Structure and Behavior, Research Paper Example

Structure and behavior are important elements in organizations. Most theorists tend to relate the two and the way they merge in an organization in order to perfect a smooth learning and attain the goals of an organization. While structure is the hierarchical setting of an organization and the management of respective areas in that organization, behavior is more of an individualistic element in handling issues within the organization. The two are separate dimensions when it comes to running of the organizations. This paper looks into some of the theories and theorists looking back into how these two dimensions relate to an organization and its success (Robbins, 2007).

Structure and behavior are very important in an organization when it comes to decision making. However, they apply differently in the context of the organization setting. Simon, a theorist majoring in organization’s systems relates structure to goals, but also argues that it has something to do with behavior in an organization. He argues that rationality specifically resides in the rules, structure, standardization, but rationality is bounded or imperfect, therefore the aspect of the organization’s structure is not singly the important consideration in running an organization, there is more that still serves as important (Robbins, 2007). Decision making process is also quite important because without proper control, decisions making is limited of human cognition and knowledge. Humans in reality have to depend entirely on methodology more and their efforts in making decisions tend to be empirically based to improve their respective imperfect rationality. Bounded rationality is a limit to human abilities to maximize on the goal attainment. Therefore, an empirical understanding and study of human behavior is important to derive the decision-making context that is always a subject of rationality (Carl, 1990).

The success of an organization clearly demarcates the difference between structure and behavior in the same context. Selznick, another neoclassical theorist, argues that what classical theorists view as the success of an organization is not because there is a formal structure so central to positivist thinking in human that can never overcome the non-rational dimensions within an organizations. In this context, he was differentiating the structure of an organization and the behavior. His argument is not that humans are irrational, but he tries to justify that there is another side of organizations that exists than what the former classical theorists referred to as organizational rationality or alternatively, the structure of an organization. The reality in his argument shows that behavior is more of the organizations success than the structure itself. The organizations encompass rational actions as well as systems more, governing its running and providing success (Blau, 1971). The rational systems are ideally the social structure that encompasses adaptive-ness, cooperativeness, and a controlling phenomenon, all encompassed in human behavior. The view is positive of human behavior better placed than the structure arguing that humans develop a functional view. The organizations assign people responsibilities in all parts of the system and therefore expect delivery as per the script of that specific organization. Structure as the formal aspects delivering control to the system cannot prevent deviations happening in various sectors, it is all about human behavior. He advices that, organizations should not concentrate on building the structure alone in the operation systems, they also should take note of individuals who are part of the organizations and are influenced by their needs that are totally independent of the organization and should be granted.

Structure is about the way an organization plans to pursue its goals and make it vibrant and better in service while behavior is more of the human tendency to pursue his own goals even when working in the organization. Cyert & Marchargument supports the rational aspects (Blau, 1971). In their view, theories of organization deal with two broad organizations aspects of rationality of choice in organizations and behavioral aspects that relate to the decisions making, not the way classical theorists dictate it to happen. They argue that in any structure of an organization, individuals hold specific behaviors and therefore develop preferences and might make coalitions even within an organization’s structure just to enhance their satisfaction. The whole concept is to make relevant that even when a structure is set to meet organization’s goals, behavior is specific to deriving the goals of the individuals working in that organization (James, 1958).

Structuralism is an approach redefining the two dimensions including behavior and structure in organizations. Burns & Salker’s are theorists who support structuralisms. They introduced the idea that two forms of systems in organizations exist namely, Mechanistic & Organic. The mechanistic system is a resemblance of the organizational system just like the argument by rational theorists. Their ideas are drawn from Max Weber, regarding mechanistic organizations (Carl, 1990). They argued that a mechanistic organizational is more of consistent with the organization’s needs in a stable environment. Such a stable environment enables an organization to structure or control all the tasks, using same methods like the classical theorists argument. Their argument is that organizations of such a kind have hierarchical structures with a concentration of knowledge at the top of the organization. The structure reinforcement is defined precisely by, functions, obligations and rights. According to their argument, mechanistic organizations rely on the formalities to enable control of obedience, loyalty, and behavior. In this case, behavior is just a part of the structure in an organization and not a single entity (James, 1958).

The organic category of organizations includes the organizations that deal specifically with dynamic environments. These environments present actually unforeseen problems that require adjustments constantly. The organization structure therefore cannot be rigid and a division into fixed functions is not applicable like the case of mechanistic organizations. These types of organizations must continually be able to redefine themselves, their tasks to adjust perfectly to the environmental challenges. This redefinition involves taking into account dynamic human interaction (Robbins, 2007). Behavior in this case applies directly to the organizations, clearly defining it as a success tool than the structural approach does. Communication and networking are therefore critical in this argument. The organizations have to develop ways of controlling and structuring communication and networking, to avoid the concentration of knowledge at the top. Instead, there should be a flow of communication in all directions. The contribution of these two theorists enhances the view of what role the humans take in organizations. The concept defines structure as requiring defined behavior to attain a dynamic environment (Carl, 1990).

Structure is the formal dimension of the organization while behavior takes the informal dimension of the organization. Structure is relative to the organization’s take and the operations of an organization but behavior takes a personal approach of the individuals regard to each other within an organization. These two dimensions cannot merge into one. They should be individually handled. Blau & Scott contribute to structural theory by defining social interactions within an organization. They reveal organizations as social entities identifying two aspects of organizations including organizations as structure of social relations and organizations as holding shared beliefs that guide people’s conduct. They highlight social relationships in organizations and its nature. Their emphasis is that social relations use patterned social interactions involving the way people regard each other. Therefore, the conclusion is that structure or the formal part of the organization is not the only part of the organization. There is also an informal part within each organization (Daniel, 1966).

In organizations, different social relations patterns develop within different sets of status of individuals. The same patterns determine the social group’s structure within organizations. They dictate the way individuals relate to each other, and highlight their objectives and roles of the people in the groups. The argument behind these theorists is that one cannot understand the formal part of the organization and assume that the informal part is within the same context. Many schools of thought highlight the significance of coordinating organization’s behavior and the structure in organizations as the best means of attaining rationality within organizations and leading to achievement of its goals. The idea is to have both dimensions taken into account without a compromise of any of them so that there is a development of understanding and smooth running of the organization (Blau, 1971). Any assumption of a single dimension throws the goal setting of an organization in jeopardy and leads to failure in its operations. These two dimensions of organizations vary and the understanding should separate the two. Generally, behavior and structure commonly termed as informal and formal parts respectively have varying roles in any organization. While the organization’s struggles to meet its goals, there should be a clear line between the two dimensions for a comprehensive handling and care of both dimensions to overcome challenges of an organization and enhance its success (Daniel, 1966).

References

Blau, P. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books.

Carl, R. & Fritz, J. (1990). Barriers and gateways to communication. Boston, Mass.

Daniel, K. & Robert, L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:       Wiley.

James, G. and Herbert, A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Robbins, S. (2007). Organizational Behavior. London: Pearson Education, 551-557.