Ashford University Rational Natural & Open Systems Discussion

Respond to each post below 

Discussion: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

Diverse approaches such as socialization, collaboration, standard-setting, and power use are often adopted in organizations (Scott et al., 2017). For the past five decades, the growth of digital technology, most recently including the resurgence of artificial intelligence and the globalization of finances, trade, and manufacture, have fundamentally altered global enterprise business organizations and transformed their views about what they can achieve (Baum et al., 2020). As cultural changes, technological, and political-economic occur, business organizations must evolve and adapt to the changes to continue to grow to survive in society. As a result, each organization’s viewpoint or theory varies depending on different aspects of their organization’s goals, mission, and objectives.

The organization’s theory focuses on consistent processes of how organizations are organized, the strategies used to manage them, the philosophies underlying their architecture, why it was achieved, and their ability to control the activities (Scott et al., 2017). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the systems view of the human performance technology (HPT), which consists of three basic systems: rational, natural, and open systems. In addition, the meticulous analyses conducted by large corporations have developed data-driven organizations. The three main theoretical approaches are based on rational, natural, and open perspectives regarding business theories. Therefore, organizational sociology is a starting point for learning about different systems and viewpoints, allowing the organization to have insights into a holistic, integrated, and total view of the organizational structure.

Defining Characteristics of the Three Systems of Organizations

A formalized organizational structure is recognized as an enormous contribution to productivity and efficiency by a few organization members and is taken for granted by many (Scott et al., 2017). Rational systems are probably the most creative and common organizational type for effective goal fulfillment in modern organizations. The rational systems rely on explicit objectives and strictly defined rules and responsibilities to facilitate the intricacy of how the members transmit and conduct their actions through the exchange (Onday, 2018). In addition, the most effective operating characteristics of an organization and components of the rational systems are when it is a controlled and organized environment. When the organization’s behavior is rational, they are organized, intentional with a specific goal, and a theory-oriented organization with precision and operationalization mindset as it contributes to its operational behavior.

In contrast, a natural perspective approach considers the varying complexity of goals while concentrating on definable and concrete objectives. The natural system is similar to the concept of social evolution, where each component must be adapted for it to remain effective; otherwise, it will fail by the surrounding ecology. Natural systems models are designed based on human relations, social, and the idea that a system has essential objectives to persist. It is most practical when the knowledge and skills of the organization members are applied to the creation and maintenance of the natural systems responsive to the members and surrounding social systems. The system will falter if the organization members exert more effort to pursue their interests rather than adjusting to the design and altering conditions. The researchers of natural systems agree that one requires precision and formalization but are sure to differ on the other characteristics that both share (Scott et al., 2017). The natural system thinkers often recognize that objectives can be complicated and involved rather than straightforward. When complexity and structure are removed from the goals and objectives, the members do not communicate how they should (informally) and fail to accomplish their goals or objectives. As an example, the techniques of teamwork and innovation were developed to retain members’ motivation, productivity, and self-manage through the complex changes of the environment, such as culture and strategy changes.

The open system organizations perceive as subsystems that continually adapt their priorities and structures to the current situation (Onday, 2018). The rational and natural views focus on groups and the participants on achieving formal and informal results, while the open system focuses on a group’s environments. The inactivity of orientation restricts the actualization of complicated open systems to economically bounded ideas, which rely on the rational and natural systems concepts. According to the natural system, an organization is static and unaffected by the external world. On the other hand, an organization based on creative and strategic thinking principles views itself as open and dependent on new inputs from within and influences from without. The open system is a system of moral and rational ideas. The open systems framework considers the organization to be a network of interdependent subsystems where each one can affect another and cooperate with others (Jaki et al., 2020). The open system approach gives the organization the framework for everyone as a reference and “closely coupled” cybernetic systems to respond to specific environmental inputs. The open system’s principles are considered a method for managing organizations, making decisions, and commanding. It can be adjusted to align with the world as with any other organizational structure.

Relationship Between the Three Systems of Organizations

The three viewpoints are inextricably linked. Rational and natural systems focus on intra-organizational interactions between individuals or workgroups (Onday, 2018). The rational organizational structure was the first of the three viewpoints, and it was through this lens the idea was created (Scott et al., 2017). Natural systems were born from rational organizational systems and are in sharp contrast to rational systems in that they are more complex and organic.

