The Structure of Formal Organizations Obj Explain how

The Structure of Formal Organizations Obj: Explain how bureaucracies are structured; evaluate the effectiveness of bureaucracies.

Sociologists use the term formal organization to describe a large, complex secondary group that has been established to achieve specific goals. Formal organizations include a variety of groups such as schools, businesses, government agencies, religious organizations, labor unions, and professional associations.

Most formal organizations are structured in a form that is known as a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is a ranked authority structure that operates according to specific rules and procedures. Bureaucracies existed in ancient times in Egypt, China, and Rome. However, they rose to prominence during the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization was part of the process called the rationalization of society. Rationality involves subjecting every feature of human behavior to calculation, measurement, and control.

Bureaucracies were created to rationally organize groups to complete a set of goals. Today we use the word bureaucracy to refer to any organization that has many departments, or bureaus. If you have ever applied for a driver’s license or been admitted to a large hospital, you have dealt with a bureaucracy.

Weber’s Model of Bureaucracies The German sociologist Max Weber developed a theoretical model of bureaucracies that is still widely used by sociologists today. According to Weber’s model, bureaucracies have the following characteristics: • Division of labor Work is divided among specialists in various positions. Each specialist is expected to perform specific duties.

• Ranking of authority There are clear-cut lines of responsibility, and each individual is responsible to a supervisor at a higher level. • Employment based on formal qualifications Specific qualifications are required for each job, and individuals are hired on the basis of tests, education, or previous experience. Also, in a bureaucracy, the job - not the job-holder is important. Therefore, everyone is replaceable.

• Rules and regulations There are objective rules, regulations, and routine procedures that identify the exact responsibilities and authority of each person on the staff. • Specific lines of promotion and advancement It is assumed that employees expect a career with the organization. Thus, there are clear-cut lines of premonition and advancement. Among the rewards for remaining with the organization are job security and seniority.

Remember that Weber’s model of bureaucracy is an ideal type. In other words, it describes the essential characteristics of bureaucracies. The structures of formal organizations conform to the model to varying degrees. Many governmental agencies and large business corporations fit these characteristics very rigidly. Other organizations – such as voluntary associations – may be much less bureaucratic.

A voluntary association is typically a nonprofit organization formed to pursue some common interest. As the name suggests, membership is voluntary. Many officeholders and workers are unpaid volunteers. Examples of voluntary association include amateur sports teams, professional associations, service clubs, charities, and politics interest groups.

Relationships in Formal Organizations According to Weber’s model, bureaucracies are formal impersonal structures. However, informal structures based on strong primary relationships may exist within the most rigid bureaucracies. For example, the director of sales in a large corporation may play golf every weekend with the director of purchasing. Or, they may have gone to the same college and now attend the same religious services.

The importance of primary group relationships within formal organizations was first noted in a research project at the Hawthorne, Illinois, plant of the Western Electric Company. The intended purpose of the study, conducted between 1927 and 1932, was to determine how various factors affected worker productivity. As part of the research, the sociologists studied the interaction between members of a group of employees assigned the task of wiring complex telephone circuits.

Three worker roles were involved – wirer, solderer, and inspector. The wirers connected the proper wires together. The solderers then soldered them. The inspectors examined the completed circuits to make sure they met specifications. The company paid workers according to the number of circuits, or units, they completed. Management assumed that each worker would try to complete as many units as possible in order to make more money.

However, this was not the case. An informal structure developed among the workers. Together, they decided what the norms would be for a day’s ratebusters. Those who produced more were called ratebusters. Those who produced less were called chiselers. Workers who gave any information to a supervisor were called squealers. Conformity to the norms was enforced through a system of negative sanctions, such as ridicule and exclusion. This informal structure operated independently of the formal structure of the organization and was far more important to the individual workers.

How Effective Are Bureaucracies? Some scholars have suggested that Weber’s theoretical model views bureaucracies in a positive light, as the best method of coordinating large numbers of people to achieve large-scale goals. Weber also suggested that bureaucracies create order by clearly defining job tasks and rewards. Further, they also provide stability, since individuals come and go but the organization continues. However, this view is a rather broad overstatement of the effectiveness of bureaucracies. In reality, they have several important weaknesses.

One reason why actual bureaucracies are less effective is that they lose sight of their original goals. Sometimes, bureaucracies seem to abandon their original purpose in favor of selfcontinuation. For example, certain government agencies emphasize their need to exist, regardless of whether or not they continue to provide useful services. A study of the Environmental Protection Agency provides a striking illustration of this. The study found that officials’ actions often favored survival of the agency over enforcement of environmental standards.

Sociologists have suggested that the effectiveness of bureaucracies is weakened because they tend to encourage the development of a bureaucratic personality. The formal structure of a bureaucracy requires officials to closely follow rules and regulations. However, some officials focus too intently on the rules and ignore the goals of the bureaucracy. This often leads to a related weakness-the proliferation of “red tape, ” or bureaucratic delay. Individual officials play a limited as well.

This may cause people to become entangled in red tape. Consequently, they spend hours filling out forms, standing in seemingly endless lines, or being shuffled from one department to another before they accomplish their goals. You probably know stories or have had experiences about how frustrating it can be to deal with the red tape of a government agency or large corporation.

Another weakness of bureaucracies involves their tendency to result in oligarchies. An oligarchy is a situation in which a few people rule the many. In bureaucracies, power tends to concentrate in the hands of a few people at the top. These people then use their position to promote their own interests over the interests of the organization. Sociologist Robert Michels called this tendency of organizations to become increasingly dominated by small groups of people the iron law of oligarchy.

Some critiques of bureaucratic effectiveness have made their print through humor. In his book The Peter Principle, Laurence J. Peter suggested that employees in a bureaucracy often are promoted to positions for which they may have little ability. Bureaucracies are able to function, he added, only because not all officials have been promoted to their “level of incompetence. ” another humorous criticism of bureaucracies has become known as Parkinson’s Law. C. Northcote Parkinson argued that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion. ”

For example, assume that a civil servant is overworked. The person can solve the problem in one of three ways: (1) the person can resign. (2) the person can cut the work in half by sharing it with a new colleague. (3) the person can demand the assistance of two subordinates. Parkinson’s Law says that the individual will always choose third alternative.

The first alternative is unacceptable because resigning will mean losing pension, medical, and other benefits. The second alternative is unacceptable because people who gain a new colleague then have a rival for promotion. If, however, people have two subordinates, then their job looks more important because they have control over two individuals. There must be two subordinates so that each is kept in line by fear of the other person’s promotion.

Eventually one of the subordinates will complain about being overworked. Then that subordinate will need two subordinates. Naturally, if one subordinate gets two subordinates, the other subordinate must have two subordinates. Our civil servant soon has six subordinates. This should ensure a promotion. But now our civil servant is more overworked than ever before, because all six of the subordinates are sending work to be approved. The civil servant has to work overtime to get all the work done but concludes that late hours are a penalty of success.