The meanıng and the scope of organızatıon

The meanıng and the scope of organızatıon

The study of organizational behaviour must begin with the nature of organization themselves.

Organizations are products of their societies, subsystems of large systems (Sofer, 1972: 219).

The term ‘organization’ covers a multitude of industrial, commercial, service industry and public

service activities. Indeed, the work is an abstract label for any group of people who come

together and interact with one another in order to achieve a set of predetermined common aims

and goals (Evans, 1990: 41).

An organization exists where two or more people agree to get together and co-ordinate their

physical and mental activities to achieve common goals. Organization theories developed from

created arrangements to achieve goals by collective means. Organizations are also defined as

behavioural processes which live on influence and power (Hunt, 1992: 63). So, organization can

be defined as a collection of people working together in a division of labour to achieve a

common purpose.

All organizations have some function to perform. They are social instruments through which

many people combine their efforts and work together to accomplish more than any one person

could do alone. This logic has brought us an infinite number of products and services, such as

automobile, the personal computer, the space shuttle, the mobile phone, that are part of our daily

lives. This same logic applies in any kind of work setting. In all cases, the aim is to utilise

everyone’s talents to the fullest and to achieve outcomes that could not be achieved by the efforts

To achieve its aims, organizations depend on the activities and collective effort of many people.

At this respect, people are the main human resources of organizations - the individuals and

groups whose performance contributions make it possible for the organization to serve a

particular purpose. However, organizations need more than people if they are to achieve their

aims, to survive and prosper. They also need material resources including physical equipment

and facilities, technology, information, raw materials and money. Organizations require all of

these resources in order to produce some useful goods and services (Schermerhorn et al., 1995:

7).

WHY ORGANIZATIONS ARE NEEDED?

Organizations are a necessary element of civilised life for several reasons (Stoner and Freeman,

1992: 4-5; Frampton et al., 1988: 54):

that reflect certain culturally accepted values and needs. They let us to live together in a

civilised way and to achieve goals as a society.

objectives more efficiently than when an individual attempts to cater for his/her requirements

in isolation, and without assistance from others.

knowledge a continuous bridge between past, present, and future generations. In addition,

manages, perhaps even personal satisfaction, motivation and self-fulfilment.

FORMAL AND INFORMAL ORGANIZATIONS

The Formal Organization:

Schein (1980: 15) defines a formal organization as “the planned co-ordination of the activities of

a number of people for the achievement of some common, explicit purpose or goal, through

division of labour and function, and through a hierarchy of authority and responsibility”.

According to Appleby (1987: 107) formal organization is simply defined as “the network of

communications in an enterprise; it is the official channel through which information posses”.

degree to which they are structured”. The formal organization is deliberately created and planned

and is concerned with the co-ordination of activities. It is hierarchically structured with stated

objectives, the specification of tasks, and the defined relationships of authority and responsibility

(Mullins, 1990: 60).

The Informal Organization:

The informal organization comes from the interaction of people working in the organization,

their psychological and social needs, and the development of groups with their own relationships

60-61). The informal organization can serve a number of crucial functions. For instance, it has an

employees.

THE EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGY ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

It is the main aim of this paper to examine the nature and consequences of technological change.

Technical change and development is not a new phenomenon, it is a feature of human history.

Although the technological development is not confined to computing and electronics, from all

of these technological changes the information technology is accepted the richest one but

consequently a very wide one. It is not possible to cover whole field that is why some of the

factors other than the capabilities and features of the technology (Buchanan and Huczynski,

computers and electronic controls in manufacturing equipment and processes are included.

Computers have thus moved from background which is accounting and administrative activities

in organizations into foreground tasks in product and process design, order processing, typing,

and the control of domestic as well as manufacturing equipment.

What does IT do in an organization?

Information Capture: First of all the instruments of this technology capture information passive

or actively. The term capture implies gathering, collecting, monitoring, detecting and measuring.

Information Distribution: Modern IT can transmit and display information electronically on

screens and on paper.

By these four different types of IT has interesting effects on organizational issues. From these

effects, this paper concentrates the one on the organizational behavior and on the nature of work.

For these affects many scientists doing research each with a different unit and focus of analysis.

Ergonomists analyze the relationship between the operator/user and the technological devices.

These studies are related responsibility, discretion and working conditions (Singleton, 1974, 79;

Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985) Psychologists concern with employee attitudes and the quality

which the operator has autonomy, task variety, meaning and opportunities for learning (Herbst,

1974; Davis, 1976, 1977; Davis and Taylor, 1975, 1976). Sociologists concentrate on the effect

of technology on social structure, conflict and the relationship between operators/users and

managers. These studies illustrate the process operator as a victim of managers’ use of

technology to create work that is unskilled, boring, lonely, repetitive, paced, controlled, and

lacking in meaning (Braverman, 1974; Dickson, 1974; Nichols and Beynon, 1977; Gallie, 1978).

