Evolution of Formal Organizations - Term Paper Example

? Evolution of Formal Organizations Paper Formal organizations are corporate establishments that are built and operate on a set ofrules and regulations, which are put down, in writing, to govern the members in the execution of the organization’s main objectives. Formal organizations are designed in such a way that each member or group has a specific obligation to fulfill, and whose overall purpose is to achieve the primary goals of the company or institution. This paper aims to highlight the evolution of formal organizations in the last century, the steps that informal establishments can take to attain a formal organization status and provide a forecast on the fate and direction of existing pseudo-formal organizations. The emergence of formal organizations began in Europe, where businesses incorporated their workers into a sort of club within the organizational structure of the business where there was a clear hierarchical system. The owners of the business and their families also belonged to this club and no employee was exempt from membership, which acted as a deterrent against leaving to the employees (Kornblum, 2011). According to Kornblum, as more and business ventures and industries emerged the economies of scale started playing a key role and specialization and division of labor became practical and profitable. This led to the development of a well organized system, in how the running of these establishments were conducted, and where the workers were not required to devotedly belong to their employer’s club or group. Responsibilities and duties were delegated to employees under the manager who could double up as the owner of the corporation. These managers sought out ways to maximize their workers output through various means like longer working hours, which they did without incentives or overtime compensation (Kornblum, 2011). Earlier formal organizations did not offer opportunities for advancement in position or salary especially to the minority groups and women. The policies, rules and regulations that defined these outfits as formal organizations were not adhered to but were just a formality for purposes of registration with the relevant authorities. The chain of command was designed in such a way that each department had a manger or supervisor to whom every worker in that unit bore responsibility. The supervisors or midlevel managers also had a higher authority to report to, and this went on up to the top management. Even if, the top management bore the overall responsibility for the overall performance of the company, they had little hands on participation and involvement in the on goings of the establishments they administered. This created a precedent where the worker’s welfare was neglected, which led to the development of resentment towards the management of the organization causing a decline in employee output and the firm’s productiveness. This led to the formation of worker’s unions, which advocated for better terms and conditions in the work place coupled with considerate social welfare compensation. Companies that recognized the benefits of a more flexible organizational structure reaped the benefits of improved employee motivational levels and increased productivity. This makes workers feel obligated to perform well for a company that they are actively involved in than where they are taken just as a means to an end. Compared to today’s formal organizations earlier establishments had an authority structure that resembled a pyramid where remarkably few people with power were at the top while the majority and powerless people were at the bottom (Kornblum, 2011). In the mid 1900’s, this structuring gave no room for employees to contribute, in the policy making process, or give their ideas on how best to attain their company’s goals. In today’s formal organizations, workers are involved in the formulation of company policies, and they are consulted on the best possible ways for their firms to accomplish their objectives. This makes formal organizations more efficient because workers are in a better position to know which policy or processes, in the organization, perform well in the overall attainment of the company’s objectives. In the mid 1900’s, hundreds of organizations did not recognize or appreciate creativity or innovation from workers in the lower levels of the pyramid. Today’s formal organizations have done away with the pyramid like structure of authority, and instead created a system where an individual’s authority, in the organization, is not given precedence over their ability, creativity or contributions, unlike in earlier firms, where authority was coveted and revered more than the individual’s actual performance or ability in their duties and responsibilities. Today’s formal organizations do not exhibit a discrimination process, which was subjected to minorities and women when it came to the issue of advancement, in careers and hierarchy, in the workplace. This has seen the entry of more skilled and specialized workforce provided by people from many different backgrounds and origins thus enhancing capacity and productivity of the organizations. Micah’s organization should embrace a more flexible and less bureaucratic organizational structure, for it to survive, in the emerging worker oriented structuring. This can be achieved by changing the pyramid type top-down hierarchy by creating a smaller chain of command for the workers, which would open up more job opportunities in the firm and improve the attitude of the employees towards authority in the firm. Instead of each employee being assigned a task to perform within a certain timeline, Micah’s organization should aim to restructure the workers into teams with a primary objective, which would see him or her work even more efficiently, and purposefully than before. Working, in groups, makes the members work on specified tasks, which they are best suited for, and this makes them feel more appreciated and thus perform better. The policies and regulations, in Micah’s organization, should be designed and implemented in such way that the employees do not feel they are being forced to follow them (Kornblum, 2011). The workers should be made to need the rules in their day-to-day activities for the greater good of the company and their welfare. The supervisory team in the management should encourage workers to adhere to company’s regulations instead of ordering them around. An organization where the top management and the supervisors follow the rules set an example for the rest of the workforce to follow because it shows equality and non-favoritism in the work place. In bureaucratic and rigid organizations such as Micah’s, mode of communication is usually in the form of memos that address the workers in a generalized and an inconsiderate way that does not take into account the worker’s position on the matter being addressed. They should instead focus on holding open meetings where issues can be tackled on a face-to-face basis, which makes the workers feel involved. This makes the workers feel they can have non-restrictive relationships with their superiors and employers, which makes problem solving simpler because employees feel comfortable relating with their managers. Future trends in will include challenging performance contracts for all employees which will be incentivized by better pay. Another trend is ensuring employee loyalty by increasing their benefits through the issuance of permanent contracts according to research there is already shortage of skilled workforce and maintenance of what an organization has should be a priority (Kornblum, 2011). More workers in today’s organizations want autonomy and flexibility so companies will have to offer more nontraditional ways, of working, to attract and retain their talents. A trend that will have to be embraced is the use of enabling technologies and social collaboration tools because workers are increasingly becoming global, in their operations and origin. This puts communication top on their list of enabling tools of performing their tasks, which determine where and when they want to work. Formal organizations like Micah’s will have to embrace some the changes I have mentioned above for them to survive in the future. References Kornblum W. (2011). Sociology in Changing World. 9Th Edition. London: Cengage Learning, 2011. Read More