Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations - Free Essay Sample

Introduction

Organizations are systems in that they are composed of interrelated parts (subsystems), whose specific activities affect the rest of the components of the total system (Scott & Davis, 2014). In the same way, the organization can also be considered as a subsystem of a larger subsystem, which exists in an environment where there are other dynamically interdependent systems.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Organizations have four essential elements: the participants or members that compose them, the technology they use, their own "culture" or their social structure, and the goals or objectives that they must meet. Furthermore, they are immersed in the environmental conditions of the environment in which they operate (Scott, 2015). These four elements generate three organizational systems or "types of organization" proper. These include rational systems, natural systems, and open systems.

The rational system, the natural system, and the open system are all three theoretical models of the social system. The rational system is a standardized formal structure under rational planning (Scott, 2015). Natural systems are those that are oriented to perpetuate the organization rather than perpetuate an objective because its members pursue very different interests, which generally come from a consensus reached to resolve a conflict (Onday, 2018). Open systems are those formed by interdependent groups in the general flow of operation, but which have very different functions and missions.

Technological Structures and the three Organizational perspectives

Organizations as Rational Systems

The rationalist perspective translates into predetermined objectives and the implementation of actions designed and arranged to obtain the greatest efficiency. Rational systems are seen as organizational logic that is consciously shaped and molded to achieve a predefined goal (Scott, 2015). According to this conception, the organization is approached in a rational and normative way, like a "machine" that must be rationally arranged, per pre-established rules, presented as reliable and reproducible solutions (Martz, 2013). This mechanical vision of the organization leads to the establishment of an impersonal order, where behaviors and relationships between actors are dedicated to the accomplishment of tasks, to the exclusion of any political or social consideration (absence of interactions) (Kandhro, 2015). This deliberate conception of the organization, therefore, ignores the interactions between individuals and the organization. It disregards problems of cultures, power, or personal motivations in favor of a formal system around codified relationships centered on the achievement of clear and precise objectives.

Organizations as Natural Systems

The naturalist perspective considers that organizations are above all communities that strive to adapt and survive the difficulties they encounter (Scott, 2015). Organizations should, therefore, not be considered as a means of serving ends assigned to them. They are, above all, ends for themselves. The naturalistic approach, therefore, approaches organizations as an organic system. The survival of the system is seen as the primary goal and adaptation is the means by which the organization can continue to grow.

While in the rationalist model, the agreement is systematically sought (standardization - consensus) in the service of clear objectives, the naturalist perspective will favor diversity, dissensus, free initiative, and cooperative actions, leaving an essential part of emerging phenomena (Winiecki, 2010). The organization is presented as a dynamic system between several actors, in which sociocultural interactions and the development of skills contribute to the functioning of the organization.

Organizations as Open Systems

Organizations are open, sensitive systems, with the capacity to grow and self-reproduce, and be responsive, in constant exchange with the environment that surrounds them (Scott, 2015). Organizations are open systems since they maintain an active interaction and a constant exchange of matter, energy, and information with their environment. They enter "inputs" into the system, transform them within their limits, and return them to the environment in the form of "outputs."

Open systems insist on the openness of the internal and external interaction of the system, the irreversibility of development, and the system's feedback to the environment, and the exchange of matter or energy (Scott & Davis, 2014). It also emphasizes that besides energy and matter, feedback can also be carried out through information, and the mutual exchange of system components will lead to changes in the meaning of the system itself and affect the transformation of the system structure (Martz, 2013). Therefore, the open system naturally guides the inlay to the interface in the environment.

The perspective of an open naturalistic system tends to consider that organizations are above all human communities that strive to adapt and survive, depending on the nature of the interests involved and the evolution of the environment, also taking into account the economic, political, and institutional context (Onday, 2018). From this perspective, it is therefore about active systems that build their future, trying to face external threats and to best seize the opportunities that are offered to them, by having recourse to the outside if necessary (a network of alliances, cooperation, partnerships) (Kandhro, 2015). In this system, unlike the rationalist approach, exploration takes precedence over-exploitation. The open naturalist perspective considers the organization as the seat of flows (internal and external) and permanent transformations. Such a system, by relying on the diversity of points of view, openness, and external adaptation, thus tends to promote collective learning and innovation.