With the conflicting reports of these scientists, the focus of the effects of technology on

organizations varies; ergonomists ignore the motivational and political implications of technical

of new technology will replace mechanical and electromechanical devices and displace human

reasoning. On the other hand, Barron and Curnow (1979), Barley (1986), Taşlıyan and Jannoff

(1998) argue that electronic controls lack human adaptability and could create systems which

enhance job skills and interest.

Technological change and advances may have two possible effects on an organization: firstly,

the skill and the knowledge requirements of employees may change as a new devices and

program are introduced. Secondly, to the extent that information technologies replace people

then some people loses their jobs. One thing is obvious to anyone is that the impact at the level

of the organization may not reflect the overall, or “aggregate” impact of technical change in the

economy as a whole (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985, p. 268).

that “the evidence from the economic history of the entire industrial age is that technological

change has been beneficial to aggregate employment” (Sleigh et al., 1979, p. 9). The

unemployment experienced time to time in especially industrialized western countries is not a

technological unemployment but was caused by deterioration in world trade and whole economy.

The above cited report also argued that “it cannot be stressed too strongly that the overall impact

on jobs will depend crucially on an unforeseeable economic climate” (Sleigh et al., 1979, p. 1).

Nevertheless, electronics will be so pervasive, so radically productive, and so rapidly introduced

that previous relationships between technology and employment can be changed. These new

technologies may create an entirely new pattern of production of goods and services, a new

The overall effects of the technology may depend on the operation of a number of instruments:

1. New Products and Services: technological innovation generates new products and

services like personal computers, lap tops, commercial databases, these new innovations

changes the pattern of consumer demands for goods and services. This guides

organizations to invest in these new technologies which in turn lead to new employment

opportunities and new skills requirements.

2. Lower Costs Increase Demand: Higher productivity indicates producing the same output

they will change.

5. Expectation of Demand: Expensive investments in new technologies are mainly due to

the expectation of higher demands. Thus an organization may need to employ more

people to handle the increase in business or new people who have the skills that require

using these new technologies.

salesman. So, for some time existing jobs, skills and machinery may be required to work

alongside the new devices (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985, p. 269-70).

In addition to these the competition coming from other countries whose organizations innovate

faster or more effectively than the others do is another reason for adopting the new technology.

These countries’ organizations then can sell better products at cheaper prices than the others

stress amongst the member of organizations (Barley, 1986).

The diffusion of technology has been one of the most popular areas being studied covering many

different technology forms since the beginning of the 1930s (Rogers, 1995). According to the

most widely accepted definition, “diffusion is the process by which an innovation is

communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system”

(Rogers, 1995, p. 5). Rogers (1995) suggests that the diffusion process of a new technology or

innovation is associated with five attributes of that particular technology or innovation: (1)

than the idea it supersedes”, is presumed to be positively related to diffusion. (2) compatibility,

past experiences, and needs of potential adopters”, is presumed to be positively related to

diffusion speed. (3) complexity, defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as

relatively difficult to understand and use”, is presumed to be negatively related to diffusion. (4)

trialability, defined as “the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a

limited basis”, is presumed to be positively related to diffusion. (5) observability, defined as “the

degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others”, is presumed to be positively

related to diffusion (Rogers, 1995, p. 210). Tornatzky and Klein add the following categories to

the above ones: cost, communicability, divisibility, profitability, and social approval (Tornatzky

and Klein, 1982, p. 37). Besides characteristics of the innovation or the new technology itself,

industry, the activeness of change agencies, type and extent of authoritative intervention, etc.

resources. Thus, managerial expectations about the comparative attractiveness of those options,

on the basis of that particular organization’s specific internal and external situation, its objectives

and strategy, govern the outcome of the decision processes (Pfeiffer, 1992)

technology, as labeled “externality” (Buchanan and Stubblebine, 1962), “positive externalities”

(Cabral, 1990, p. 299) or “network externalities” (Pfeiffer, 1992, p. 117), are also important.

Network externalities express the fact that the total utility a consumer derives from the use of a

good or service is not only dependent upon its functional characteristics and environmental

circumstances (e.g. time, location, purpose of usage), but also upon the number of other

consumers using the same, a compatible, or a complementary good or service (Pfeiffer, 1992).

Marwell and Teixeira, 1985, p. 524). The critical mass effect is that some members of the

community join or establish the network, initially at a loss, in the expectation that their

contribution will increase the utility provided by the service. This then induce marginal non-

users to follow suit which in turn increases the utility of the network again the process continues

until some equilibrium state is reached (e.g. universal access, i.e. full interconnection) (Pfeiffer,

1992, p. 129).

