Submitted:
07 February 2025
Posted:
10 February 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
This article revisits the foundational principles behind the concepts of organization and structure. Defining "organization" is particularly challenging, as existing terminology often fails to fully capture its complexity. Words like "organization" can be interchangeable with terms such as entity, connection, mechanism, social complex, and mode of administration, among others. However, relying solely on synonyms is insufficient, often leading to a cycle of circular definitions. Many interpretations tend to lean toward synonymous or circular explanations. As a result, it is essential to deepen our understanding of key concepts in contemporary society-organization and structure-to ensure conceptual clarity. By exploring these ideas, the article moves beyond mere linguistic equivalents, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of their multifaceted nature. The paper also examines the cultural dynamics within European countries and presents several organizational models.
Keywords:
cultural dynamic
; framing
; principalship
; organization
Introduction and Theories
The concept of organization proves to be as elusive as other fundamental notions of human language and thought, such as light, darkness, nothing, time, or beauty 1.
The concept of organization proves to be as elusive as other foundational constructs in human language and thought, such as light, darkness, nothingness, time, or beauty. This inherent difficulty in defining “organization” with precision and unambiguity presents considerable challenges in formulating clear and exhaustive interpretations. Circular, synonymous, or metaphorical definitions, although often dismissed or deemed insufficient, represent a response to this conceptual challenge, highlighting the inherent complexity of the organizational phenomenon.
Post-2000, a notable trend has emerged wherein organizations are defined as entities comprised of interconnected parts, universal structures, hubs, or networks of entities and subassemblies. This variety of conceptualizations reflects the multifaceted nature of the organizational phenomenon and underscores the diverse interpretations advanced by researchers and theorists within the field of organizational sciences. A productive approach to navigating this conceptual diversity is to identify the core elements that define an organization. Among these, the presence of human agency remains a pivotal factor in understanding the nature of organizations, yet the multiplicity of perspectives and approaches enriches and broadens our understanding, offering a more nuanced and adaptable view of the organizational phenomenon 2.
The common elements identified within definitions of organization include the presence of groups of individuals, shared and distinct objectives, intentional and purposeful coordination, and a formalized structure of relationships 3.
Organizational theories developed in tandem with the evolution of society, particularly in relation to advancements in the economic sphere. The inception of the first organizational theory occurred along two converging trajectories, underscoring its dual origins: one sociological and the other managerial 4. In the context of the second theory, the concept of bureaucratic organization, as formulated by Weber, can be considered a defining feature in the advanced stages of organizational development or the organizational process. This is alternatively identified by other scholars as an institution, in line with the terminology proposed by Raboaca, within the stages of organizational structuring or in the context of scientific management associated with Taylor 5. Both theories conceptualized organizations as hierarchical structures, deemed necessary and fundamental for the managerial control of activities. In a subsequent phase (the 1930s-1940s), attention shifted to the examination of social processes within organizations, exemplified by the Human Relations Movement, led by Chester Barnard, as well as the seminal study on authority in the Tennessee Valley conducted by sociologist Philip Selznick 6.
Results
Across European countries, there is a noticeable trend where older individuals (65+ years) participate less in volunteer work and meetings compared to the younger group (16-64 years) (Table 1). Most countries show a negative difference, except for some countries indicating a significant increase in participation among older individuals in these regions.
In terms of religious activities, the older group tends to participate less than the younger group, with almost all countries showing a negative difference. The most striking declines are observed in few countries, suggesting a significant drop in religious engagement among the elderly.
Regarding sports and outdoor activities, the older age group generally engages more than the younger group, with another countries showing the highest increases. This suggests that, in these regions, older individuals are more active in physical and recreational activities compared to their younger counterparts.
Across countries, participation in formal voluntary activities varies significantly, with some countries exhibiting high engagement while others remain low (Figure 1). The dispersion of data points suggests that certain nations have a more active younger workforce in volunteering, while others show limited involvement. For instance, few countries stands out in volunteer work participation, while other countries have more balanced distributions across activities.
The chart (Figure 2) suggests significant variation in how different countries allocate time across various categories. Some countries, particularly those in Southern Europe, spend more time on outdoor activities, while others, Northern Europe, show a more balanced or less extreme distribution across these categories.
