Please help me so I can complete the following:
Review the following scenario: You work for a formal organization in the United States that has an open, flexible organizational structure as described in Figure 5-5 on p. 126 in the text. You have a relative, Micah, who works for a formal organization with a
conventional, bureaucratic organizational structure. Micah is interested in working for your organization, but he does not have the education or skill set to work there. He says he wishes that his company would adopt a flexible organizational structure but doubts it is possible. You explain to Micah that you have been studying the evolution of formal organizations in your Sociology class and that you would like to conduct some research to determine how formal organizations, such as the one Micah works for, are likely to
evolve in the future.
? Write a 1,050- to 1,750-word paper summarizing your research results and cite 3 to 5
sources from the Online Library.
? Address the following areas in your paper:
SOC/120 Introduction to Sociology
Course Syllabus Page 18
o Explain how formal organizations have evolved over the past century. What differences were there in organizations a century ago, compared to today's organizations? What are the current trends in formal organizations?
o Review the characteristics in the Summing Up table on p. 121 in the text, and describe how each of the characteristics for formal organizations will need to evolve or change in Micah's organization to become more open and flexible. For
example, how will activities or relationships need to change?
o Locate 3 to 5 articles or case studies in the Online Library that discuss future
trends in formal organizations and predict whether these trends are likely to take
place in the future. Explain your reasoning for each of the predictions.
o Make an overall prediction based on your research results: how are formal
organizations, such as Micah's, likely to evolve in the future?
? Format the paper according to APA style, and submit it as an attachment.
An Insight on Conventional Bureaucracy and Open Organizations
The research you are asked to do in this particular essay revolves around the social dynamics of a formal organization. Formal organizations as we have discussed on your earlier post follow an organizational & power hierarchy based on competence and responsibility. Organizational structures are the basis of today's civilized world. We could even venture out in fact that without an organized system, the world as we know it (how it works, how responsibility flows in civil and social systems) will fall apart. Organizations exist to perform tasks, to provide services, to achieve goals ---- they are necessary in the development and maintenance of social systems we live in: our communities, nations, societies, towns, cities, villages. A bureaucratic organizational structure is usually that which is followed within government agencies & organizations. The FBI, the CIA, the Congress, the Department of Health, etc. Organizations in systems like this exist to support the community and the nation to keep it running, provide the citizenry with goods and services necessary for living the lives they do. These organizations overlap at times or are centered around each other. Think of the Central Government as a circle and supporting organizations are smaller circles around it that in turn are surrounded by other organizations. To run a behemoth system like this --- Rules and regulations are imposed to the letter. Sure, primary relationships are harnessed within between members of the organization. However, to remain in one's job as a judge, a lawyer, a doctor, a congressman, a governor --- you will have to perform according to what is expected of you. Reward for the services exchanged come in wages just like any employment-based institutions but with this comes accountability. The President for instance is accountable to all, so is the traffic police officer. Without strict bureaucratic systems where work and responsibilities are clearly defined, managing a country would be impossible.
Why is this the case however? How come it is always the conventional system that is being followed in the government or any goal-oriented behemoth systems? The answer is simply because this system is proven throughout history as something that really works. When we look back to the time of Ancient Rome and Greece, creating empires mean coming up with a system of dividing responsibilities and achieving goals through a power structure. Leadership has become more than just a choice, it is a must and good leaders become Emperors, most of them military generals who used the organizational system of the Roman Army and adapted it to power sharing in the Senate as well as using it to govern far flung provinces from Britannia to Egypt. Bureaucratic Organizational structures exploit skills and speciality, maximizing the capacity of an individual by placing him where he is needed with everybody being accountable to somebody else and ultimately to the people they serve. In the corporate world, banks and financial services systems adopt a bureaucratic structure so do behemoth multinational companies like PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Unilever. Imagine running a company like Pepsi with offices in every corner of the globe whose products can be found in the Himalayas and the Saharan Oases --- a structure where all employees know their roles and exactly what to do must be in place or it is impossibility. The Pepsi bottlers in Cambodia speak Khmer , their Chinese counterpart Mandarin (and so it goes for all of Pepsi's representative businesses worldwide) whereas the mother company in the US speaks English as corporate language (formal) yet they deliver the same product that just about anyone in the world who has a dollar can drink.
Now, let's talk about Google. Google by Page and Brin started out as postgraduate project between these two. They were not only research partners, they were also friends. Their idea to create an efficient search engine that crawls through the web faster than anything that came before it is phenomenal and attracted the attention of investment companies who knew that given the chance, Google will work and is bound to be a good investment. To investors and clients Page, Brin and the nucleus of 'Google founders' they started out with would communicate in a formal manner, such is the language of business. Signing documents, agreements, financial arrangements mean following that system. However, when discussing among themselves, although the shared responsibility is their, the Google nucleus tend to have a flexible and open system --- meaning that although they have set rules in place (one of them being that only brilliant minds get to work with Google) the work teams around them are a beehive of activity and at times almost autonomous to each other reporting straight to Senior managers and at times even to Page and Brin. Google's main HQ Google campus has that small company feel, where employees address each other as "Hey, " or "Dude," and everyone feels like a contributor. ...
The solution provides a historic analysis of the evolution of formal organizations. Drawing from history, the solution traces the factors that brought about the formation of formal organizations. It also provides an analysis of the current trends as well as goes into detail in discussing the similarities & differences of Open Bureaucracies & Conventional Organizations by providing a case study.