In recent times, IT has become an important subject of diffusion studies, mainly because of its

studies showed their benefits some of the IT related new technologies, such as subject-oriented

Howells, 1995; Ramamurthy and Premkumar, 1995), are not being adopted and diffused as

quickly as predicted (LePoire, 1999). This relatively slow implementation and diffusion of new

information technologies is related to the time period, technology characteristics, the

organization’s size and social environment, and network externalities, as mentioned above for

diffusion of innovations. Therefore diffusion studies’ dimensions must include these into

investigations (LePoire, 1999).

In his longitudinal study, LePoire (1999) uses an ecological metaphor when studying the

diffusion of groupware technology in organizations. His hypothesis is that new IT technology

the current corporate culture. Another hypothesis is that early growth in a sub-section of the

appreciate this changes and support them. Successful IT implementation requires changes to the

way in which work is organized and in workers’ jobs. The changes needed and the effects of the

IT are not determined exclusively by the nature of the technology, but also by the way that it is

implemented (Senker and Senker, 1992).

IT can be used to centralize or decentralize control (Bloomfield and Coombs, 1992), to de-skill

or enrich jobs, to improve services or depersonalize them (Whitaker, 1987). Senker and Senker

(1992) found in their research that many firms introduce new IT equipment and systems without

the necessary “thorough understanding” of the technology.

The necessary knowledge is both technical and, perhaps more important, knowledge about the

mainframe computers were handling large-scale operations such as stock, payroll, and

production control. By the 1980s computer technology had progressed rapidly and this progress

allowed organizations as well as individuals to use cheap but much more powerful personal

computers (PCs). The late 1980s witnessed the wide adoption and use of PCs throughout

organizations, largely due to the low price and multi-functionality of PCs.

In an international study conducted on managers, Bjorn-Andersen, Eason and Robey (1986)

found that in almost all channels and means of communication, the number of managers who

identify a decrease. They concluded “computer systems complement existing communication

Moreover their research reported that the managers felt that the computer system increased the

amount of factual information, increased claims of the involvement to decision making processes

of employees those related to computer issues, and increased the ability to check on activities.

While computer systems provide easy access to accurate information for everyone in an

organization, as Bjorn-Andersen et al.. (1986) found in their study, every employee in the

decision process feels that he or she is more able to influence the decisions and behavior of

others.

Although computers have many positive effects on an organization, they have some negative

introduction program. In addition, as Bjorn-Andersen et al. (1986) found computer systems

of a manager is to use these technological adaptations as an opportunity to rearrange the

positions, procedures, relationships and tasks in the organization for better performance results.

There is no perfect strategy which suits to any organization for every situation. That is why the

managers of an organization has to search for their best solution for both their organization and

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E and Rosenkopf, L (1997) “Social Network Effects on The Extent of Innovation

Diffusion: A Computer Simulation”, Organizations Science, 8:3, May-June, 289-309

Appleby, R. C. (1989). Modern Business Administration. Fourth Edition, Pitman Publishing,

London.

Appleby, R. C. (1991). Modern Business Administration. Fifth Edition, Pitman Publishing,

London.

Armstrong, M. (1991). A handbook of personnel management practice (Fourth edition). Kogan

Page, London.

Banerjee, S and Sriram, V (1995) “The impact of electronic data interchange on purchasing: an

Barley, SR (1986) “Technology As An Occasion For Structuring: Evidence From Observations

Bhattacherjee, A and Gerlach, J (1998) “Understanding and Managing OOT Adoption”, IEEE

Software, May/June, 214-225

Bowman, C. And Asch, D. (1987). Strategic Management. Macmillan Press, London.

Briggs, RO, Adkins, M, Mittleman, D, Kruse, J, Miller, S and Nunamaker, J (1999) “A

Use Aboard the U.S.S. CORONADO”, Journal of Management Information Systems,

15:3, 21-35

Brown, LA (1981) Innovation Diffusion - A New Perspective, Methuen, London

Buchanan, JM and Stubblebine, WC (1962) “Externality”, Economica, 29:116, 371-384

Cabral, LMB (1990) “On the Adoption of Innovations with ‘Network’ Externalities”,

Mathematical Social Sciences, 19:3, 299-308

International Journal of Information Management, 13, 3-28

Drucker, PF (1995) Managing in a Time of Great Change, Truman Talley Books, New York

Dubrin, A. J. (1997). Essentials of management, South-Western College Publishing, Ohio.

Evans, D. W. (1990). People, Communication and Organizations. Second Edition, Pitman

Publishing, London.

Frampton, M., Norrie, R., Rees, A. And Williams, B. (1988). Organizations at work. Second

edition. Pitman Publishing, London.

Fulk J. and Steinfield, C. (Edts.) (1990) Organizations and Communication Technology, Sage,