There’s also a large portion of unspecified time, which might reflect either flexible working hours, leisure, or untracked activities. This could be an area for further exploration, such as understanding what constitutes “unspecified” time in various regions.
Conclusion
The paper emphasizes that definitions of “organization” are diverse, shaped by social, managerial, and cultural factors. As these models evolve, especially in European countries, organizations are increasingly seen as complex networks that integrate human interactions, structures, and objectives to achieve common goals.
The exploration of time constraints and organizational structures within the cultural dynamics of different European countries suggests that organizations must adapt to the societal contexts in which they exist.
The role of the human element remains a critical focal point in any organizational framework, as it fosters cooperation and enables the achievement of greater efficiency.
| 1 | Fragments of this material were published as Covaci M., Considerations regarding the influence of entropy in organizations, Psycho-Social View Journal, 2021; Covaci M., Covaci B., The Interconnection of Organization and Organizing in the Cultural Dynamics: A Review, Journal for Freedom of Conscience, 2023; Covaci M. (2019). Doctoral thesis. National School of Political and Administrative Studies; Covaci, M. (2024). Academic satisfaction of students: validity and reliability study. ORAV; Covaci, M (2024). Organizational negentropy-theory and concepts. ORAV; Covaci, M. (2024). Organizational negentropy-regression analysis and correlations. ORAV; Covaci, M. (2024). Organizational negentropy-statistical research. ORAV |
| 2 | Keyton, J., Communication and organizational culture: a key to understanding work experiences, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, 2005. |
| 3 | Vlăsceanu, M., Organizations
and organizational culture, Iași, Trei, 1999. |
| 4 | Marshall, G., Oxford. Dictionary of Sociology, Bucharest, Encyclopedic Universe, 2003. |
| 5 |
Ibid. |
| 6 |
Ibid. |
References
- COVACI, M., Organizational culture as negentropy, National School of Political and Administrative Studies. Doctoral thesis, 2019.
- COVACI, M., Organizational Negentropy. Theory and concepts, ORAV Austria, 2024.
- COVACI, M., Organizational Negentropy: Statistical Research, ORAV Austria, 2024.
- COVACI, M., Organizational Negentropy: Regression Analysis and Correlations, ORAV Austria, 2024.
- CULDA, L., Organizations, Bucharest, Licorna, 1999.
- DRUCKER, PF, Post-capitalist Society, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.
- GIBSON, JL et al., Organizations. Behavior, Structure, Processes (ed. 14). New York, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2012.
- GREENFIELD, BT, Organizations as social inventions. Symposium on Developing Effective Educational Organizations: Concepts, Realities and Strategies for Change (p. 30). New Orleans: Greenfield Department of Educational Administration. Ontario, Institute for Studies in Education, 1973.
- HERNES, T., Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled World. Routledge, 2008.
- KEYTON, J., Communication and organizational culture: a key to understanding work experiences. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, 2005.
- LUHMANN, N. LUHMANN, N., Social Systems (Writing Science), Stanford University Press, 1995.
- MARSHALL, G., Oxford. Dictionary of Sociology, Bucharest, Encyclopedic Universe.2003.
- MORGAN, R., Images of Organization, London, SAGE Publications, 2006.
- RABOCA, HM (no year). Organizational Theory and Behavior. Retrieved from http://www.apubb.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Curs-Teorii-Organizational-Master.pdf.
- RAFAELI, A. “ What is an Organization? Who are the Members?”, Creating Tomorrow’s Organizations: A Handbook for Future Research in Organizational Behavior, 1996, p. 25.
- ROBBINS, SP, & Judge, TA, Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc., 2013.
- SCHERMERHORN, JR et al., Organizational behavior (ed. 7). John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
- STEVEN KS et al., “Self-Organization and Social Organization: US and Chinese Constructions,” in TR Tyler, RM Kramer, & OP John, The Psychology of the Social Self (pp. 193-222). Routledge, 1999.
- VLĂSCEANU, M., Organizations and organizational culture, Iași, Trei, 1999.
- VLĂSCEANU, M., Organizations and organizational behavior, Iași, Polirom, 2003.
