Continuous development is a natural aspect of the entrepreneurial field in which the participants involved are regularly optimizing their operational approaches and combining traditional business approaches with innovative solutions to increase their capacities. Over time, some management algorithms have been transformed under the influence of new trends, and some practices have completely replaced outdated and ineffective strategies. When speaking of specific shifts in this environment, one can note that social mechanisms and structural concepts can be considered the main ways in which organizations have changed over the years. More flexible and dynamic development steps are an integral component of the progressive movement, and, while adapting to the conditions of a market economy and constantly changing customer preferences, businesses have taken on new forms, including both from the position of external market activities and from the perspective of internal operating principles. The concept of social boundaries and technological structures is the most optimal model that interprets transformational processes. By evaluating specific shifts, the rationale in support of this idea will be presented, and through the use of credible sources and personal views, the analysis of the changes will be performed.
Social Mechanisms
The study of organizational characteristics and the principles of their functioning has always been associated with the analysis of social characteristics inherent in business entities. For instance, Scott and Davis (2007) note that earlier researchers viewed social mechanisms as connections that determined processes within firms, which could be both common features and individual characteristics. In later studies, much attention was paid to social mechanisms as the elements that helped significantly transform the operating environment in the context of different situations (Scott & Davis, 2007). These changes in the interpretation of the same factor indicate that the role of specific drivers associated with social characteristics has become more important in terms of a real impact on business outcomes and related principles of improving the working environment. Moreover, modern companies are difficult to imagine as firms in which cultural, environmental, and other aspects of social life are ignored because taking these nuances into account is an integral part of promoting sustainable market activities. Therefore, social mechanisms may be viewed as one of the critical ways of change, which has influenced the modern entrepreneurial sector and the approaches used to develop business potential.
Social change entailed a transformation in the face of not only organizational methods of work but also the requirements for staff productivity. In their study, Yadransky and Chumak (2019) analyze the outcomes of introducing scientific management as a consequence of shifts in the labor field. According to the authors, this principle of control was marked by the emergence of a new type of employee, able to adhere to more flexible working principles and endowed with greater autonomy and independence compared to outdated workflow approaches (Yadransky & Chumak, 2019). Scientific management can be seen as one of the consequences of shifts in social mechanisms when the adaptation of the available intellectual capital came to the fore due to the prevailing trends associated with the value of work and an individual approach to leadership. Scott and Davis (2007) classify the mechanisms that are viewed as the elements on which social transformations are based: environmental, cognitive, and relational. Each of them concerns influences that determine structural, individual, and other changes. All these factors testify in favor of the establishment of more flexible social mechanisms than before, which proves transformation over the years.
Technological innovations, firmly embedded in the business world, have become a catalyst for the changes associated with transformed social boundaries. According to Grodal (2017), this process is accompanied by the reorganization of resource base control; the authors consider expanded access to market opportunities as a consequence of social shifts. The researcher cites the example of the emergence of the biotechnology industry that has made significant changes in the activities of a number of companies, including both for-profit and non-profit organizations that have become participants in this field (Grodal, 2017). This behavior of businesses can be explained by a natural desire to adapt production facilities to the most demanded areas, thereby increasing profits and stimulating client interest. Scott and Davis (2007) note the administrative transformation that has become apparent with the advent of technological tools and mention the expansion of leadership. Modern managers have ceased to perform the function of observers, which is associated with the dynamics of social changes under the influence of the digitalization trend and in-depth communication. As a result, modern organizations differ from those that existed several decades ago in their focus on transforming the social field.
Given the nature of change, one can assume that the social relationships between organizations are another criterion that can be added to those relating to social arrangements and the shifts that have occurred. Scott and Davis (2007) mention the theories of network analysts, who note the behavioral characteristics of firms that are part of large structures, such as network organizations, and highlight a transformed approach to the distribution of roles and the general algorithm of interaction. As real changes, the authors draw attention to the frequency of communication, the distance between actors, the type of connections within different structures, and some other features that have become natural in today’s entrepreneurial field (Scott & Davis, 2007). The mode of interaction that many modern companies have chosen has nothing to do with traditional development models in which competition played a dominant role, and the level of progress was determined solely by individual tangible assets. The transition to digital management methods, the expansion of the technological base, advanced marketing approaches, and other factors have built more flexible social boundaries in modern organizations, which distinguishes contemporary businesses from those of a few decades ago.
Changing Structures
Another way of reflecting the changes that have taken place in organizations over the years is characterized by a shift in companies’ structures. Being a component of the general concept of social boundaries and technology structures, this element of the theory concerns the conventions of modern businesses from the perspective of workflow design, for instance, the hierarchy of systems in an enterprise or algorithms for building a market development model. As Scott and Davis (2007) state, for organizations half a century old, survival was one of the main goals to pursue, and businesses had similar principles of growth and access to target markets. Nevertheless, later, the concept of survival was transformed into the idea of adaptation, as a result of which companies began to form their structural units more flexibly and variably (Scott & Davis, 2007). This, in turn, was reflected in the deeper nuances of businesses, including system designs, approaches to controlling resource allocation techniques, and other aspects of the workflow. As a result, under the influence of adaptive strategies, many firms have moved away from traditional growth models, relying on more variable ways of building interaction among stakeholders.
From the perspective of internal change, organizational structures have changed significantly in recent years. Vedel and Kokshagina (2021) note shifts in the culture of learning, decision-making algorithms, and other aspects that influence how sustainable and efficient the work process is and how productively the activities of staff are supervised. In the light of modern trends related to subordinates’ education, advanced training, an increase in the number of digital tools designed to simplify decision-making and problem-solving tasks, and other explicit optimization solutions, the way related to structural changes is an indicator of significant transformations that have taken place in recent years. Vedel and Kokshagina (2021) argue that many firms have established appropriate balance mechanisms to respond to changes in their target niches timely and efficiently, thereby adapting individual capabilities to specific needs and interests. These include leadership principles, modes of interaction between individual departments, factors of autonomy and delegation of authority, leadership strategies optimization, and some other criteria that reflect internal processes and highlight shifts within traditional workflow support mechanisms. Thus, the adaptation of modern organizations goes through more flexible and variable structural changes than businesses followed a few decades ago.
In terms of external change, many companies have also embraced the idea of structural transformation to optimize their businesses for the interests of their target markets. Křibíková et al. (2017) identify processes that began in European companies in the 1990s and note that the restructuring of activities was largely associated with the need to adapt to an environment in which the monopolized economy was key. By using the example of individual structures, the authors show how the trends have changed (Křibíková et al., 2017). For instance, the dominance of the linear workflow principle, in which the interaction between the company and other stakeholders was carried out in a vertical manner, has ceased to be the dominant model, while the process structure has gained significantly more popularity (Křibíková et al., 2017). Regarding other forms of interaction with the external environment, network organizations have become one of the common structural models and developed due to the expansion of entrepreneurial capacities and the increase in the technological potential of different companies. As a result, internal and external changes have become clear evidence of structural shifts in the organizational activities of modern firms.
The distinctive functioning of organizations based on the principle of building their development models is one of the most understandable examples of the changes that have taken place in business units over the years. Scott and Davis (2007) describe the systems theory as a concept that demonstrates the expansion of firms’ capacities, including both internal processes and external interactions. Open systems with their free adaptation and adoption of technological innovations, natural models with advanced communication, and rational systems with well-defined strategies show the variety of forms that managers can utilize. Scott and Davis (2007) also cite Giddens’ idea of structural dualism, where any behavioral patterns that business units adhere to are designed to both maintain the workflow and change it as needed. This dual nature suggests that flexibility and dynamism are the main criteria that distinguish modern organizations from those that existed a few decades ago. Therefore, social shifts and structural changes may be considered the key ways that have influenced the transition from traditional forms of the entrepreneurial process to modern development models.
Personal Perspective
The analysis of the changes that have taken place in organizations over the years shows how dynamic the modern business environment is. If it were not necessary, companies would be unlikely to make numerous efforts to transform their internal and external processes. One of the most obvious consequences of change is the massive application of digital advances, which can be attributed to developed technological structures. Varriale et al. (2021) show this through significant changes in logistics systems and partnerships between companies and suppliers. According to the authors, the security achieved with the help of blockchain technology encourages more flexible and dynamic forms of work, thereby reorganizing outdated control systems (Varriale et al., 2021). Therefore, digitalization is one of the obvious prerequisites for the changes that have taken place.
Not all changes unequivocally fall into the category of positive ones. For instance, according to Cullen-Lester et al. (2019), the replacement of the human labor force with machines and artificial intelligence is often perceived negatively, especially in the context of employment prospects. In addition, the authors draw attention to increased levels of stress associated with a more dynamic organizational environment and constant shifts in operational processes (Cullen-Lester et al., 2019). Nevertheless, when speaking about the impact of the transformations that have taken place in recent years, one should remember that the nature of the changes depends on the environment but not on leaders or administrative staff. As Merida (2015) argues, organizations themselves cannot change people’s lives because business activities are the result and not the cause. Thus, while adapting to market trends, firms reflect global and local processes in the entrepreneurial environment.
Biblical Integration
Any process of change is natural, and this thesis is typical not only for entrepreneurship but also for other areas of life, including religion. In Christianity, the idea of change implies a total transformation of the worldview with the coming of the son of God to earth: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (“2 Corinthians 5:17,” n.d.). This statement emphasizes the naturalness of changes as an integral part of human life, and if these changes are aimed at a good cause, no one should be afraid of them or resist them. According to Merida (2015), accepting God’s grace can help change oneself and one’s environment. Therefore, transformation should be accepted adequately and treated as an integral element of being.
Conclusion
The analysis of the changes in organizations, which have taken place in recent years, makes it possible to single out social mechanisms and structural changes as the key ways of transformation. The expansion of communication among participants in business processes, the global introduction of digital technologies, the constant change in the interests of target markets, and other factors can be considered manifestations of shifts in the business environment. Some people perceive these processes negatively, for instance, as preconditions for job losses. However, change is an integral part of human life, and to remain competitive, businesses have to transform their development models.
References
2 Corinthians 5:17. (n.d.). English Standard Version Bible. Web.
Cullen-Lester, K. L., Webster, B. D., Edwards, B. D., & Braddy, P. W. (2019). The effect of multiple negative, neutral, and positive organizational changes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 124-135. Web.
Grodal, S. (2017). Field expansion and contraction: How communities shape social and symbolic boundaries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 783-818. Web.
Křibíková, P., Tichá, M., & Poczatková, B. (2017). Organizational structures changes as business reaction to economic reforms (the case of the Czech Republic). The EUrASEANs: Journal on Global Socio-Economic Dynamics, 4(5), 19-27. Web.
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Pearson Education.
Varriale, V., Cammarano, A., Michelino, F., & Caputo, M. (2021). New organizational changes with blockchain: A focus on the supply chain. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(2), 420-438. Web.
Vedel, J. B., & Kokshagina, O. (2021). How firms undertake organizational changes to shift to more-exploratory strategies: A process perspective. Research Policy, 50(1), 104118. Web.
Yadransky, D., & Chumak, E. (2019). Social mechanisms of scientific management. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 5(4), 243-247. Web.