PATOLOGIJA ORGANIZACIJE I UPRAVLJANJE KRIZAMA

Organizational crises are an inevitable consequence of the nature of the organization and are manifested and resolved in different ways. The crises affect enterprises, industrial branches, the society, etc. This paper addresses a new approach to the development of crises within organizations (like inevitable consequences of the process of organizing) and the occurrence of the most common pathologies of organizations as the consequences thereof, with special emphasis on further intensification of the crisis processes and the multiplication of consequences under the conditions of transition in Serbia. The paper explains some of the most common manifest forms of organizational paradoxes and pathological conditions of the organizational structure and functioning of organizations, which are unavoidable, and which occur in all enterprises (under stationary conditions, in the enterprises operating successfully, in the regulated economies, etc.) but which easily explode in the transition or transform into even more dangerous mutations. Certainly, the pathology of environment is an additional generator of the occurrence of pathological conditions in enterprises.


Abstract
Organizational crises are an inevitable consequence of the nature of the organization and are manifested and resolved in different ways.The crises affect enterprises, industrial branches, the society, etc.This paper addresses a new approach to the development of crises within organizations (like inevitable consequences of the process of organizing) and the occurrence of the most common pathologies of organizations as the consequences thereof, with special emphasis on further intensification of the crisis processes and the of consequences under the conditions of transition in Serbia.The paper explains some of the most common manifest forms of organizational paradoxes pathological conditions of the organizational structure functioning of organizations, which are unavoidable, and which in all enterprises (under stationary conditions, in the enterprises operating successfully, in the regulated economies, etc.) but which easily explode in the transition or transform into even more dangerous mutations.Certainly, the pathology of environment is an additional generator of the occurrence of pathological conditions in enterprises.

Introductory remarks
Crises of organizations (the inevitable macro-and micro-structural difficulties of each organizational system) and pathological phenomena (which are the cause and / or the consequence of organizational crises, but of other factors as well) directly affect the company's infrastructure systems and above all the business information system.Difficulties and problems inherent in the business information system are numerous and diverse, starting from technical, semantic, grammatical, through PhD, and Mathematics, Address: Lole Ribara 29, Serbia, e-mail: nebojsa.denic@pr.ac.rs 44 PhD, Professor of vocational studies, Belgrade Business and Arts Academy of Applied Studies, Serbia; e-mail: tomo.odalovic@bpa.edu.rs45 , PhD assistant, Belgrade Business and Arts Academy of Applied Studies, Serbia; e-mail: milos.popovic@bpa.edu.rsanthropological problems, up to the problem of pyramidal information system, i.e. the problem of communication between hierarchical levels in both directions.Information is infrastructure support of every organizational system, including QMS, which additionally complicates the relationship between business information system and quality management, having in mind that information system has double nature when appearing: firstly as the infrastructure of the complete organizational system (i.e. of a company) and its macro-organizational subsystems, and secondly as a separate macro-organizational subsystem of a company.Therefore, QMS is extremely sensitive to pathological phenomena and crises of an organization, because they (crises and pathologies) act dually, in a macro-structured manner through an organizational entity and in an infrastructure manner through negative information changes.It is therefore necessary to understand the basic organizational pathological phenomena and to take at least some measures to mitigate their inevitable impact on QMS quality.Logical order of activities is to first understand the nature and manifestations of organizational crises and pathological phenomena, and then to devise and implement adequate measures to mitigate negative consequences.The ambitions of this paper rest with the first part of the preceding sentence.
Organizational changes are permanent and very diverse.Some are intentional, and (to extent) controlled, others are undesirable (predictable or unpredictable), the third have rapid pace and the fourth have slow pace.The only common feature of organizational changes is their inevitability.They happen continuously, even though we sometimes feel there are not any.Since organizational changes are inevitable, the approach of designing (devising) organizational changes and managing the implementation thereof imposes itself as a good strategy.The aggravating occurrence in assessing, devising and managing of changes is the incessant change in paradigms of the organization.Attitudes and beliefs about the organization (we have realized this when we grasped the essentials of the establishment and changes in corporate culture) change and aggravate the problem of organizational changes.Impending and very dangerous changes are manifested as organizational crises.Some authors tried to explain the organizational crises as well as the characteristics of individual stages of an enterprise growth.But crises are inevitable when an enterprise is not growing, and when the key contingency factors of business operations are not changing within.Such factors are: portfolio, external and internal environment, techniques and technology, etc. Apparently, as presented further in this paper, the crisis is inherent to every organization.Organizational changes, changes in organizations' paradigms and organizational crises generate (depending on the dominant contingency factor of an organization) temporary or permanent pathological conditions of the organization.These conditions are further intensified by the problems arising in the transition processes in Serbia and, in our opinion, in the other countries of the former SFRY as well.Dynamic environment is not stabilized in the transition, so it is difficult for the enterprise to stabilize its business operations (thus to raise the efficiency to a higher level); essentially, the enterprise always lacks time to realize what is happening, what are the new requirements and restrictions of the environment and, accordingly, to adjust and stabilize its business operations.
In examining organizational changes two close concepts are to be distinguished: growth and development.Growth implies quantitative increase in certain variables (the number, length, weight, etc.) while maintaining the existing structure within acceptable limits (for example, increasing the size of the crystals).Development is defined as a qualitative change, i.e. as a structural growth.This is a phenomenon that occurs when growth in the context of a given structure reaches the limit, followed by either disintegration or a jump to a higher level of structure arrangement (for example, the development of a cell).Growth is continuous and development is discontinuous as it unfolds through the series of stages (at each stage, the system shows a characteristic structure for said stage).Each stage is dominated by a different variable, group of variables or a subsystem, whereby the next stage always has higher level of complexity and differentiation.Growth is continuous, recurrent and limited, while development, due to discontinuity, is irreversible process which can tentatively be represented by a cascading function of time and growth, as an illustration of a bouncing transformation of quantity into quality, i.e. growth into development.Growth is a quantitative increase in the number of employees, production volume, sales volume, total revenue, etc.Growth often initiates or induces development and qualitative changes, thus implying the changes in the characteristics of the organizational system elements and changes in some of the relations between the parts of an enterprise and relations between them.Growth and development are the main internal mechanisms of changes within the enterprise and have to be adequately supported in organizational (structure) and staffing (management) terms.
Crises in the organization result from different pathological changes.Journalists were the first who wrote about enterprise crises and they were followed by business historians and finally by scientists.Their activities generally involved neither the explanation of key development factors nor of key factors of crisis and collapse.Later, the authors addressed crises in enterprises in the context of studying development issues, which means that in most cases they considered the crises to be the consequence of the loss of balance of the most important factors in the development, and they pointed most often to the factors (or group of factors) which were the main causes of the resulting crisis in the observed development stage.Therefore, Greiner (Greiner 1967) explicated the main factors as causes of crises (problems of leadership, autonomy, control, bureaucratization, etc.) and the ways of solving them.Five years later, the same author (Greiner 1972) outlined the elements that exerted an influence throughout the growth of a company and impeding the organisational and operational adjustments in the business (i.e.relationship between an individual and the enterprise, relationship between formal and informal organization, relationship between experts and managers etc.).In both scenarios, the issues at hand are investigated within the context of the evolving and developing organisation.It is common knowledge that, as part of the organic progression of growth and development, an organisation will go through a series of escalating phases of development, as well as crises and significant organisational and other shifts (for example, portfolio changes).The degree of success in resolving a severe crisis faced by a business via organisational and other adjustments will determine the extent to which the firm will be able to maintain its quality and its future.The writers in this subject distinguish between the number of phases of development, their names, their fundamental qualities, and their idiosyncrasies.They also differentiate between the causes and contents of the crises.Thus, the previously mentioned Greiner (Greiner 1967) elaborates on five stages of development, Scott on three, and Daft (Daft 2010) on four stages of growth and development as well as on the same number of specific crises and methods for resolving them.All of these authors discuss the same number of specific crises and ways to resolve them.Throughout the whole of an organization's life cycle, there will be times of both development and crisis in alternating order.During the phases of growth, the organisation builds up its physical and financial strength, and during the stages of crisis, it mobilises all of the resources that are required to go through those stages and emerge victorious.Some authors, for example (Altman 1968) focused in studying of the crisis on its forecasts, based on the financial results of the enterprise.Various options, supplements and improvements of this concept continued to the present day.Other authors focused on various non-financial causes of crises.Ford (Ford 1981) proposes an improvement in the planning system and the inclusion of a greater number of participants in the decision-making chain, while emphasizing the risk of distortion of information in said process.Interestingly enough, the above author points to the fact that the symbol for crisis in the Chinese script means danger, but also the possibility, implying that the crisis may also have positive consequences.(Kovoor-Misra et al. 2000) approached the crisis forecasts by emphasizing the mutual contradiction of some of its causes, such as technical ones.Van Laere (van Laere 2013) went a step further by concluding that organizing in crisis conditions and organizing in stationary conditions do not significantly differ, while believing that the complexity of crisis refers to the fact that the crisis elements are hidden but make impact on the organization functioning.More recently (Cygler & Sroka 2014) the causes of the crisis and pathological conditions have been traced back to structural pathology and inter-organizational networks.However, this approach also makes the author partly a prisoner of the idea of problems emergence in the process of the development of intra-and inter-organizational networks.Purves et al. (Purves et al. 2016) emphasise non-financial (without neglecting the financial) causes of an inevitable occurrence of crises, believing that the crises forecasts are the best way to oppose them.This may be a random or perhaps a deliberate response to Hermann's (Hermann 1963) view, according to which the failure to understand a crisis, its causes and manifestations is an important reason for the failure in coping with it.According to the findings of our review, we have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of authors (from the beginning of a systematic study of organisational crisis until today, which is more than half a century later) almost always consider crises to be a halt or an obstruction in the development of an enterprise, specifically in some of the enterprise's development stages.Only a small number of the writers believe that the crises are the consequence of opposition to the planned organisational reform.

Organizational changes and crises
Our approach to the problem of crises emerging in enterprises (see picture no. 1) is not, unlike the approaches taken by the authors mentioned above and others, solely related to the life cycle of an enterprise.This means that it does not address the emergence and resolution of crises during the development of an organization that is, from the establishment of a small-sized enterprise, through its development, and into a large organisational system.Instead, it focuses on the life cycle of an enterprise as a whole.At the time of their founding, the businesses are not necessarily on the tiny side; in fact, it is not unheard of for freshly founded businesses to be on the larger side, nor is it unheard of for larger businesses to split themselves up into several smaller businesses.The elements that Greiner identified in his study (Greiner 1967) are, without a doubt, important and predominate at specific periods of business growth; yet, they are not the fundamental nor the ongoing cause of the occurrence of crises.The enterprise enters a crisis at point 1 on Figure no. 1, which may be shown by a slowdown in the rate of growth and development of the firm (Ksr), stagnation (Kst), or a decrease in the enterprise's level of business performance (Kpp).Significant organisational (and other) changes are introduced at point 2 (which is located in the Figure at the end of Kst and which can be located at the end of any of the three crisis manifestations, i.e. also at the end of Ksr and Kpp), which may result in accelerated enterprise growth and development (R&R), or, in the case that the changes are unsuccessful, in some adverse (st or pp) outcome of introduced organisational changes.What, in point of fact, is the crux of the matter when it comes to the inevitability of the appearance of a crisis, not only in the growth of the organisation but also in its very existence?The business performance of an organisation is a one-of-a-kind process, and the study of that process in particular areas of the organization's business performance may be facilitated by dividing the process into phases of growth and development as well as crisis stages.The phrases growth, development, and crisis are subject to subjective interpretation and are contingent on the criteria that are used (quality measures).Each act of organisation works against the natural progression of entropy, which can also be thought of as working against the chaos and disorganisation that is the default condition of things.Because a company is structured with the end purpose of achieving its objectives, successful business performance may be defined as the accomplishment of those objectives.Therefore, an effective and efficient business is one that is able to organise itself in such a way that it is successful in establishing order and in guiding the actions of its workers toward the successful completion of the duties that are assigned to that business.When this is done, there will, of course, be feelings of frustration, stress, sacrifice, and dissatisfaction among employees.Additionally, there will be a need to resort to a variety of compromises between individuals and groups, an accumulation and disposal of a number of different problems, the disposal of some activities to the detriment of other activities, and so on.At some time, the methods of organising and controlling operations will be overshadowed by all of these unsolved challenges, compromises, and disappointments, and some favoured company performance will begin to degrade.In such a scenario, the organisation is compelled to change itself, to mutate, to turn to new methods of dealing with problems, to relegate certain parts of its history to the recesses of the collective memory, to look for new solutions and new mechanisms for organising an enterprise and for line and ordinary harmonising of its business operations, and to search for new ways to deal with problems.
As a result, the crisis is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of each, even successful operations of an organisation.It is an unavoidable consequence of the inherent competition between order and chaos in the natural world.The enterprise is undergoing a process of internal reorganisation and transformation as part of an effort to satisfy the requirements of the environment or to face the dangers that pose a threat from within, and this process is occurring simultaneously with the enterprise's efforts to successfully implement its goals and interests in its interaction with the environment (in exchanging material, services, energy, information, etc.).In the event that it is unable to do so, it will be facing a true crisis, and the criteria that it has selected for success reveal the nature and magnitude of such a catastrophe.It's interesting to note that many different elements may have either a good or negative influence, depending on the context and the degree to which they play a role.
The number of workers is the primary factor that determines the size of the business.Employees are also the primary source of issues and crises inside an organisation, which is to be anticipated given that frustrations are vented by humans and not by machines.The total number of employees, how they are deployed, and how they interact with one another are all the result of nearly all of the relevant factors in the operations of the enterprise.These factors include the portfolio, technology, engineering, equipment, office premises and facilities, age and size of the enterprise, economic results, and market position.A man is the one that drives, manages, and directs all of the actions that take place in a company.An employee is assigned a position within an organisation according to its vertical and horizontal structure of hierarchy.This is done to ensure that the arrangement supports, in the most effective manner possible, the implementation of activities that result from the fragmentation (division) of the overall business operations and that it provides a meaningful and purposeful coordination and integration of all of these activities toward the achievement of the enterprise goals.The organisational structure of the firm serves as a skeleton of the most significant and most common business processes, as well as common actions on management and leadership in the enterprise.This structure provides a dependable backbone for the process being described.In this manner, the organisational structure helps to maintain a dynamic balance between the division of work on the one hand, and its coordination on the other.
The expansion and advancement of the business are among the most essential prerequisites for reaching the goals that have been set for its envisioned future.Concurrently, it is not feasible to have a conversation about the anticipated future of the firm outside of the framework of its organisational structure.In this context, we are particularly thinking about the organisational structure of the company, which, in essence, gives the fixed image of all the primary processes that take place inside the company.We can observe that the majority of the important development determinants and the firms that have been successful in terms of their growth are organisational in origin.All of the enterprise's growth and development operations are integrated into the organisational environment, and the degree to which organisational support is offered to developmental activities is a significant factor in determining the commercial consequences of such efforts.It is possible that the smartest, most inventive, and most progressive ideas will never be implemented if there is even the slightest disconnect between the organisational structure, management, and developmental activities.
When organisational paradigms shift, extra sources of uncertainty and discontent enter the picture, which may disrupt the normal flow of work inside a company.
(Cvijanovi & Lazi, 2006) It has been shown that paradigms are of utmost importance in the scientific community as a whole, particularly in the more recent sciences, which organisation theory is still considered to be a part of.A conceptual framework, a manner of understanding the world, and a set of the supposed categories into which the facts are divided are all examples of what are referred to as paradigms.A shift in a paradigm indicates a change in the human mind rather than a change in the laws, yet this kind of change is nevertheless highly important since the modification of one's views and convictions has a direct impact on human conduct.New technologies and a new value system provide new paradigms, which, despite the fact that they have not been defined and explicated, generate (to a greater or lesser degree) different behaviour in the enterprise.Despite the fact that they have not been defined and explicated, new paradigms generate different behaviour in the enterprise.As a consequence of this, new paradigms begin to operate even before the arrival of a prophet who can publicly declare and inaugurate them.After a longer time of application, some fundamental assumptions of organisation theory reach the zone of gradual or sudden loss of relevance and/or practical applicability.This zone may be entered either gradually or abruptly.
"The paradigm of concentration and specialisation constituted the essential assumption of the successful expansion and development of industrial (and other types of) firms during the course of the previous two centuries," This paradigm entailed price reduction, the transformation of luxury items into consumer products, and the conversion of production into the servant of consumer society.It was supported by economies of scale, which helped drive down production costs.Because concentration without adequate specialisation only increases overhead costs (which frequently occurs in the case of mergers), and specialisation without the adequate volume of production results in higher unit prices, the management of such businesses was actually the science and art of coordinating the real measure of specialisation and relevant coordination.This is the case provided that both dimensions are present, since concentration without adequate specialisation only increases overhead costs.In the context of this paradigm, specialisation often refers to the process of breaking down work into components that are progressively less complex.Due to the simplicity of the task at hand, jumbled labour in the factory necessitates the payment of a suitable psychological price.This price is paid in exchange for any substantial restrictions imposed at work.This is known as abseentism, and it is a fairly accurate measurement (as well as the cost) of estrangement.
A further issue is the routine, which may be both beneficial and detrimental depending on the circumstances in practise.To be more exact, the routine is one of the descendants of the standardisation that has taken place in some aspects of the behaviour and attitudes of company operations.The routine makes it easier and more efficient to achieve objectives that are repeated.Because periodic refreshments (changes) are necessary to prevent various options of additional routines for changing other routines (i.e.metaroutines) and decreasing of attention especially paid to verifications, or even skipping of verifications, because the routine is first monotonous, then boring, and finally so unpleasant that one tries to avoid it, it is the enemy of change and therefore the opponent to necessary refreshments in all organisational techniques and methods.
Because hierarchy is innate to organisation and it would be impossible to describe and explain one without the other, the paradigm of hierarchy as a natural phenomena continues to hold true, and it will continue to hold true for a considerable amount of time.In spite of this, there is an abundance of theoretical and empirical research on the end of hierarchy in the professional literature, and this is a natural response of all those who are at a lower rung on the ladder of an economic or social hierarchy.The majority of psychologists do not fully understand how impersonal, or position-based, power and the hierarchy that goes along with it may coexist.Obviously, it is a fallacy to relate a line hierarchy (or an ordinary hierarchy) directly and entirely to the sequence of decision-making about job performance.These events have been connected to equiordinary (transfunctional) centralization, which is another way of saying hierarchy.To be more specific, the issue of the order in which choices are made, as well as commercial and productive endeavours, is not the only factor to consider in the context of an organisational hierarchy.It is also an issue about the pyramidal dimension of information that is accessible to decision-makers at certain organisational levels, as well as the hierarchy of interests and the hierarchy of motivations.
"One of the organisational paradigms that have partially become outdated is the paradigm of living labour as the cost.This is one of the paradigms of organisation.Today, it is not feasible to represent the employed by the cost that is linked with their compensation.This is due to the fact that employees are no longer seen to be a cost, but rather a very important asset in the company.It is currently far simpler to alter the product than it is to change the employees because of improvements made in worker selection and recruiting, as well as investments in workers' professional and psychological profiles (as opposed to the time when the paradigm of concentration and specialisation was valid).According to the empirical results of Koch and Hackenberg (Koch & Hackenberg 1971), organisation and work practises are relatively inert and resistant to change.This is in accordance with those findings, since it demonstrates that this is the case.Let us add that the salary that is given to those who are employed is becoming less and less seen as a kind of recompense for the time that is spent working.Instead, it is seen as the compensation for the task that has been carried out.The enterprise's technical resources are progressively becoming the instruments that boost human possibility, and this trend is expected to continue.They are becoming fewer of the machines that are under the control of man.
The concept of organisation as a kind of ownership is mostly considered to be archaic at this point.Rights and obligations have always served as the foundation for what constitutes ownership.At the beginning of the growth of enterprise, rights were the only thing that was safeguarded.In later years, the obligations were also outlined, beginning with the financial aspects and extending all the way to the employee protection, consumer protection, and environmental protection.In today's business world, the traditional model of ownership in huge corporations is being called into question along with the whole model itself.Today, rather than a few individuals owning businesses or a few banks providing loans, shareholders have evolved into a large group of anonymous financiers who are unable to determine precisely what percentage of the company they control (since they are the owners of the ideal part of the enterprise, e.g. the thousandth part of it).They are only entitled to financial benefits that are in direct proportion to the amount of risk that comes with having shares in that specific company.Enterprises have transitioned into legal entities known as companies (corporations, etc.), and although companies do not belong to any one person, an individual is the only person who may be a member of a company.As a direct result of this, the stakeholder idea has placed a great number of valid and legal limits, which are gradually supplanting the traditional ownership notion with the enterprise concept.The shift away from this paradigm is beneficial for innovations and development because those who make decisions on carrying out development projects (which are typically risky) are not additionally restricted by ownership.Instead, decisions are made primarily on the basis of analyses and conclusions made by expert analysts either from within the organisation or from outside the organisation.

Organizational pathology
The continuous growth and development of the organization in response to the continuous changes in the external and internal environment of the enterprise, organization and changing of the paradigms of organizing and continuous changes and organizational crises inevitably result in pathological phenomena.Starting from the fact that man is the most important factor of all occurrences (thus pathological ones) in the enterprise, pathologies are also mainly profiled depending on the Mintzberg group which dominates in the enterprise (managers, workers, administrative support and technical support) (Mintzberg 1979).If this is the bureaucratic apparatus, largely composed of administrative support and often concentrated at the top of the hierarchy, the pathology arises ((Michels 2012) back in 1925 Michels called it the Iron Law of Oligarchy).In the case of dominance of the technical support, Gresham's Law of Planning applies.If middle-and lowerlevels managers dominate, we speak of the Parkinson's law (Parkinson 1955).And when ambiguities in ownership occur which is in the transition processes easily possible, as well as rapid changes in the top management of an enterprise (especially in the case of public enterprises public) the Peter Principle (Peter & Hull 2011) comes to the fore.Finally, when the boundaries of business systems, including the states, become vague and permeable to the detriment of the system, this results in the pathological globalization of business.In the transition process, in cases of usual, unclear and constantly variable ownership of enterprises (social, i.e. the state ownership is deformed, practically, into temporary ownership of the political parties in power, resulting in proliferation of unnecessary employment of incompetent employees), apart from the Parkinson's law and Peter Principle all the above pathological forms of an organization appear.The following brief outline of the basic characteristics of these pathologies speaks in favor of said.
Organization of operational and other socio-technical, artificial systems (for the purpose of efficient and effective functioning thereof) is in conflict with natural growth of entropy or disorder in the system and its surroundings.Depending on the selected organizational form and model, this conflict results in the emergence of different organizational paradoxes and pathological conditions.Although some of the paradoxes and pathologies are often treated in organizational theory and practice casually, yet even humorously, as non-essential system incidents, we are convinced that organizational paradoxes and pathologies deserve serious attention in studying the occurrence and effects thereof, as well as efforts to eliminate their consequences.This practically means that the term pathology in organizing has to be understood rather as a deviation from the expected, than as necessarily harmful phenomenon in the enterprise organization.In any case, even though organizational pathology provokes negative attitude as first response, it deserves careful and impartial approach, hoping such approach will yield benefit in trying to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of organizational systems.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy was established by Robert Michels in 1925 (Michels 2012) based on analysis of the structure of socialist parties (there were many at the time) in the period before the First World War: "He who says organization, says oligarchy".Bureaucracy was born from the political party organization, associated with the party leader, which implied mutual interest (of both the apparatchik and the leader) in maintaining their own positions.The primary means of conquest and maintenance of power is the control of communication within the party.Those young and ambitious (free thinkers who swing the boat) are either co-opted into the party's apparatus (fewer of them) or expelled from the party by means of various machinations.Instead of fighting for real goals of broad masses, they impose on masses (people) the goals tailored to the needs of the party and the party's apparatus.Instead of implementing what the majority thinks, they impose their thinking on the majority.They suppress the initial goals, often the party's original militant goals in favor of conservative goals, because the parties practically lose their existence in war or, at least, significantly lose importance and influence.Organization (the party) is the mother of the power of those elected, over those who elected them.This process applies to all kinds of associations (regardless of their primary goals) and also to enterprises in which the power is also concentrated at the top, among the management of an enterprise, while strengthening the tendency of imposing conservative strategies.
Perpetuation of the Iron Law of Oligarchy is also supported by longevity and toughness of the bureaucratic organizational structure.The Institutional theory starts with Weber (Pugh & Hickson 2007) and his theory of authoritarian structure.Of course, Weber differentiated between power and authority.Power is the ability (possibility) to force people to obedience (independent of their resistance) and authority implies voluntary subjugation.Hence the authoritarian systems are those in which the subordinates execute orders of the superiors since they consider them legitimate.Weber differentiated between three authoritarian organizational configurations (depending on manner in which the authority is legitimized within the organization): charismatic, traditional and legal-rational.The legal-rational is the core of the contemporary bureaucratic organization.These configurations are typically accompanied by different administrative apparatus as the bearer of a hierarchical structure.These three pure configurations are usually combined in practice, not just in bureaucratic macro-organizational structures, but in all the other structures which were later made.P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell (Pugh & Hickson 2007) argue that the various macro-organizational structures are not significantly different.These authors analyze why bureaucratic macro-organizational structure is so widespread and why has it become practically dominant form of organization in the twentieth century in all fields and activities of human organization.It is particularly indicative that the initial macro-organizational structures (new enterprises with new or old activities), designed and initially set up with very different (significantly different from the bureaucratic) macro-organizational structures, rapidly and inevitably converged toward bureaucratic macro-organizational structure.Was this convergence generated by superior efficiency of the bureaucratic form, or by the institutional pressure exerted by the environment on managers to make their organizations similar to each other (regardless of the efficiency criteria).The latter cause led to the institutional isomorphism of macroorganizational structures of enterprises.Conformity of institutional isomorphism is achieved through three mechanisms of isomorphism: coercive (forced; coercion generates political influence on the enterprise), mimic (mimic, in response to the fear of uncertainty; cue from the structure of those who survive) and normative (generated by the professionalization of managers and professionals; such structures were being taught in school).Through all the three mechanisms, the ideas and solutions from the environment and adapted and legitimized as own solutions of macro-organizational structuring.This leads us to the conclusion that the bureaucratic model will survive for a long time in all fields of human activity, despite the exact proof of its inefficiency and ineffectiveness, due primarily to institutional isomorphism.
Gresham's Law of Planning inherited some parts of the Iron Law of Oligarchy as it also shows tendency of an organization to be a vehicle for achieving own goals, but in a different way.In fact, this principle was established by March & Simon (March & Simon 1958) as the Law of programmed activities, and was later supplemented by Merton (Merton 1968) using the analogy of the original Gresham's Law according to which bad money drives out good money.We experienced this during inflation in the 90's when the government, together with tycoons-to-be, "implemented" the original accumulation of capital in post-selfmanagement Serbia.Possibly negative consequences of programmed activities rest with the fact that the organization, frantically sticking to the plan, becomes rigid and consciously disregards changes in the environment (such changes have to be mitigated by organizational changes).It is very difficult to stand up to programmed activities (Ford 1981) because they simplify communication, precisely define selection of information, stabilize the organization and reduce the need for coordination.Gresham's Law of Planning implies that the programmed actions, i.e. plans, become obstacles to significant changes, because one insists on the procedure (as long as the change does not make the actualities discredited or lost), even more through institutionalization of adoption and implementation of innovation and through procedural problems of cooperation between the organizational units of enterprises (even ministries) which are the drivers of certain stages in an innovative change.
Parkinson's Law (Parkinson 1955) has psychological background and relies on two principles.First, every superior strives to have his underlings who are rivals between themselves, thus (which is in accordance with the principle of hierarchy) he has at least two and, preferably, even more underlings.Second, every underling fills his working time with "activities" and instantly comes to a point when he feels overburdened with work, which are his grounds for asking for assistant employees (again, at least two).His superiors support his demands as they contribute to enlarging of the organizational unit they lead.This leads in (Parkinson 1955) an expanding hierarchy (the number of levels), as well as an increasing number of workers, regardless of the real need for positions in favour of the business (institution, ministry, etc.), but rather for the goal of achieving the two criteria indicated earlier.Even in Serbia, the nations that were a part of the old Yugoslavia are now debating whether or not they should reduce their overall public expenditure and, more specifically, whether or not they should reduce the number of personnel working in state administration and public companies.The current situation is a complete carbon copy of the Parkinson's Law.There is an endless discussion about tasks that are really necessary (required) and that have to be done by the state administration and public enterprises (which is mission impossible), instead of discussing the maximum cost of public consumption that may be borne by the state, i.e. taxpayers, (expressed as a percentage of GDP) for the assigned tasks which have to be done for that amount of funds, whereby the number of employees and their salaries are not the issue of prime importance for the taxpayers.Therefore, we have skipped the essence but the debate on pay grades, social maps and other details was skillfully imposed, whereby some special regulation was eventually introduced to reduce the number of employees in this field less than it increased in the course of the debate about this problem.
Peter Principle (Peter & Hull 2011) reads that in every hierarchy, every employee gets promoted to his/her level of incompetence: an excellent locksmith becomes a bad manager, a good economist becomes a bad CFO, etc.It is clear from the said that, after a while, most of the positions in every organization are occupied by those who are unfit for those posts.On the other hand, the tasks are carried out by those who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.Extending this principle to allround managers is justified by the standpoint that management in different enterprises and at different levels is actually the same.In that way, a good caterer can be a director at a large public transportation enterprise or Chairman of the Board of Directors at some other public enterprise.Unfortunately, this attitude is usually correct since these managers, who were following a political-party spiral, have reached their level of incompetence long ago.Such a manager is equally unsuccessful in all enterprises.
Serious teamwork research was initiated by a French engineer and agronomist Ringelmann who studied in 1918 the performance of horses and found that traction force of a pick-up hitch, if two horses were harnessed, was not twice the sum of forces exercised by horses harnessed individually.So, horses joined in teamwork tend to loaf as well.Ringelmann then engaged students, team members, to pull the rope.When two of them pulled the force reduced by 7% compared to the force they exercised individually.When three of them pulled the reduction was 15%, and when the entire team pulled the reduction was 51% (sic!).Today, this phenomenon is known as the Ringelmann effect and loafing (different for different jobs) is confirmed in the effects of a group or teamwork in all areas and situations: in schools, in construction and other production activities, in the military, at business meetings, in rowing, football and other teams.
The intrigue pertaining to synergetic effect of a group and teamwork was scattered, as we can see, 90 years ago, i.e. before it was introduced into the syllabi of faculty courses, but students' heads are still filled with it.Originally, synergy in Greek means working together.Therefore, there is no question of 1+1=3 which is advocated by those who ignored elementary algebraic knowledge that pertains to summing of fractions (common denominator).If the story of synergy in teamwork was true, "Real Madrid" would not even play, but would only send a sum of its performances or simply net worth of its players to its opponent, and would win and / or lose the game without playing.Loafing in a group (or, potentially, impossibility to express the most important abilities) is the rational behavior of an individual who does not waste his strength needlessly.The Scandinavians were first to acknowledge that this was the case, and instead of having every person perform only one offensively simple operation in the production with half his strength, they had an individual complete the entire work which had previously been completed by a smaller group.And productivity increased.This opens up another important question, i.e. the problem of routine.Routine is one of the derivatives of standardization in behavior and attitudes.It creates the repetitive pattern in thinking and behavior, introduces shortcuts in job realization, reduces attention, skips some control actions and thus achieves greater efficiency in carrying out repetitive operations.Routine, therefore, can be useful.But it can also be very harmful.Specifically, no matter how certain aspects of business and / or manufacturing process seem to have deterministic nature, this is never entirely true.Linear dependence, i.e. the straight line, becomes curved at some point and causes a breakdown.Moreover, routine is the enemy of change and refreshment, especially of some radical advancement in technology and organizational techniques and methods.On the other hand, changes and improvements in the company organization and business operations are, indisputably, necessary.
John Richard Hackman (see /11/) states that there is no dispute that a large number of people think the teams is a modern democratic approach to more efficient accomplishment of a task.Teamwork magic, followed by additional resources, i.e. better conditions, does not change the essence.People in teams tend to work less and at a lower intensity.More specifically, very few people have the so-called collaborative intelligence, or are capable of and willing to work "together independently".Although it sounds like an oxymoron, according to Hackman it seems to be one of the key factors of in(efficiency) of a group or a teamwork.According to the same author (see /26/), in order to solve problems that generate teamwork inefficiency, it is necessary to take numerous measures in the establishment and functioning of teams.The team must have clear boundaries (who is and who is not in the team), independence and stability of team members.The team must have very clearly defined tasks (somewhere between ARIR and BRIS detailing) with a stimulating orientation towards their fulfillment and a motive for engaging comprehensive talent of all team members.A stable and successful team must not be homogeneous, which is an additional problem in establishing key common norms of behavior.The linear macro-organization in which a team operates will stimulate the team's efficiency through its information system and flexible reward system.It is often forgotten that all these actions should be taken into account when making the balance between efficiency and effectiveness of a team.In methodological terms, it is incorrect to sum up only the energy spent by team members and to ignore all external inputs, some of which have been mentioned here.
Finally, a successful team should be led by an expert in charge of team management (an oxymoron again).Team decisions are often reduced to the viewpoint of a strongest team member (usually the said expert for team management) instead of having a high-quality synthesis of the opinions of all team members.The problem becomes more complex when the strongest member of a team often fails to act by persuasion based on his knowledge, but rather acts in other ways.This does not only create team management problem, but opens the door to mental and, consequently, to physical loafing of team members.Obviously, human instinctive need to belong to a group (because it provides them with the feeling of security) is paid for by freedom, careful behavior (taciturnity) and generally low profile of behavior, all of which results in a decrease in efficiency and effectiveness of a group.When at job interview a candidate is asked whether he is a team player, he decisively confirms he is, not being aware that he declares if given a chance for teamwork he will tend to loaf.Luckily, even those who ask that question are not aware of this, because teamwork is still "in".
Previous five examples of thee pathology have been defined after their massive manifestations.Globalization principle (primarily related to business, but also to other human activities) is (Simonovski et al. 2014) a premeditated instrument or a method of an unlimited increase in profits.According to this principle, globalization means unlimited free movement of financial capital worldwide, without verifying the origin, the quality (by abolishing the gold standard under the slogan that it is detrimental to the progress of business operations, unlimited opportunities for abuse have opened up), and other characteristics of money, as is normally required of goods (and, partly, of services as well).Thus, globalization is a pathological condition of the system without normal boundaries, specifically, the system with strange boundaries, i.e. the system with boundaries whose properties are imposed (dictated) by the environment and are essentially at the expense of the interests of an organization (enterprise, industry, country, etc.) that falls within such boundaries.In globalization, boundaries are perfectly permeable for money (and money is a product often of dubious origin, quality and ownership) in both directions, unidirectionally permeable for manufactured goods, raw materials and services, and impermeable for the workforce.Therefore it is not surprising that in the late eighties of the 20th century, transnational companies controlled over ½ of world production, over 2/3 of world trade, over ¾ of an international transfer of technology and over 4/5 of financial flows.Today, these fractions are probably much higher.Thus, according to the principle of globalization financial flows are in not way restricted, commodity flows are under strict control and labor flows are prevented because the difference in wages, implementation of laws on environmental protection, trade union and other rights "there" and " here" is huge.At the end of last and the beginning of this century, it is clear that the financial capital has pushed industrial capital and human resources on the siding.Only few countries in Europe still care for the middle class as a "buffer" between the extremely rich and the extremely poor.Forcibly disabled labor flows create enormous pressure in these regions.According to the topical estimates, over 175 million people in the world currently migrate from "controlled zones" to rich countries.The same source (globalization pathology analysts) estimates that migrations will include about one billion inhabitants on Earth in the next twenty years.
Globalization is as old as written history of mankind.Motive and goal of globalization have remained the same, but only the means of implementation thereof has changed.And the name, too.It was once called an empire (of the Inca, Aztec, Mayan, the Roman Empire, the empire of Alexander the Great, etc.).Kingdom was, most often, the state framework of a (majority) nation, while the empire was a meta-country, i.e. the creation composed of many kingdoms and nations.Hunting atavism fuels in a human his propensity for seizing someone else's results (river or forest products, or products of other groups of people) instead of living by his own patient and painstaking work (in agriculture, for example).An enormously high "catch" (known today as extra profit) is generated from seizing by force of arms (bronze, iron, fire arms) or, as today, by other means, such as: money, language, technology (of production, transport, electronic communications etc.).

Conclusion
We produced this paper hoping that this introductory critique of the dominant approaches to crises and pathologies of organization will generate crisis, or radical review of the approach to this problem.This does not mean that we advocate the abandonment of the study of many different causes and consequences of crises and pathological conditions.We only insist to take into account in these considerations that any opposing to disorder, i.e. the growth of entropy which is every organizing, causes problems and crises in the long run.Wherever the man opposes the natural order of things by means of artificial systems, spontaneous (or other) actions can be expected toward achieving the natural state of things.Organizational pathology is, in our opinion, the result of the natural and legitimate response of inadequately understood and organizationally articulated factors in organizational systems of all types and sizes.Alleviating or avoiding the occurrence of pathological conditions is a major, unexplored, problem.Individual efforts are aimed, rightly, primarily at attempting to understand the mechanism that generates pathological conditions.Only after understanding the essence of the emergence of pathological breakdowns, is it possible to start searching for the solutions to problems.In Serbia, stabilizing the organization was hindered by simultaneous, almost coordinated transition and globalization blows, which was conducive to reinforcing pathological conditions that were ordinarily normal in both the stationary environment and in the case of stable business operations of the enterprise.
Problems that generate organizational crises in the company as a whole are neither evenly distributed to individual macro-organizational entities of a company, nor at the micro-organizational level contained within.Macro-structural entities, particularly affected by crises and pathological conditions, are an organizational entity with articulated macro-structural dimensions of the business information system and an organizational entity with articulated QMS.Since these problems are the biggest in these two entities, further attention should be directed towards them and solutions should be sought to mitigate the consequences of crises and pathologies therein.Our further efforts will certainly be directed towards the said.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Stages of crisis in an enterprise business operations