University of phoenix
Evolution of Formal
Organizations
Week Four Assignment
Sociology 120
Professor Lee Daffin
Mechelle Davidson
11/27/2011

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
Change is a phenomenon of time, involving identity between culture and traditional
process acceptance (Hewitt, 1995). Organizational change also involves identity and process
shaped over time (Ogbonna & Harris, 2003). Evolution seen in business is the transition from
one stage to another along the continuum of passing time while human enterprise conceived in
an evolutionary process to gain economic independence and pursuit of personal rights. These
stage-based processes of human evolution in enterprise take place in a logical order within
history providing phases of the principles influencing organizational change.
Scientists attempt to predict or explain change, some analysis focus on understanding
institutional influences, business strategies, or organizational changes from that of traditional
perspectives. While others still attempt to bring about new insights by analyzing critical or non-
traditional viewpoints (Chiaburn, 2006).
Each of the fore mentioned emerge as phases in the history of business brought with, it
challenges in its proposal, practice, and implementation. This occurrence is as prevalent today
in the disintegration of bureaucracies bringing about the corresponding emergence of
widespread innovation in new organizational practices, according to the article in The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis on “The Relationship between Traditional and
New Organizational Practices (Palmer & Dunford, 2002).
With Traditional organizational structures, such as Feudalism or Bureaucracy there is
organizational traits one can associate unequivocally with such as hierarchy and rigidity. These
traditional organization traits is considered by some as a top-to-bottom system, where rules and
regulations made in the top-tiers’ guide those of every other person within the organization
down the line or chain of command. With traditionally organizational structures, there is a

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
distinctiveness placing emphasize size, clear role division, formalizations, and associated
specializations (Ogbonna & Harris, 2003).
Scientific Managements application with its principles in the operation of business or
other large organization involves three step phases. The first step phase is to observe job
performance by workers, identify all operations involved, and measure the time needed for
completion. The second step-phase analyzes the data, and determines ways in which to
improve performance and efficiency of workers. The final step-phase is in allowing managers to
provide the needed guidance along with incentives that help to build on their efficiency.
Within the early to-mid 1900, many companies followed leading organizations toward a
dramatic improvement toward efficiency within the establishment. The challenges however,
facing this era, consisted of organizational hiring practices involving now protected classes like
race, and gender, while also bringing about abroad competitions and changes in the nature of
work done, providing the stage for dynamic environmental change occurring inside
organizations.
Organizations responding to any new environmental condition will increases possible
new forms in organizational practices, with a systematically structured response to place,
emphasize speed, flexibility, innovation, and boundless integration in managing a collective goal
while empowering groups collaboration toward its flexibility (Palmer & Dunford, 2002). The
underlying theory largely based on privatization, hopes to lead to efficient markets, and in turn
generate appropriate governance mechanisms, liberating markets between evolutionary and
revolutionary development models of organizational change.
Organizational forms exist within institutional environments; humanely devised they
place constraints on human and organizational interactions. Either formal (laws, rules) or
informal (norms, conventions, codes), specific characteristics are present for enforcement,

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
labels applied to describe practices characterizing these institutional system form. The
inconsistency written on the emergence of these newest forms are important in transition,
unfortunately legitimate actions not explicit with institutional or organizational objectives
informally might conceptualize multiple possibilities in institutions-organization evolutionary
position. Institutional domain value identifies evidence that organizations were slow to change
and the government protected selected state-owned enterprises, especially early in transition
(Chiaburn, 2006). Policy-in-practice encourage change varying from formal policies structures
created to privatizing state enterprises, like State Ownership Funds, a continuation of current
bureaucracy needing change.. This superior new organizational practice by organizations
operating within a dynamic environment is radically restructuring the traditional relationship seen
in organizational business.
New organizational forms exhibit eight patterns characterized as, “Governing
mechanisms and technical assistance,” according to (Palmer & Dunford, 2002, p. 210),
”collaborative networking/alliances, outsourcing of non-core activities, and disaggregation of
business units, delayering, reduced internal and external organizational boundaries, flexible
work groups, empowerment, and short-term staffing.”
Extensive studies from European-wide institutions found changes in structures,
processes, and boundaries providing a clearer view toward a cultural-cognitive normative, a
more fluid structure, decreased institutional environment, and outsourcing following vertical
integration and diversification strategies of previous networks (Palmer & Dunford, 2002). Well-
connected entrepreneurs of institutions network and emerge to compete, negotiate, set, and
ignore regulatory rules organizations might require in further apparition of institutional
entrepreneurs. The existence of weak preexisting networks coupled with industrial coalitions
might lead to redistribution of assets through privatization masses. “Organizations history is
crucial in understanding its subsequent behaviors,” according to (Chiaburn, 2006), “... a small