Organizations should embrace openness (Merida, 2015). Unfortunately, today, the vast majority of employees work under the organizational culture of "Babylon." Employees live in the old "Babylon" workplace and may be thrown into a lion's den or a furnace at any time. Although the environment and culture at the time suppressed them (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) from publicly confessing their beliefs, they still positively affected their institutions and environment. Compared with Daniels in the Old Testament, employees are in a much better situation today. People live in a free and open society, and businesses encourage employees to voice their opinions and be creative. However, in other instances, employees have to side with their bosses all the time to avoid being mistreated or suppressed. This is wrong because Colossians 4:1 says, "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven (Bible, 2020)." The Bible also adds, "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven and that there is no partiality with him (Ephesians 6:9) (Bible, 2020)." All these Bible verses show employers should embrace open systems and treat their workers well.

The "Bible" is full of principles of universal business wisdom, which have been extensively verified since the beginning of the human market economy to help people and businesses succeed (Merida, 2015). Both Christians and non-Christians can experience benefits as long as they follow these general principles. For example, "giving is better than receiving" and so on. Business behavior should reflect the disposition of Jesus Christ. In other words, the company should treat customers, employees, customers, and shareholders like Jesus. Leaders should invite others to imitate and follow them just as Christ did.

Areas Of Technology That Are An Issue For Participants

The technology of an organization means considering it as a place where work is done and where energy is applied to transform materials. No organization is self-sufficient; all of them depend on the relationships they establish with the larger systems to which they belong to survive (Orlikowski, 2010). Few organizations take responsibility for the socialization and training of their participants regarding the technology used in the organization. There are, therefore, different areas of technology that are an issue for participants. The first problem is transitioning the technology to a matrix structure.

The technology of transition to a matrix structure consists of three stages. In the first, temporary task forces are created by product, project, or territory. These groups are made up of representatives from different parts of the organization (Yoon & Kuchinke, 2005). Formally, the representatives remain in the departments that delegated them, but they must also report to the head of the target group. In the second stage, such groups receive the status of permanent subdivisions. In the third stage, a formal team leader is appointed in the permanent group who is responsible for integrating all work in the group from start to finish. The leader is empowered and enters into business relationships with functional and product managers.

The matrix structure attracts managers with a high potential for adaptation to changes in the external environment by simply changing the balance between resources and results, functions and products, and technical and administrative goals (Orlikowski, 2010). This is the only structure with pronounced horizontal ties, which, in combination with vertical ones, implement the mechanisms of the plurality of power and local decision-making. This state of affairs develops the abilities of employees and makes them participants in the decision-making process. At the same time, the matrix structure is difficult to implement, cumbersome, and expensive to operate.

The type of technology (defined as a workflow sequence) should be the primary criterion in the design of an organizational structure and such design should be done from the bottom up rather than the top down. Technology here refers to the sequence of work performed by workers, or "who does what, for whom, when, where, and how often." The main problem is the allocation of "one-off jobs" from which the complete workflow in the system is formed (Yoon & Kuchinke, 2005). A sector is created for each "unit job" headed by a leader Each such "unit of work" is characterized by a unique scheme of interactions and can be distinguished due to "breaks" in the full technological flow (process), formed under the influence of spatial and temporal factors. If such natural "unit jobs" are divided by subordinating them to different leaders, then none of them will be able to eliminate deviations from the established technology for performing this "unit work." At the same time, the scheme of work execution must be stable - this avoids undue stress or stressful conditions among the work performers. then none of them will be able to eliminate deviations from the established technology for performing this "one-off job."

Technological requirements impose several restrictions on the choice of the form of organization, but, on the other hand, the choice should take into account such social and psychological aspects that do not depend on technology (Orlikowski, 2010). Economic constraints are also imposed on social and technological requirements. Any attempt to optimize only one of these parameters - technical, social, or economic - will not lead to the optimization of the system as a whole.