What Is the Definition of Goal Displacement

If individual goals conflict with organizational goals, the change in purpose occurs on a personal level. Attaching more importance to the means by which objectives are achieved than to the final results can supplant objectives. And even if long-term goals are replaced by short-term goals, or if the organization`s initial goals are uncertain or abstract, a change of purpose takes place. Organizations develop initial goals to be achieved, and to achieve them, certain methods and rules are developed and followed. But over time, these rules and procedures can become primary and more important than the initial goals. New goals can serve the interests of employees or the management of the organization. This is an inevitable threat that businesses face. Goal shifting is a situation where the organization`s initial goals are replaced by new goals that are developed over time. The change of purpose can occur for many reasons and at many levels, for the sole purpose of ensuring the growth and prosperity of the company. The idea that an organization`s formal goals can be replaced by a new set of goals that reflect the interests of organizational leaders.

The concept is applied in particular to the analysis of trade unions and is linked to the belief that trade union leaders often do not respond to the interests of ordinary members. In the most influential version of this argument, the source of change lies in the responsibility of union leaders to maintain the security and finances of their organizations. This responsibility, it is believed, leads to prudent and moderate policy, even if the interests of union members are best served by militant actions. [See grassroots capitalism and trade union bureaucracy.] The change in purpose occurs when resources are used for purposes other than the one for which the organization exists. The goal that replaced the original goals and values may be pursued too excessively for this to become the end of the organization. Over time, people receive incentives for such behavior. For example, rules are ways to achieve organizational goals, but following the rules can become the goal of the organization and organizational goals can become secondary. People can be judged on the basis of compliance with the rules and not on the results. In cases where the organization`s initial goals have already been achieved, or when the original goals are no longer needed, the change of focus has positive effects that help the organization direct its energy elsewhere. For example, an organization originally intended to fight polio would shift its goals once the polio vaccine was invented.

3. There are often conflicts between the organization and the individual. There are many features of bureaucratic organization that go against human nature. For example, people work best when there is a relatively free environment, but bureaucratic organizations impose more restrictions through rules and regulations. Therefore, people try to avoid these rules and regulations. A mature personality requires less control, innovation in behavior, and flexibility in work. The conception of bureaucratic organization contradicts these characteristics. Bureaucracy therefore runs counter to the fundamental nature of human behaviour. This criticism is representative of the lack of a human aspect of bureaucracy. The thrust of this critique is that bureaucratic organization makes inadequate assumptions about the true nature of man and does not refer to the interaction of people within the organization.

4. It does not take into account informal organisation and interpersonal difficulties. Topics: Social Sciences – Economics and Management Bureaucratic organization can work well when the environment is static and predictable. However, the nature of the environment for large organizations today is very dynamic and heterogeneous. In a dynamic environment, greater interaction between the organization and the environment is needed. A revolutionary critique of bureaucracy comes from organizational psychologists. Warren Bennis He considers the model too mechanical and is no longer usable. In the bureaucratic organization, there can be many consequences that have not been visualized, but that occur due to the system. There is a high demand for monitoring and processing of information. Therefore, an open systems perspective is better suited to the management of modern organizations, while the bureaucratic organization has a closed system perspective. 2. There are conflicts between professionals and bureaucrats.

The main reason for conflicts is the difference in the orientation of professionals and bureaucrats. Professionals try to work according to their discipline for efficiency, while bureaucrats try to emphasize rules and regulations. In other words, it is considered to operate in a vacuum. Specific characteristics of the social organization of closed systems include predictability, rationality, optimization, internal efficiency, and security. Since it is assumed that the behavior is functional and all outcomes are predictable, those activities that take place in the environment, that is, changes in social, political, economic and other factors – can be ignored. For example, in government organizations, performance may be judged based on whether expenditures were made in accordance with rules and regulations. In this way, expenditures become the criterion for measuring performance and not the results obtained by expenditures. Such unintended consequences can be the following: the bureaucratic organization has a perspective of a dosed system.. .

Слідкуйте за нами в соціальних мережах та першими дізнавайтесь усі новини:
Корисні посилання: