Definition of Organization by experts

Definition of Organization by experts. The presence of different approaches to the study of public school district organizations is partially a product of the availability of different definitions of organizations in the social science literature. Those who take a rational design view of organizations define the organization largely in terms of the goals that have been defined for any particular organization. W. Richard Scott (1981: 20) identifies two major characteristics of rational design organizations. First, such organizations are oriented toward “specific goals” and are highly “formalized.” With well-defined goals, the rational design organization is capable 01 creating a formal organization that can best accomplish these goals. While definitions of rational design organizations generally recognize the existence of individuals within the organization, they are inclined to assume that the individual’s goals do not play a particularly noteworthy active role in organizational behavior. A rational organization is “a collectivity oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting a relatively highly formalized social structure” (Scott 1981: 21). 

Definition of Organization

Not all definitions of organization assume that the organization is capable of maintaining clearly defined goals accomplished through formal structures. Natural systems approaches to organization reflect the assumption that individuals within organizations and the informal patterns of behavior which they adopt shape organizational goals and outcomes to a substantial degree. A natural systems definition of organization is “a collectivity whose participants are little affected by the formal structure or official goals but who share a common interest in the survival of the system and who engage in collective activities informally structured, to secure this end” (Scott 1981: 22). A third definition outlined by Scott is the open systems definition of organization. Open systems models of organization reflect the belief that organizational goals are generally not uniform and stable. Open systems models of organizational goals are largely derived from demands emerging from interests existing within the organizational environment and from organizational personnel. According to Scott (1981: 22-23) an open systems definition of organization holds that an organization can be thought of as “a coalition of shifting interest groups that develop goals by negotiation; the structure of the coalition, its activities, and its outcomes are strongly influenced by environmental factors.” In his book Organizations. Structure and Process (1977), Richard H. Hall offers two definitions of organization. One definition is grounded in the rational Weberian approach to organization. From Weber, Hall (1977: 18-19) deduces that the rational organization is both “corporate” and “associative.” In other words, rational organizations are formalistic and feature goals that “transcend the lives of their members” (Hall 1977: 19). The second definition of organization emerges from Chester I. Barnard’s Functions of the Executive (1938). Barnard sees organizations as systems made up of individuals whose diverse interests and goals must be taken into consideration by the organization. As Hall (1977: 19-20) concludes, this second approach conceptualizes organizations as cooperative bodies, instead of ‘associative” entities, whose membership is assumed to adopt organizational goals willingly. Hall’s approach to defining organization is divided along the lines of rational formalistic approaches and human relations approaches. The author’s approach is slightly different than Scott’s (1981), and introduces a slightly different perspective on the nature of open systems. Scott places a great deal of emphasis on the role of the environment in the formation of organizational goals. Hall considers the nature of the employee/employer relationship and the nature of informal organizations that exist within formal organizations. This latter point is important to our later discussion of schools as loosely coupled systems because it relates to the ability (or lack thereof) of a formal organizational authority to evoke a desired response from subordinates. Barnard’s approach implies that formal authority has relatively little to do with the ability to evoke a particular response, and that informal norms and bargaining play a much more significant role in explaining organizational behavior in many organizational settings. Hall’s definition of organization incorporates elements of both the Weberian and Barnardian schools. Most organizations are semi-formal structures, but they are not rationally designed closed systems.

An organization is a collectivity with a relatively identifiable boundary, a normative order, ranks of authority, communication systems and membership-coordinating systems; this collectivity exists on a relatively continuous basis in an environment and engages in activities that are usually related to a goal or a set of goats. (Hall 1977; 23)

Hall’s definition represents a synthesis of the definitions of organization presented thus far. The definition implies that organizations exist on a continuum between entirely closed systems and entirety open systems. Organizations will, on their own accord, move along this continuum given the state of their environment and the inherent characteristics of informal organizations. In other words, Hall considers organizations to be dynamic, and believes that they must be defined and studied with this assumption in mind. Scott and Hall offer us two distinct approaches to the study of organizations. Scott’s three distinct definitions of organization accommodate an analysis of the two different approaches to analyzing public school district organization and outputs presented in the first chapter of this book. Such analysis is important if we wish to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches and make judgments regarding their relative conclusions. Alternatively, Hall’s synthesized definition—while clearly leaning toward the open system approach—provides us with the ability to study the variation of public school organizations and see schools as dynamic organizations seeking to both maintain their formal structure and simultaneously to respond to the demands emerging from their environment and indigenous informal organizations. Hall’s definition is consistent with that of Bacharach (1981), who argues that analysis of public school district organizations must consider the formal organizational structure and the influence of the organizational environment on organizational outputs analyzed in public school research.

To a large extent, the variation in these three definitions is due to different arguments regarding: (a) the relationship between an organization and its environments; (b) the ability of an organization to rationalize its goals or mission; and (c) the power relationship between those positions or individuals vested with organizational authority and those individuals who serve below them in the formal organizational structure. Given the different expectations of organizations inherent in these three different definitions, it could be argued that the strengths and deficiencies of each would become evident when transposed with particular cases. An analysis of particular organizational models based upon these definitions is necessary to gain further appreciation for the disparate arguments currently shaping the education policy debate. The analysis to follow will be divided between rational approaches and open systems approaches to organization. While theoretically insightful, the natural systems approach will not be the focus of this analysis, largely due to data limitations. "Definition of Organization by experts"