach helps us understand that structure and people's actions affect each other.

In Bechky's example, the role structure gives workers an idea of what they are supposed to do. For example, someone knows what is normally expected from a gaffer or a grip. This structure guides their behaviour.

However, workers are not simply following the structure. They also help create and maintain it through their everyday actions.

For example, when someone thanks another worker for doing something that fits their role, they are reinforcing the idea of what that role involves. When someone politely corrects another worker, they are also helping define the boundaries of that role.

Roles influence how people behave, but people's behaviour also helps create and maintain those roles.

4) In the context of film projects, what do career trajectories look like? What kind of interactive practices lead to the learning, negotiating and generalizing of role structures? Give a few concrete examples of this.

In the film industry, people often do not build their careers by staying in one organization. Instead, they move from one temporary project to another.

For example, a person might work on one film, then move to another film with a completely different group of people. Their career therefore develops across many different projects.

Even though the projects change, their professional role stays with them. A person who works as a grip, for example, develops an understanding of what being a grip means and brings that knowledge to their next project.

People learn and maintain these roles through everyday interactions.

Workers may thank each other when someone does something that fits their role well. This shows that the behaviour is valued and helps reinforce what that role is supposed to do.

Workers may politely correct someone when they do something that does not fit their role. This helps people understand the limits and responsibilities of different roles.

Workers can also use jokes to point out when someone is acting outside their expected role. Although it is presented as humour, it can still communicate an important message about how people are expected to behave.

5) Would you personally like to work in such a setup? Why or why not?

I think I would like some parts of this type of work because it would offer variety and the chance to meet many different people. Working on different projects could also help me learn new things and develop different skills. I think it could be exciting not to have exactly the same workplace and colleagues all the time.

However, I might find the lack of stability difficult. Because projects eventually end, there could be more uncertainty about where the next job will come from. It could also be tiring to constantly have to adapt to new people and new ways of working.

Overall, I think I would enjoy this type of organization if I had enough job security. I would like the flexibility and variety, but I would probably prefer having some stability as well.

6) What other organizational contexts can you think of, in which these forms of organizing would be similar/ relevant as well? What organizational contexts would you expect to be strikingly different?

Construction projects are a good example. Different professionals, such as architects, electricians, engineers, and builders, come together for one project. Once the building is finished, the project ends.

Events and festivals are another example. People come together to organize a concert, festival, or conference. They have different roles and need to coordinate quickly, but the team may only exist for that event.

On the other hand, government organizations and large traditional companies can be quite different. They often have permanent employees, clear managers, formal rules, and stable departments. People may work with the same colleagues for many years, so they do not need to create working relationships as quickly as people on a film set.

1) How do Berger and Luckmann "bridge" the dualism between actor-centred and system- oriented perspectives by positing that society has a "dual nature" and operates through a "dialectical relationship?

Berger and Luckmann bridge this difference by saying that society has two sides, or a "dual nature." On one side, society is made up of individual people who think, feel, interpret things and act. On the other side, society consists of larger structures, such as institutions, rules, norms and routines. To understand society properly, we need to look at both sides together.

They explain the relationship between individuals and society as a dialectical relationship, meaning that they constantly affect each other. People create social structures through their actions and interactions. Over time, repeated actions can become routines, rules and institutions. At the same time, these structures influence how people think and behave.

So, people shape society, but society also shapes people. This is why Berger and Luckmann do not choose between focusing only on individuals or only on larger systems. Both are connected and constantly influence each other.

2) The paper highlights how Berger and Luckmann's work is often misunderstood or misclassified by scholars. What is the "essence of the theory" that these "dualistic interpretations" often miss, and how does this affect understanding power dynamics in organizations?

The main thing that many scholars miss is the continuous connection between the individual and social structures. Some scholars classify Berger and Luckmann's theory as either actor-centred or system-oriented. However, this misses the main point of their theory: individuals create social reality, but social reality also shapes individuals. These two sides cannot be understood separately.

This is important for understanding power in organisations. If we only look at organisational structures, we might think that employees are simply controlled by rules and management. But if we only look at individuals, we might forget how strongly organisational rules, routines and norms influence their behaviour.

Berger and Luckmann's theory shows that power works through this relationship between people and structures. Organisational rules and routines can influence and control people, but these rules and routines are also kept alive because people continue to follow and reproduce them in their everyday work. Therefore, power is not only something that comes from the top or from the organisation itself. It is also reproduced through the everyday actions of people within the organisation.

3) Reflecting on the idea that externalisation and internalisation occur "simultaneously," what are the implications of viewing the social construction of reality as a single, simultaneous process of (re)production?

Seeing externalisation and internalisation as happening at the same time means that we should not think that people first create social structures and are only later shaped by them. Instead, people and social structures are constantly shaping each other at the same time.

For example, when a new employee starts working in an organisation, they learn the organisation's existing rules and routines. This is how the organisation shapes the employee. But while the employee follows these rules and takes part in everyday routines, they are also helping to maintain and reproduce the organisation.

Therefore, every day, people are both shaped by existing structures and helping to reproduce those structures through their own actions.

The main idea is that social reality is not a one-way process. Structures influence people, but people also continuously maintain or sometimes change those structures. This helps us understand organisations as something that is constantly being produced and reproduced through the relationship between people and the structures around them