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
pool of people who are, simultaneously, businessmen, bureaucrats, members of parliament,
and representatives of the press are active in policy, government, the economy, and the
international arena, These powerful groups have every opportunity to pursue their private
agenda and undercut legitimate state institutions and governance, especially where the rule of
law is weakly developed,” (Chiaburn, 2006, p. 742).
Rapidly changing competitive environment, cost effectiveness, and consistently high
output quality are not enough to ensure a company’s business success. “ Companies must
provide more responsive and flexibility than those of competitors, to provide innovative ways
that continuously provide technology to support motivated, adaptable work groups dedicated to
meeting or exceeding customers requirements in the shortest possible time” (Hewitt, 1995, p.
18).
Quality improvement and heightened customer awareness today is well-established
imperatives of strategic differentiators in leading corporations. The development of
manufacturing/delivery processes are “The future emerging theories of manufacturing,”
according to (Hewitt, 1995, p. 19) the implications produce traditionally viewed organizations as
exceptionally flexible with demand-driven supply chains constructing a continuum of suppliers
from company to customers. Providing consistent, high quality, low cost goods and services
while instantaneously are providing individual customer service to customers needs transcend
traditional responses to these increasing challenges. Through increasing variety and flexibility
by way of “systematizing” (Hewitt, 1995, p. 19), the operational processes is explicative of
existing process within companies. However, increased flexibility acquired through this
simplification of alternative approaches, does not increases flexibility. With Xerox providing
some early insights into mid-1990 is the potential in cycle-time reduction with information
technology (IT) and Business Processes Reduction (BPR) focus, undoubtedly represents a
successful fight against the intense competition (Hewitt, 1995).

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
One formable competitor from traditional markets developed a dynamic business
environment implementing a completely new way of working to deploy leading-edge employee
involvement practices across all company sectors; this pioneered benchmarking unionized the
workforce increasing important addition of employee satisfaction and motivation, enough to
ensure survival into the 1990. This assumption of involvement practices, would indicate that
initiatives into widely acclaimed leadership through quality programmers is important additions
to specific technical training provided in reaching a cross-functional review to simplify
management together with designs of flexibility (Hewitt, 1995).
While there is a differing majority view in the compatibility of new organizations and
those of traditional organizations, (Palmer & Dunford, 2002) implying compatibility is plausible
and such practices increases the empowerment and teamwork represent in developing
traditional organizations collaborative practices.
These examples represent a hierarchy complementary to teamwork and vital to the
importance of achieving competitive advantages in any dynamic environment of organizational
structure and practices (Palmer & Dunford, 2002). With any conjecture, one can argue that the
creation of organizational collaboration does not mean dispensing with hierarchy, for hierarchy
is inevitable, and required in keeping balance, control, and compatibility of dualistic
organizations.
In response to a more dynamic environment, a greater use of formalization in
organizational practice would limit the responsiveness for any changing business. Formalized
rules and procedures is important in the establishment of innovative behaviors, supporting
positive relationships between innovation and formalization will facilitate large-scale
coordination, freeing-up individual concentration of routine job aspects.

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
Six themes of dynamic business environment referenced to in new organizational forms;
as intensified competition, short product life cycles, a high degree of technological change,
market turbulence, an increased expectation of corporate responsibility, and customization of
products (Palmer & Dunford, 2002). Unquestionably, these new forms of organizational
processes will lay the groundwork for radically improving the way in which business occurs,
redesigning the architecture of business processes, emphasizing cross-management of
functions and processes.
While economies in institutions shapes organizations forms and routines, organizational
change depends on the adoption of new practices. With new practices adoption,
implementation, and internalization is dependent on organizations engaging these practices
within business to ensure their sustainability as initially planned. Those organizations engaging
in alternative style to preserve diversity of ideas otherwise ignored need provide knowledge
related organizational change for institutional transformation to occur. Organizations
institutional structures are indicative of active influences toward their environments. Terms
coined of “restructuring networks,” (Ogbonna & Harris, 2003), “re-engineering processes,”
(Hewitt, 1995), and “cross-functional opportunities,” (Liu, Calton, & Duncan, 2004) improve the
company’s return and formally assumes add responsibility of business sponsorship with
inventory management and logistics of business architectures’ worldwide provide the alternative
concepts needed between institutions and organizations.
With hyper-turbulent environments requiring more flexibility in design, conceptualized
measurement design analysis and report does not disentangle all influences within markets and
institutions, or the economic and social interventions demonstrated throughout. Transitive
organizations are composed of people. Many subjected to policies with consequences, factors
not adaptive to fostering a change in the evolutionary form of theories, reality, and purpose.

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
Actionable in the alternative to traditional formal organizations structures evolution in
business while evolving throughout history transforms human enterprise in its industrialist
search for economic independence and pursuit of personal rights while transforming human
entrepreneurships evolution in business.
References
Chiaburn,D.S. (2006). ManagingOrganizational Change inTransitioneconomies. Journalof
OrganizationalChangeManagement,738-746.
Hewitt,F.(1995). BusinessProcessinnovationinthe mid-1990's. Journalof Manufacturing Technology
Management,18-27.
Liu,L., Calton,P.,& Duncan, D. R. (2004). A systematicapproachto flexible specification,composition,
and restructuringof workflowactivities. Journalof DatabaseManagement,1-40.
Macionis,J.J. (2006). Society:The basics(8th ed.). UpperSaddle River,NJ:PearsonPrentice Hall.
Ogbonna,E.,& Harris,L. C. (2003). Innovative Organizational StructuresandPerformances:Case study
of structual transformationto"groovycommunitycenters". Journalof OrganizationalChange
Management,512-533.
Palmer,I.,& Dunford,R.(2002). Organizational PracticesReferencesOutwiththe oldandin withthe
new?the relationshipbetweentraditional andnew organizational practices. International
Journalof OrganizationalAnalysis,209-225.

Evolution of Formal Organizations
November 27, 2011
Rainer,R.J. (2009). Introduction to Information Systems:Supporting and Transforming Business(2nd
Ed.). Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.