Organizational change is a complicated and continuous process. The success of organizational change depends on the extent to which the structure matches practices, procedures, measures, and messages. Changes in the organizational structure are probably the most visible indicators and evidence of organizational change. The purpose of this synthesis paper is to evaluate the relationship between organizational structure, leadership, and organizational change through an in-depth analysis of different sources. Structural changes shape the organization creating an environment that facilitates change. Organizations must understand the complexities surrounding structure; many organizations have similar structures because of organizational myths and external pressures that make it hard to adopt new structures.
Partlova (2017) explores the need for a flexible organizational structure in the modern economy. There are significant changes in the external environment that calls for changes in the existing enterprise architecture. The success of an enterprise in the current economy depends on its speed, flexibility, and agility. An innovative corporate structure and architecture are adaptable and receptive to change. A study by Barley (1986) explores the role of modern technology (change) in the organizational structure. New medical imaging devices such as CT scanners have challenged the traditional role of radiological technologists such that it has altered the organizational and occupational structure of radiological work. Technological changes have the potential to bring structural variations due to the changes in role brought by the new technology.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Barley (1986) also demystifies the term structure. A structure is often used to denote abstract and formal structures that constraints day-to-day action in a social setting. Theorists such as Silverman (1971) advocate an alternate view of structure characterized by patterned activity, interaction, behavior, and cognition. The second meaning of structure portrays it as a sociological tradition and a contour of human behavior. Still, on the definition of structure, Sewell (1992) argues that structure has been painted as something rigid such that the efficacy of human action (agency) is lost. Painting of structure as something stiff makes the process of change awkward. Structure implies stability such that social life is shaped into consistent patterns. The definition of structure fails to factor in the changes that take place over time. Sewell (1992) also states that structure in sociology is used to imply something ‘hard’ and ‘material,’ unlike culture which implies something ‘soft’ and ‘immaterial.’
The problems with the definition of the structure are also highlighted by Meyer & Rowan (1977). According to Meyer & Rowan, the formal organizational structures arises as reflections of rationalized institutional rules. Organizational rules are responsible for creating complex organizational structures. Organizational structures have become isomorphic such that new organizations copy existing structures to maintain legitimacy. Ordinary organizations are understood as systems of coordinated and controlled activities that are embedded in complex networks of technical relations. Meyer & Rowan (1977) argue that the formal organizational structure in postindustrial society reflects myths of the institutional environment rather than the actual demands of their work activities.
Meyer & Rowan (1977) blame the problems with the structure on organizational theories such as Max Weber’s discussions on the emergence of bureaucracies as consequences of economic markets and centralized states. As markets expand amidst the many changes in the external environment, the need for coordination increases and formal structures tend to develop. The need for coordination gives rise to bureaucratic control and standardization such that the organization is characterized by similar layers and traditional activities across the societies. Prevailing theories on organizational structure assume that coordination and supervision of activities are critical for organizational success in the modern world. Consequently, institutionalized myths define new domains of rationalized activity, and formal organizations emerge from those domains. Formal organizations expand their structures to become isomorphic with the myths of organizational structure.
An article by DiMaggio & Powell (1983) uses almost the same explanation as Meyer & Rowan (1977) in explaining what makes organizations similar. According to DiMaggio & Powell, the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved beyond the competitive marketplace to the state and other professions. Rational actors have attempted to make all organizations similar in an attempt to change them. For instance, there is a growing need to make public agencies to have similar structures with private enterprises, and yet they serve different purposes. DiMaggio & Powell (1983) contend that bureaucratization and homogenization are driven by competition and not the need to make the organization more efficient. The three mechanisms of isomorphic institutional change are a coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism, and normative isomorphism. External factors such as political changes or uncertainty in the market may make an organization to conform to peers thinking that the structure will cushion it from the external uncertainties (Brayboy et al., 2007).
DiMaggio & Powell (1983) argue that the similarities between organizations across many sectors show that organizations are not receptive to change. Actors use the pretense of organizational change to restructure the organization to take the same structure as others such that there is no significant difference between formal and informal organizations. Organizational leaders have to be aware of the theories and practices that push them to adopt similar organizational structures. DiMaggio & Powell (1983) advises leaders to engage in constant monitoring rather than following the trend. Organizational elites should be open to exploring other options in structuring modern organizations.
A theory of organizational isomorphism can explain why almost all organizations are similar (Lounsbury, 2008). Organizations have given so much power to organizational myths and ceremonies even when they do not serve their interests. New theories should be developed to encourage creativity and variety in the creation of organizational structure. Decision makers should examine the intended consequences of technology on the structure as technology can be a catalyst for change in the organizational structure and the entire organization (Barley, 1986).
In conclusion, it is undeniable that the organizational structure is embedded in relational and institutionalized contexts; thus they are bound to have some similarities in their structure. However, the survival of organizations depends on their ability to manage internal and external demands. Organizations should not limit themselves by aligning themselves to a specific structure created many years ago. Leaders should explore other options and take advantages of modern innovation to restructure organizations. Leaders should be willing to challenge existing structures and create new ones that enable them to meet their needs in a better manner. As Sewell concludes, structures are dynamic; they are continually evolving. Reproduction of structure requires innovation and resourcefulness. Leaders should not hesitate to explore other options just because they are yet to be explored. Innovative structures can allow for better utilization of resources and attainment of organizational goals.
References
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative science quarterly , 78-108.
Brayboy, B. M. J., Castagno, A. E., & Maughan, E. (2007). Chapter 6 equality and justice for all? Examining race in education scholarship. Review of research in education , 31 (1), 159-194.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American sociological review , 48 (2), 147-160.
Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, organizations and society , 33 (4-5), 349- 361.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology , 83 (2), 340-363.
Pártlová, P. (2017). Indication of Changes in Projecting Organizational Structures under the New Economy. Studia Commercialia Bratislavensia , 10 (38), 175-187.
Sewell Jr, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American journal of sociology , 98 (1), 1-29.
Silverman, D. (1971). The theory of organisations: a sociological framework . Basic Books.
