ORGANIZATION
An organization (or organisation –
see spelling differences) is a social entity that has a collective goal and is linked
to an external environment. The word is derived from the Greek word organon,
itself derived from the better-known word ergon which means
"organ" – a compartment for a particular task.
There are a variety of legal types of organizations,
including corporations, governments,non-governmental organizations, international organizations, armed forces, charities, not-for-profit corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, and universities. A hybrid organizationis a body that operates in both the public sector and the private sector simultaneously,
fulfilling public duties and developing commercial market activities.
In the social sciences, organizations are the object of analysis
for a number of disciplines, such as sociology, economics,[1] political science, psychology,management, and organizational communication. The broader analysis of organizations is
commonly referred to as organizational structure, organizational studies,organizational behavior, or organization analysis. A number of
different perspectives exist, some of which are compatible:
·
From a process-related perspective, an organization is viewed as
an entity is being (re-)organized, and the focus is on the organization as a
set of tasks or actions.
·
From a functional perspective, the focus is on how entities like
businesses or state authorities are used.
·
From an institutional perspective, an organization is viewed as a
purposeful structure within a social context.
Sociology can be defined as the science of the institutions of modernity; specific
institutions serve a function, akin to the individual organs of a coherent
body. In the social and political sciences in general, an "organization"
may be more loosely understood as the planned, coordinated and purposeful
action of human beings working through collective action to reach a common goal
or construct a tangible product. This action is usually framed by formal membership and form
(institutional rules). Sociology distinguishes the term organization into
planned formal and unplanned informal (i.e. spontaneously formed)
organizations. Sociology analyzes organizations in the first line from an
institutional perspective. In this sense, organization is a permanent
arrangement of elements. These elements and their actions are determined by
rules so that a certain task can be fulfilled through a system of
coordinated division of labor.
Economic approaches to organizations also take the division of labor as a starting
point. The division of labor allows for (economies of)specialization. Increasing specialization necessitates
coordination. From an economic point of view, markets and organizations are
alternative coordination mechanisms for the execution of transactions.[1]
An organization is defined by the elements that are part of it
(who belongs to the organization and who does not?), its communication(which elements
communicate and how do they communicate?), its autonomy (which changes are
executed autonomously by the organization or its elements?), and its rules of
action compared to outside events (what causes an organization to act as a collective
actor?).
By coordinated and planned cooperation of the elements, the
organization is able to solve tasks that lie beyond the abilities of the single
elements. The price paid by the elements is the limitation of the degrees of freedom of the elements.
Advantages of organizations are enhancement (more of the same), addition
(combination of different features) and extension. Disadvantages can be
inertness (through co-ordination) and loss of interaction.
Organizational
structures
The study of organizations includes a focus on optimizing organizational structure. According to management science, most humanorganizations fall roughly into four types:
A hierarchy exemplifies an arrangement with a leader who leads other
individual members of the organization. This arrangement is often associated
with bureaucracy.
These structures are formed on the basis that there are enough
people under the leader to give him support. Just as one would imagine a real
pyramid, if there are not enough stone blocks to hold up the higher ones,
gravity would irrevocably bring down the monumental structure. So one can imagine
that if the leader does not have the support of his subordinates, the entire
structure will collapse. Hierarchies were satirized in The Peter Principle (1969), a book
that introduced hierarchiology and the saying that "in a
hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."
Committees or juries
These consist of a group of peers who decide as a group, perhaps
by voting. The difference between a jury and a committee is that the
members of the committee are usually assigned to perform or lead further
actions after the group comes to a decision, whereas members of a jury come to
a decision. In common
law countries, legal
juries render decisions of guilt, liability and quantify damages; juries are
also used in athletic contests, book awards and similar activities. Sometimes a
selection committee functions like a jury. In the Middle Ages, juries in
continental Europe were used to determine the law according to consensus
amongst local notables.
Committees are often the most reliable way to make
decisions. Condorcet's jury theorem proved that if the average member votes
better than a roll of dice, then adding more members increases the number of
majorities that can come to a correct vote (however correctness is defined).
The problem is that if the average member is subsequently worse than
a roll of dice, the committee's decisions grow worse, not better: Staffing is
crucial.
Parliamentary procedure, such
as Robert's Rules of Order, helps prevent committees from engaging in
lengthy discussions without reaching decisions.
Matrix organization
This organizational type assigns each worker two bosses in two
different hierarchies. One hierarchy is "functional" and assures that
each type of expert in the organization is well-trained, and measured by a boss
who is super-expert in the same field. The other direction is
"executive" and tries to get projects completed using the experts.
Projects might be organized by products, regions, customer types, or some other
schema.
As an example, a company might have an individual with overall
responsibility for Products X and Y, and another individual with overall
responsibility for Engineering, Quality Control etc. Therefore, subordinates
responsible for quality control of project X will have two reporting lines.
Ecologies
This organization has intense competition. Bad parts of the
organization starve. Good ones get more work. Everybody is paid for what they
actually do, and runs a tiny business that has to show a profit, or they are fired.
Companies who utilize this organization type reflect a rather
one-sided view of what goes on in ecology. It is also the case
that a naturalecosystem has a natural
border - ecoregions do not in general
compete with one another in any way, but are very autonomous.
The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline talks about
functioning as this type of organization in this external article from The Guardian. By:Bastian Batac De
Leon
Organization theories
Among the theories that are or have been most influential are:
·
Enterprise architecture, is the conceptual model that defines the
coalescence of organizational structure and organizational behavior.
·
Weberian organization theory (refer to Max Weber's chapter on Bureaucracy in his book 'Economy and Society')
Leadership in
organizations
A leader in a formal,
hierarchical organization, who is appointed to a managerial position, has the
right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his
position. However, he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his
authority, because authority is only potentially available to him. In the
absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an
emergent leader who can challenge his role in the organization and reduce it to
that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of
formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power
can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with
commensurate authority.[2]
Leadership in formal
organizations
An organization that is established as a means for achieving
defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided
and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments,
sections, positions,jobs, and tasks make up this
work structure. Thus, the formal
organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with
clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and
subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a
salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary
influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the
hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may
arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the
organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the
appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the
organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.[3]
Leadership in informal
organizations
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative
unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organizationthat underlies the formal structure. The
informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and
goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The
informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that
generally characterize human life – the spontaneous emergence of groups
and organizations as ends in themselves.[3]
In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal
security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion
of his waking hours working for organizations. His need to identify with a
community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging
continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal
organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.[2]
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal
organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a
combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their
leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority
of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields
influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain cooperation
from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger
form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action
through the control of a means of punishment.[2]
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar