Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Formal organizations differ from generic forms of social organizations—e.g., groups, communities, societies—in that they are consciously designed social systems. Formal organizations are collectivities with highly formalized social structures. Formalization refers to the extent to which roles and relations are prescribed independently of the personal attributes and relations of specific participants. Formalization renders behavior more predictable by standardizing and regulating it. It allows for the design of social structure, treating it as an object to be manipulated—designed and redesigned. In contrast to informal organizations, such as neighborhood or friendship groups, formal organizations stress positions over persons and roles over personalities. Formal organizations also exhibit relatively high goal specificity. More so than most collectivities, they attempt to orient the design of their structures and the activities of their participants around a set of explicit, specialized objectives.

To focus on formal organizations is to emphasize the emergence, during the Enlightenment period, of social forms designed to achieve limited goals. Unlike kinship or diffuse patrimonial systems, these organizations were consciously established to achieve specified objectives. Gradually, over long periods of time, collective actors (organizations) were differentiated from individual actors (persons). Whereas earlier social forms, such as manors and guilds, wholly contained their members and possessed full authority over them, the new forms, such as city-states (and, subsequently, nation-states) and private companies distinguished between the rights of individuals and those of collective actors. The processes involved in bringing about these distinctive forms were not only technological progress and increasing economic interdependence, but also institutional work, including the construction of new categories of actors, rules, and social relationships. These developments were codified into political constitutions and legal statues: recognition during the late 17th and early 18th century of the rights of citizens separate from those of nation-states and, during the mid-1900s, creation of the limited liability corporation, in which the corporation was treated as a legal person and the liabilities of individual members were limited to their individual investments.

For many centuries, organizations were scarce, reserved primarily for military operations and major construction projects. Today, organizations are ubiquitous, employed in multiple private and public sectors, coordinating the production and supply of an astonishing array of specialized goods and services. One of the primary hallmarks of a “developed” or “modern” society is the size and variety of its organizational infrastructure.

Conceptual Overview

The importance of both public and private organizations was becoming apparent to scholars during the 19th century, as evidenced by the attention paid to public administrative forms (“bureaucracies”) by scholars such as Max Weber and Robert Michels, and to industrial forms by Karl Marx, among others. In addition to these historical-descriptive accounts, early empirical work was pioneered principally by industrial engineers, such as Frederick W. Taylor.

Rational and Natural System Models

During the first half of the 20th century, two contrasting views of organizations emerged, which are still discernable in contemporary scholarship. Stemming primarily from studies by engineers and early administrative theorists, a rational system perspective developed that treated organizations as instrumental tools for accomplishing goals. Organizations were regarded as distinctive types of social structures that (1) pursue relatively specific goals; and (2) are characterized by relatively formalized structures. Goal specificity is important because the more specific the goal, the more clear are the criteria available for deciding how to organize, addressing issues such as who to recruit, how to allocate tasks among participants, how to design control and incentive systems, and how to coordinate activities to achieve objectives. As noted, formalization serves to objectify the structure, rendering it more independent of individual differences and more readily altered to fit changing circumstances. The presumption is that formal organizations are better suited to ensure both effectiveness and efficiency.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading