Every organisation has structure, even a single person business has it, but what people don’t realise is that there are two types of structure that coexist – formal and informal. Both have considerable impact and with appropriate management can be greatly beneficial, but not being aware of their existence can lead to serious managerial issues.
Whatever formal structures have been defined by the organisation via, organisational charts, job descriptions, desk instructions, and so on – informal structures coexist. There is no formal without the informal.’
….but what’s the difference?
Dalton (1959) defines formal as:
“…that which is planned & agreed upon.”
His definition of informal is slightly longer:
“…the spontaneous & flexible ties among members, guided by feelings & personal interests indispensable for the operation of the formal, but too fluid to be entirely contained by it.”
Formal structures, for me, include the managerial structure that allows those who (or attempt to) exert complete control over events, systems, processes and, of course, people. This perhaps can be viewed as a hierarchy that, if legitimate, provides the authority for the organisational actions and goals to be appropriately executed. This in it’s self assumes rules and regulations, incentives, discipline, and appropriate management methods have been accepted by those very people who are being controlled, sorry – managed, the STAFF. There are occasions where controls can become deceptive, elusive and unresponsive. These types of control, according to Blau & Schoenherr (1971), are ‘insidious’. I argue that without acceptance of structures by those that work within them, the organisation would very quickly come to a stand still, irrespective of the fact that goals, actions and measures are planned and agreed upon.
Agreeing that the structures and processes have been accepted, and operated by the staff where does the informal structure sit?
The informal structure is not easily controlled; in fact I suggest that it cannot be controlled at all. It is organic – it grows and spreads roots, branches and tendrils throughout the organisation. The informal communications across different Divisions occur naturally, e.g. admin staff around the photocopier exchanging stories. These connections develop spontaneously and are flexible in that once made those that have connected can then meet elsewhere within the organisation, e.g. the restaurant. Further ties are made and more people become involved. Initially the core element of the contact is work based but social aspects quickly become involved. Without contact between staff, organisations would not be able to function. The social contact requirements of people will result in people meeting, talking, writing, e-mailing, etc. to each other regularly. The organisation may make it difficult for people to meet, if it was so inclined, but it would not be able to stop them altogether. Social contact is a ‘human condition’.
This human condition allows the formal structure to operate, but disallows control of the social contact by the organisation, hence ‘fluidity’ and the organisations inability to contain it.
Whilst not controllable, people within the organisation can impact upon the informal structure through a number of channels. Meetings, briefings, mass e-mails, team development events, etc. but it is never clear exactly what the impact may be – could be what you wanted and planned, on the other hand you could get something unexpected. Informality is a wonderful thing!
Pete Mackechnie
Extreme Management Solutions
Mobile - 07881 598 671
Phone - 0845 4582549
I think the formal/informal as described here is a bit too black and white. In my opinion, there are hybrid structures that fall in between these two extremes, and probably the best ones are the structures which borrow the best of each.
Personally, I favour a working environment that leans towards an informal structure.