- ZLATE, M. ZLATE, M., Treatise on organizational-managerial psychology, Vol. I, Iași, Polirom, 2004.
Figure 1.
Persons participating in formal voluntary activities by sex, age, educational attainment and type of organisation (16 to 64 years’ group) (%, 2022).
Figure 1.
Persons participating in formal voluntary activities by sex, age, educational attainment and type of organisation (16 to 64 years’ group) (%, 2022).
Figure 2.
Persons participating in formal voluntary activities by sex, age, educational attainment and type of organisation (65 years over group) (%, 2022).
Figure 2.
Persons participating in formal voluntary activities by sex, age, educational attainment and type of organisation (65 years over group) (%, 2022).
Table 1.
Persons participating in formal voluntary activities by sex, age, educational attainment and type of organisation (+/-: 16 to 64 years’ group comparative with 65 years over group) (%, 2022).
Table 1.
Persons participating in formal voluntary activities by sex, age, educational attainment and type of organisation (+/-: 16 to 64 years’ group comparative with 65 years over group) (%, 2022).
| Volunteer work and meetings (+/-) | Religious activities (+/-) | Entertainment and culture (+/-) | Sports and outdoor activities (+/-) | Other unspecified time use (+/-) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belgium | -6.7 | -3.3 | -4.3 | 15.5 | -1.2 |
| Bulgaria | -6.6 | -16.9 | 6.6 | 7.9 | 9.0 |
| Czechia | 5.7 | -3.1 | -5.2 | 11.6 | -8.9 |
| Denmark | -10.1 | -0.1 | -3.1 | 19. | -5.7 |
| Germany | 0. | 0. | 0. | 0. | 0.0 |
| Estonia | -2.6 | -9.5 | -1.7 | 4.5 | 9.4 |
| Ireland | -9.2 | -14. | -0.1 | 22.3 | 1.0 |
| Greece | 0.1 | -27.2 | 11.3 | 14.8 | 1.1 |
| Spain | -8.1 | -7.4 | 0.8 | 5.8 | 8.8 |
| France | 0. | -4.6 | -9.6 | 11.5 | 2.7 |
| Croatia | 12.2 | -15.7 | -0.4 | 5.9 | -2.0 |
| Italy | 4.4 | -11.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 4.1 |
| Cyprus | -2.7 | -14.8 | 9.3 | 1.7 | 6.4 |
| Latvia | 0. | 0. | 0. | 0. | 0.0 |
| Lithuania | 13.7 | -17.4 | 0.4 | 0. | 3.4 |
| Luxembourg | -2.8 | -3.4 | -4.5 | 7.6 | 3.1 |
| Hungary | 6.3 | -4.9 | -3.2 | 4.4 | -2.6 |
| Malta | 1.7 | -28.3 | 8.6 | 4.1 | 13.7 |
| Netherlands | -3.1 | -4.2 | -4.5 | 16.3 | -4.5 |
| Austria | 0.2 | -4.1 | -5. | 7.7 | 1.1 |
| Poland | 0. | 0. | 0. | 0. | 0.0 |
| Portugal | 1.1 | -16.6 | 0.8 | 5.5 | 9.3 |
| Romania | 62.1 | -87. | 5.2 | 4.5 | 15.3 |
| Slovenia | 7.1 | 0.1 | 4. | 5.2 | -16.5 |
| Slovakia | 5.5 | -27.7 | 7.4 | 17.2 | -2.4 |
| Finland | -4.5 | -2.7 | -0.8 | 21.9 | -13.9 |
| Sweden | 0.1 | -5.7 | -6.1 | 25.8 | -14.0 |
| Norway | -17. | -4.5 | -7.7 | 17.6 | 11.7 |
| Switzerland | -9.1 | -4.2 | 1. | 14.3 | -1.9 |
| Montenegro | -18.9 | -10.9 | 8.1 | 13.2 | 8.5 |
| Serbia | 7.1 | -5. | -6.2 | 7.1 | -2.9 |
| Türkiye | 7.9 | -2.5 | -8.3 | -4.6 | 7.5 |
Source: Eurostat [ilc_scp23__custom_15293673].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
