What Does It Mean to Say That Behavior in Organizations Is an Institution or Is Institutionalized - Essay Example

What Does It Mean to Say That Behavior in Organizations Is an or Is alized? Introduction To this day, the term “institution” has no one single definition that best describes it. The only thing that stands out about institutions is that they are forms of structures that matter much in the social realm. Additionally, it is obvious that institutions involve much of human activity and interaction which are structured in terms of implicit or overt rules. As such, a potential definition of institutions may be that they are prevalent and established social rules or systems that structure social interaction of humans (Hodgson 1). In this light, it is justified to state that firms, measures, laws, money, and language are all forms of institutions. In organizations, the term “institutionalized” has been controversially applied in determining what it really means in terms of defining behavior. If institutionalization is the structuring of social interaction, how does it influence behavior in organizations? The following study will seek to explain what it means to say that behavior in an organization is institutionalized, or is an institution, by comparing two literatures based on this concept; Thomas Luckmann and Peter Berger’s The Social Construction of Reality, and John Meyer and Brian Rowan’s Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure As Myth and Ceremony. Discussion Evident between the two literatures is that they both agree to the definition of the institutionalization theory, which states that social behavior is guided by created schemes and structures that establish authoritative aspects such as routines, norms, and rules, to mention but a few. Meyer and Rowan define institutionalization as “the processes by which social processes, obligations, or actualities come to take on a rulelike status in social thought and action” (41). A much similar definition is offered by Berger and Thomas (72) who define institutionalization as “that occurrence whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors”. Berger and Thomas state that “all human activity is subject to habitualization” (53). They further explain that actions that are habitualized retain their meaning to a character and always work to guide their behavior in the future. The relationship they offer between a habit and institutionalization is that institutionalization is created by habitualized actions. As such, an organization may come up with a policy or rule of going about an activity which owing to its demanding nature ends up as a habit to everyone involved. Similarly, Meyer and Rowan argue that “…organizations are understood to be systems of coordinated and controlled activities… of technical and boundary-spanning exchanges” (340). They add that the control, coordination and boundary-spanning are forms of institutionalization. This institutionalization, as they feel, increases the legitimacy, independence, and survival prospects of the organizations. In both cases, it is sufficient to state that the literatures agree that organizations need to be institutionalized for them to run by creating roadmaps that guide all their activities. The two literatures again coincide in that they perceive of institutionalization as possessing the ability to enable or constrain behavior. According to Meyer and Rowan, organizations can only attain a “formal” structure by applying norms that play causal roles in bureaucratization to facilitate this (343). In short, they mean that for an organization to be termed as formal, there should be rules (norms) that guide how the formal structure should be constructed. Behavior in an organization will therefore be informed by procedures, programs, policies, and positions set up by their organization (Searle 16). Referring to the definition of institutionalization that defines it as a creation of structures which determine human interaction, the above statement fits in. The same is implied by Berger and Luckmann who write, “Institutions control human conduct by setting up predefined patterns of conduct” (55). If this case stands, then it means that any form of behavior at organizations is predetermined by the organization’s set and acceptable codes of conduct. Collectively, the authors agree that what happens at organizations is guided by structures that are set up by the organization. As such, behavior will either be enabled or constrained by these determinant structures (Veblen 630). The third similarity evident in the authors’ works is that both acknowledge that for an organization to prosper or succeed, institutionalization has to exist. Better put, institutionalization is intended for an organization’s overall good. The definition of an institution stated that it is a structure meant to control human social interaction. In controlling human interaction, institutionalization enables organizations to provide a path that should be followed for the best outcomes. In an organizational context, “behavior” points at constituent activities or processes that are involved in enabling the objectives of an organization. These processes include distribution, manufacturing, intra-organizational relationships, employee-employer relationships, and production to mention but a few. It makes sense that if no such control [institutionalization] existed, and everyone was allowed to behave individually, no outcomes would be achieved since coordination would not exist. This control is what Berger and Luckmann define as organizational “taboos” (57). Back to the formal organization, institutionalization takes the form of packaged codes as Meyer and Rowan put it (344). Such packages include techniques, professions, or programs that display responsibility and prevent irrational occurrences such as negligence. More importantly, institutionalization is applied to mean that since an organization is largely dependent on human value, lack of controlling it would result in its loss, thus irrelevancy of the organization. “The building blocks of organizations come to be littered around societal landscape” (345). In this quote, the above explanation is justified. It simply means that behavior [of organizational society] would determine the outcomes of the organization’s objectives. In the light of these, saying that behavior in organizations is institutionalized simply means that it is controlled or channeled for the good of everyone involved in the organizations. Institutionalized behavior, in another sense, suffices as a means of legitimation to the institutional world, and a similarity in the two works. The role of legitimation is to provide a means through which an organization can be justified or explained. As Berger and Luckmann put it, “Ceremonial criteria of worth and ceremonially derived production functions are useful to