Future_of_Modernization

Evolution of Formal Organization Stella Thomas SOC120 Robert Bruce November 20, 2011 A formal organization is structured with a chain of command. This type of organization has many levels of management, with clearly defined duties and responsibilities. The activities of a formal organization are distinct and highly specialized. Formal organizations have defined rules and regulations established to govern specific procedures and operations. The members of formal organizations are technically competent to carry out assigned tasks. Communication in formal organizations is formal and in writing. Formal organizations are task oriented. Social groups consist of two types-the primary group which is a small social group whose members share personal and lasting relationships. Formal organizations are part of the secondary group. This group is comprised of members who pursue a specific goal or activity. There is little or no emotional ties within a formal organization and members have little or no personal knowledge of each other. Over the last century formal organizations have evolved to include three types. One type is the utilitarian organization. This type includes people who work to earn a living. Another type is the normative organization. This group of people exists in pursuit of a goal they think is morally worthwhile. These are voluntary associations and include community service groups, the League of Women Voters, and the Red Cross. The coercive organization is the third type of formal organization and its membership is involuntary. These organizations exist as a form of punishment in the form of imprisonment, and treatment in the form of psychiatric hospitals. The members of this type of formal organization are isolated from society for a period of time to change their behavior and attitudes. A century ago formal organizations lacked technology. This made it difficult to travel long distances and to communicate quickly. Today formal organizations use technology to conduct meetings via conference calls, video meetings, webcams, and cellular phones. Technology has also improved how information is collected and stored. Tradition, as it applied to formal organizations a hundred years ago, has no place in today’s climate. Formal organizations had limitations when behaving in a traditional manner. These limitations affected the organization’s efficiency and ability to change. Formal organizations employ a way of thinking which enables them to make deliberate, matter-of-fact calculations, using he most efficient means to accomplish tasks. Today, formal organizations use rationality which makes them open to changes to get the job done better and quicker than they did a century ago. Today’s formal organizations allow more freedom creativity than they did a hundred years ago. The workers are less supervised as long as they ultimately generate good ideas. Formal organizations of today are comprised of competitive work teams. Employees are free to work on problems while earning rewards for coming up with the best solution to the problem. Another result of evolution is the elimination of levels in the chain of command. Top executive positions and division leader position have been removed, along with middle management positions. Today’s formal organization consists of the Chief Executive Officer, senior managers, and the work teams. This is a more flexible, open organization that generates new ideas and adapts quickly in a rapidly changing global marketplace. In order for Micah’s organization to become more open and flexible, changes need to be made in the hierarchy structure. The top executive positions and those of the division leaders need to be eliminated. Middle managers should also be eliminated. Removing these positions will improve the communication between the ranks. Creative freedom is needed in Micah’s organization. People need the freedom to work independently, with less supervision, to come up with new ideas on solving the organization’s problems. Micah’s organization could create competitive work teams, and reward the teams that come up with the best solutions. This strategy would also reduce the alienation that workers feel in the formal organization. Increasing flexibility is another tactic that formal organizations could use to become more open and flexible. The rigid structure is guided from the top and does not promote creativity. A rigid structure also does not allow adapting to changes as quick as the open, flexible organization does. The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is a formal organization. This orchestra decided to eliminate the conductor’s position, placing their belief in the musicians and their talent. According to Katzenbach and Khan (2011) “Without a conductor, each musician has a sense of responsibility for the decisions made by the whole group; they rely on the elements of informal organization such as networking, dedication, and intuition in making decisions regarding behavior, as well as how the music should be played. As a result, the musicians have a more active and personally meaningful role in the group and its performances” (p.4). I don’t think that the trend is likely to occur in this arena, though, because the informal organization really placed a burden on the musicians. It took too much time, along with the discussion required to rehearse. To streamline this informal organization, the musicians opted to elect a leader when beginning a new piece of music. These elected leaders were responsible for collaborating and making decisions regarding the music and how it would be played. Another case study is the Institute of Higher Education. In comparing the current generation to the next generation, there were notable differences. The current generation focuses on the premise that they need people to formulate goals and values to gain the commitment of the employees to realize larger objectives (Fincher, 1998). According to Fincher (1998) “As diversification proceeds, leaders will be separated from their followers and communicate more and more with other leaders” (p.4). I believe that this trend will not occur because future leaders will be more numerous, more diverse and more specialized. The third case study involved a welfare agency. The Jewish Employment and Vocational Services (JEVS) is responsible for helping people find employment. They provide counseling and testing for the applicants, assuming that gainful employment is the client’s ultimate goal. JEVS is a voluntary welfare agency with the flexibility to offer its clientele a more comprehensive and individualized service than what they could get in the public sector (Perlmutter, 2007). I believe that this organizational style will occur if other ethnic or racial organizations focus on helping others sharing the same backgrounds. The JEVS receive funding from government sources and closely parallels the public programs. References Fincher, C. (1998, August). The Changing Future of Academic Leadership. Institution of Higher Education, (), 1-8. Katzenbach, J.R., & Khan, Z. (2011, February). Leading Outside the Lines. Business Book Summaries, (), 1-9. Perlmutter, F. (2007). Systems Theory and Organization Change: A Case Study. Sociological Inquiry, 42(2), 109-122.