Turnitin Originality Report
w by Patricia Bernard
- Processed on: 07-15-09 3:52 PM MST
- ID: 101339598
- Word Count: 1227
- Submitted: 1
Similarity:
14%
exclude quotedexclude bibliographydownloadprint
mode:
9% match (internet)
4% match (Internet from 03/30/08)
(3-30-08)
1% match (Internet from 11/23/05)
(11-23-05)
Evolution of Formal Organizations Evolution of Formal Organizations The evolution of businesses in today’s ever-changing economy is driven by creativity, knowledge and innovative change, and the need to turn away from organizations with centralized control (Arimantas Bronislavas, 2007). Formal organizations such as Micah’s organization can evolve into a successful open flexible organizational structure. Experiencing with a creative environment can allow workers to improve their professional goals and increase in productivity. Creativity in everyday life happens when people see new ways of accomplishing different tasks in their work environment. Coming up with fresh and innovative solutions is a satisfying experience in creativity (Borghesi, 2000). Formal organizations are specific and widely recognized form of social groups. A group is considered a formal organization when the statuses, roles, and norms become formalized to the degree that exist in writing and independently of the individuals that occupy, perform, and support them respectively.Formal organizations are typically understood to be systems of coordinated and controlled activities that arise when work is embedded in complex networks of technical relations and boundary-spanning exchanges (Borghesi, 2000). But in modern societies, formal organizational structures arise in highly institutional contexts. Organizations are driven to incorporate the practices and procedures defined by prevailing rationalized concepts of organizational work and institutionalized in society. Organizations that do so increase their legitimacy and their survival prospects, independent of the immediate efficacy of the acquired practices and procedures.To maintain ceremonial conformity, organizations that reflect institutional rules tend to buffer their formal structures from the uncertainties of the technical activities by developing a lose coupling between their formal structures and actual work activities. (Arimantas Bronislavas, 2007). An organization like Micha’s can learn from Japanese organizations in the early 1980’s. Japanese companies hired groups of people and paid them the same salaries and gave them the same responsibilities. Japanese companies also took pride in their employees, but hiring them for life-long employees and showing them they care. Competition in the workplace can also be good for business. This allows employees to gain experience while focusing on production. Several groups of employees can be assigned the same tasks, and the outcome can be reviewed by management. After reviewing the outcome, the procedures can be adapted and practiced by other coworkers to help in the production phase (Arimantas Bronislavas, 2007). Allowing employees to be creative and to explore their talents as related to the business can be a win, win deal. The company can benefit by having success in more production, more customer base, and satisfied customers and well as employees. Employees can benefit by feeling their company cares enough to let them explore their creative talents. This may cause an employee to want to remain with the company and continue a creative career (Black-Beth, 2008). As the conventional bureaucracy organizational structure becomes more open and flexible, the chain of command will decrease in size. This will allow employees to explore their ideas quickly and will allow quick responses to changes. In this flexible organization employees are expected to take advantage of the training that is available to them. Advancement is encouraged in an open, flexible organization whereas in a conventional bureaucracy organization, one must follow the chain of command and the process may take longer to achieve a needed goal. Conventional bureaucracy organizations can evolve into an organization which helps improve and motivate employees and helps to recognize that their employees have a choice and allow their employees to gain the knowledge needed to succeed. Comparing the two organizational models, the conventional burecratic model causes employees to cut through more red tape and follow more procedures to get the same result as in an open, flexible organization. An open flexible organization can promise employees results such as advancement, lifetime security, holistic involvement where the company may help employees with finding home lenders, and schedule social events to show their appreciation. In this type of organization, an employee can look forward to broad based training, competitive work teams, and greater flexibility within the company itself (Macionis, 2006). As changes occur, the formal organizations become more flexible, and employees will realize what the company wants to do for them. Experiencing loyalty within the company can be an exceptional experience for both employer and employee. Managing ones time and focusing on a task at hand can mean so much more for an employee who knows he or she is working for a company that cares. Having a flexible formal organization can bring a secondary group closer in means of relationship. Just as in a primary group where the relationship is close and personal, having social events and appreciation events for employees can cause a lasting relationship as well. The chain of command is very different in a conventional bureaucracy and an open flexible organization. In a conventional bureaucracy, there may be customer service representatives which would be considered the bottom line. Middle managers, who oversee the customer service representatives, division leaders who oversee the middle managers, top executives who oversee the division leaders, and the CEO who oversees the top executives. Each branch of the chain must answer to someone else, which may cause a course of action to be delayed (Macionis, 2006). In a flexible, open organization the chain of command is much different. The organization has more of a flat organization and less people to answer to. There may be numerous competing work teams, and senior managers who oversee the work teams, and a CEO to oversee the senior managers. A course of action can be quickly established in this type of organization allowing goals to be accomplished quickly (Macionis, 2006). As the formal organizations evolve, individuals will continue to remain in three different formal organization types. There is the utilitarian organization that consists of people who work for an income. These take up most of the workforce. There are also normative organizations that consist of people who want to pursue a goal and may fall into this organization as a volunteer. People who are categorized in this organization want to fulfill a certain goal such as helping others and making a difference. The third type of organization is coercive organization, where people in this organization are forced to join as a form of punishment, as in prisons and mental institutions. This is possible for one single formal organization to consist of all three categories. For example, a prison can be a coercive organization for the prisoner, and utilitarian organization for the guards and the normative organization for the volunteers ((Macionis, 2006). If Micah’s organization follows and practices some of these techniques in their conventional bureaucracy organization, the outcome will be an evolution of a new flexible open formal organization. References Arimantas Bronislavas, K (2007). Management Theory and Studies for Rural Businesses & Infrastructure Development. Vol. 8 Issue 1, p52-58, 7p, Retrieved July 9, 2009, from a067-4c59-9426-e9ad98aaba52%40sessionmgr107 Black-Beth, S (2008). Franchising World. , Vol. 40 Issue 1, p28-29, 2p, Retrieved July 9, 2009 from 9426-e9ad98aaba52%40sessionmgr107 Borghesi, R (2000). Financial Management. Vol. 36 Issue 3, p5-31, 27p, Retrieved July 9, 2009, from 9426-e9ad98aaba52%40sessionmgr107 Macionis, J. J. (2006). Society: The basics (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.