organizations: they legitimate organizations with internal participants, stockholders, the public, and the state, as with the IRS or the SEC. They demonstrate socially the fitness of an organization” (351). So what exactly does it mean to say that behavior in organizations is institutionalized from this statement? In this case, institutionalization of behavior would be understood in acknowledging that different organizations will appear or act differently. For instance, children are always expected to respect their elders. On the other side, elders are expected to take care of children. As such, institutionalization, or the existence of guiding rules tells the adult from the child. Concisely, a child respects, the adult protects. This is a form of coding used to identify the two different parties (adult and child). In a different form of organization, Meyer and Rowan explain that it is institutionalization of behavior that defines maps and functions of organizations (351). This further assigns an organization its categorization in society, i.e., a milk factory, a car assembly plant, or an electrical firm. In a nutshell, different organizations will behave differently, and as per their bases; mechanics will act differently from lawyers, teachers cannot behave the same as engineers. If such social norms or rules did not exist, telling them apart would be more difficult (Nelson and Bhaven 31). However, since behavior in organizations in an institution, all this is enabled. In simple terms, this is what the institutionalization of behavior in an organization means. Closely related to the concept of organizational taboos is the understanding that institutionalization means a breach of set rules or norms within an organization can be explicitly identified. This is so because in an institution, the social group bound by such rules, understands and shares the rules involved. Therefore, when any rule happens to be breached, there must be an identifiable consequence. Following this, identifying a breach means it can be corrected, or some form of action can be applied. For example, if there is a conflict between two employees in an organization, the law of cooperation is breached. Supervisors can identify a consequence such as quarrelling or breakage of communication. In the light of this, a mitigation measure can be applied and the problem solved. This is supported by Meyer and Rowan who state that an organization that responds to its institutionalized rules maximizes its legitimacy and its survival capabilities plus resources are increased (352). Berger and Luckmann present a different side of this explanation. When a breach is discovered, correction can be applied in that a measure will be applied in trying to restore the norms or rules or policies as defined by institutions. Concisely, the “There we go again becomes ‘This is how these things are done’” (59). In this way, normalcy or adherence to rules or norms is restored, and the institutionalization is passed (transmitted) in the future and down the generations (Ouellette and Wood 54). There are disagreeing assertions in the two literatures. While at one point they both agreed on institutionalization of organizational behavior as a means of legitimating, Meyer and Rowan later portray it as a limiting factor. They state that that in an institutionalized organization, evaluation is always accompanied by illegitimacy (359). This illegitimacy, they claim, is caused by inspection and evaluation. During these operations on organizational behavior, as per their understanding, members of an institution may feel violated since they assume that their organizations trust that they are competent. As such, when they are being evaluated, they tend to lose their confidence and morale. This as it appears is a downside of organizational behavior. This statement contrasts with Berger and Luckmann’s in that as per their definition of organizational behavior, it is meant to provide a means of justifying and explaining an organization. The point of conflict is that in their definition, they point at institutionalization as being aimed at establishing, maintaining, and improving an organization. They do not at any point perceive of institutionalization as a limiting factor to an organization. Pervasively, the reduction of morale and confidence as highlighted by Meyer and Rowan does not apply in this case. Following these two contrasting assertions, a conflict of opinion about what institutionalizing organizational behavior is evident. This does not however change the meaning of institutionalized organizational behavior as both had earlier offered. Rather, what changes is what they highlight as its implications on an organization’s behavior. Conclusion According to the above discussion, the term “institution” does not have a definite way of explaining it. However, the closest and most embraced definition terms it as a form of structure that informs human interaction. These interactions are guided by rules set by social groups. In an organization, institutionalization of behavior can have diverse meanings. In this study created by contrasting two literatures, several meanings are highlighted; first, institutionalization of behavior can mean that in an organization, the behavior within it is defined by policies, rules or norms. Again, it means that the behavior within an organization is bound to be similar for every involved individual. Additionally, institutionalization of behavior can mean that different organizations will behave differently depending on their type. Last but not least, institutionalization of organizational behavior means that breaching the set rules or norms will be identified. In being identified, corrective measures can be applied to avoid negative consequences. All in all, the discussed meanings of behavior in organizations as being institutionalized all point at the overall definition that an institution is a roadmap that guides human interactions. Works Cited Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor, 1967. Print. Hodgson, Geoffrey. “What Are Institutions?” Journal of Economic Issues 30.1 (2006): 1–25. Print. Meyer, John, and Brian Rowan. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure As Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83.2 (1977): 340–363. Print. Nelson, Richard, and Sampat Bhaven. “Making Sense of Instituions As a Factor Shaping Economic Perfomance.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizational 44.1 (2001): 31–54. Print. Quellette, Judith, and Wendy Wood. “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processses By Which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (1998): 54–74. Print. Searle, John. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane, 1995. Print. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in the Evolution of Institutions. New York: Macmillan, 1899, Print. Read More