Institutionalized organizations formal structure as myth and ceremony

Structure

http://plone.ufpb.br/gets/contents/documentos/meyer_rowan_teoria_institucional.pdf

http://filer.sustrans.dk/28/9.%20Geels%20-%20Sociotechnical%20systems,%20RP.pdf

attachment is plagiarism report from the first summary.

Institutionalized organization 4

INSTITUTIONALIZED ORGANIZATION: FORMAL STRUCTURE AS MYTHS AND CEREMONY

by (Name)

The Name of the Class (Course)

Professor (Tutor)

The Name of the School (University)

The City and State where it is located

The Date

Article Summary

Formal structure of most institutionalized organizations arise as myths and as reflections of rationalized rules of specific institutions. Elaboration of these rules in modern states and societies are accountable for the expansion and increment of complexity of the structures of formal organizations. The rules of different institutions normally function as myths, incorporated by organizations for the purpose of gaining legitimacy, resources, stability as well as enhancement of survival prospects. Organizations whose structures are isomorphic with myths of institutional environment, in contrast to those primarily structures by the demand of technical production and exchange, decrease internal coordination and control for the purpose of maintaining legitimacy. Structures may be decoupled from each other and ongoing activities. Instead of coordination, inspection and evaluation, a logic of good faith and confidence is normally employed. This summary is a clear analysis of three aspects, that is, the prevailing theories of origin of formal structures and problems these theories confront, alternative sources of formal structures and arguments that reflect the institutionalized environment maintaining gaps to their formal structures and their ongoing activities(Meyer $ Rowan,1977, p.343).

In the formal structure of many organizations in postindustrial society, it involves the reflection of myths in the institutional environment rather than the demands of their work activities. The prevailing theories of formal structure involves the distinction of formal structure involves distinction of formal structures of an organization and its routine activities. Formal structure can be said to be the blueprint of activities, which include table of organization, that is, listing of office, positions, departments and program activities, linked with goals and policies comprise the rational theory of how and to what end the activities can be fixed together ( Shafritz ,Jang & Ott, 2013,p.374). Importance of modern bureaucratic organization is rationalization and impersonal character of the elements of the structure and goals linked to them.

The core problem of these theories is description of conditions giving rise to the rationalized formal structure. Theory works on assumption that rationale formal structures is assumed to be most effective way of coordinating and controlling aspects in work activities. Some issues confronted by these theories are: expansion on markets, size, division of labor and technology. The weakness of the theory is assumption coordination and control of activities are crucial for dimension that formal organization have succeeded in modern world. Based on assumption that organizations follow the blue print, though may be violated and adjusted accordingly in different scenarios. This thus calls for the explanation for the need of the rise in particular formal structure for coordinating and controlling their work, which account for elaboration of positions, policies and procedural rules, a characterization of formal organization ( Vanagas & stankevic, 2015 , p.118). Changes are due to legitimacy of organization, public view and opinions, prestige and the understanding of social reality.

Additionally, the alternative sources of formal structures can be alluded to four aspects, namely societal modernization, the complexity of networking of social organization and exchange, the prevalence of rationalized institutional elements and the presence and elaboration of formal organizational structures. The reason for the rationalization of bureaucracies are assertion of prevailing theories and modern societies filled with institutional rules functioning as myths depicting different formal structures as rational means for the attainments of desired goals. The origin of rational institution myths is associated to three aspects, the elaboration of rational complex, relational networks, the degree of collective organization of the environment and leadership efforts of the local organization(Poole,2004, p.268).

Consequently, the impact of isomorphism had crucial consequence for organizations in two distinct ways, they incorporated the elements of legitimated externally rather than in terms of efficiency. Secondly, they employ external assessment criteria for the definition of value of structural elements and thirdly, the dependence on externally fixed institutions for reduction of turbulences and maintenance of stability (Srikantia & Bilimonia, 1997, p.403). As a result, institutional isomorphism promotes success and survival of organization, incorporation of external legitimate formal structure help in increment of commitment and external assessment criteria enable organization to remain successful through social definition, hindering the organization from failure( Popadiuk, Rivera & Batagala,2014,p.469).

Rationalized formal structure arise as a result of demand of local relational network encouraging development of structures for coordinating and controlling the activities and interconnection of social relations, collective organization of society and leadership of organizational elites for the creation of higher context of institutionalization (Shafritz ,Jang & Ott, 2013,p.384).. Nevertheless, the survival of organization depends on management demand of internal and boundary-spanning relations. Different ways have been suggested for resolution of inconsistencies in organizations. The two main ones are decoupling and the logic of confidence (Stephen, 2018, p.96). The partial solution to resolving inconsistencies include the organization can neglect ceremonial requirements, organization can maintain rigid conform to institutionalized prescriptions by limiting external relations, organization acknowledgement of its structural inconsistencies with the requirements of work and the organization can promise to reform(Dacin,1997, p.50).

The survival of an organization depends on one core aspects, inclusive of elaboration of rationalized institutional myths, organizational efficiency, organizational conformity with institutional myths and legitimacy and resources(Tolbert &Zucker,1996,p.177). The survival of some organizations depend on management of demands of internal, basically dictated by ceremonial demand of institutional environment. Core causes of inconsistencies in organization can be technical activities and demand for efficiency for creation of conflicts and inconsistencies in efforts of the organization to conform to the ceremonial rules of production(Dobin,2004,p.101).

In conclusion, isomorphism with an elaborated institutional environment has three core effects namely, the decoupling of structural subunits from each other and from activity, rituals of confidence and good faith and the avoidance of inspection and effective evaluation inspection. Organizational structures are created and made more elaborate with the rise of institutionalized myths, and in highly institutionalized contexts, organizations actions should support these myths.

References

Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp.340–363.

Shafritz, J.M., Jang, Y.S. & Ott, J.S., 2016. Classics of organization theory, Boston: Cengage Learning.

Vanagas, R. & Stankevič, J., 2015. Impact of coordination for organization process. Intellectual Economics, 8(2), p.112-125

Srikantia, P. & Bilimoria, D., 1997. Isomorphism in Organization and Management Theory. Organization & Environment, 10(4), pp.384–406.

Dacin, M.T., 1997. Isomorphism In Context: The Power And Prescription Of Institutional Norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp.46–81.

Dobbin, F., 2004. The new economic sociology: a reader, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tolbert, P.S. & Zucker, L.G.,1996. The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory. Studying Organization: Theory & Method, pp.169–184.

Stephen, M.D., 2018. Legitimacy Deficits of International Organizations: design, drift, and decoupling at the UN Security Council. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31(1), pp.96–121.

Popadiuk, S., Rivera, E.R. & Bataglia, W., 2014. Heterogeneity of Isomorphic Pressures: Intertwining the Resource-Based View and the Neoinstitutional Approach. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 11(4), pp.455–475.

Poole, M.S., 2004. Handbook of organizational change and innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.