Over time, philosophers started to express their views on organizations through closed and open terms. A free exchange of knowledge, services, and energy occurs in an open system, while a closed system keeps these goods for use (Turner et al., 2019). In the same way, a closed system is described as enclosed and isolated from its external world. On the other hand, an open system lacks this distinction and is susceptible to influence from both internal and external influences. Both rational and natural processes seek to influence participants’ and groups’ formal and informal interactions to accomplish organizational objectives (Onday, 2018). Both rational and natural functions are closed and do not consider the world they operate.

Rational and natural systems are unconcerned with an organization’s relationship with its environment, which is the purpose of open systems (Onday, 2018). The open organizational structure viewpoint is a synthesis of rational and natural perspectives. As with natural systems, open systems do not seek to discredit other methods but rather expand upon them when amassing knowledge. To see an entity as an open and networked structure that is both a part of and influenced by its external world is to view it as an open and networked structure (Turner et al., 2019). Specifically, the open organizational structures perspective demonstrates that an organization cannot have only one logical or standard view but must always have both. Open systems are distinguished by their incorporation of the environment and reliance on its influences in developing the organizational structure.

As highlighted in the organizational system hypothesis, the open systems structure viewpoint should not be perceived in isolation or indistinctly. The open systems describe an arrangement or combination of components in the proposed theoretical framework for a natural system perspective: Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Latency (AGIL) (Scott et al., 2017). The problem of adaptation is obtaining adequate resources, and the other problem of goal achievement is setting and implementing goals. Integration is the issue of ensuring solidarity or coordination among the system’s subunits. Latency is the difficulty of developing, maintaining, and transmitting the system’s distinct culture and values (Scott et al., 2017). The theories inform how organizational structures are applied to businesses, corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.

Theoretical Viewpoints of the Three Systems of Organizations

There are two critical theoretical perspectives on management: scientific management and administrative theory (Scott et al., 2017). Although formality is a central theme in a rational framework, it is also necessary to understand the various methodologies and theoretical perspectives. Frederick W. Taylor applied a scientific approach to management in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It aided in the creation of the logical system’s scientific management method. Taylor expressed his conviction in this approach that the scientific method of science should be applied to a rational organization (Scott et al., 2017). The scientific method can analyze processes, resource performance, and spatial use by using a bottom-up approach.

Henri Fayol’s administrative theory was like Frederick Taylor’s, except that Fayol placed a greater emphasis on the management role than on the job product or operation (Scott et al., 2017). Regardless of its classification, Fayol advocated and addressed several managerial concepts for mission coordination, market management, and specialization areas of an organization.

As is the case with the rational system perspective, the natural system perspective encompasses a variety of theoretical perspectives and approaches. Two critical theoretical perspectives are the Mayo and Human Relations Schools and Selznick’s Institutional approach (Scott et al., 2017). Elton Mayo researched the individual factors that influence work. He believed it was essential to entice workers to become involved in the organization’s activities so committed employees would be more efficient. The Hawthorne studies shaped Mayo’s viewpoint (Scott et al., 2017). The Hawthorne studies examined whether the consistency and brightness of light impacted worker efficiency at the Western Electric Company. While the experiments failed, the researchers found that paying attention to workers improved productivity. Productivity is enhanced because of the attention given to employees.

Philip Selznick’s approach is more complicated than Mayo’s. He stresses the critical nature of institutionalization, which he defines as “a morally neutral mechanism that results in the emergence of orderly, stable, socially integrating trends from disorderly, loosely organized, or narrowly technical practices” (Scott et al., 2017). He emphasizes seeing the company rather than in segments or as individual employees. Though Selznick concurs with the rational system viewpoint, he argues that organizations must also understand the unwritten and informal systems in real-world organizations (Scott et al., 2017). Although both rational and natural system perspectives have theoretical overlap, it is more prevalent in the open system perspective, especially between natural and open systems. Weick’s organizing model and contingency theory are two theoretical perspectives that demonstrate this.

Weick expanded on the open systems viewpoint by emphasizing that process is more critical than structure and that the focus should be on organizing rather than the organization itself. Weick refers to the term organization as a myth. If one conducts studies, one may discover that some events occur inside concrete walls (Ledford et al., 2020). Weick describes the organization as “the method of resolving ambiguity in an acted environment through interlocked behaviors embedded in conditionally linked processes” (Scott et al., 2017). Thus, organizing minimizes uncertainty via knowledge processes by developing and maintaining repeated and dependent behaviors between two participants. These acts enact an organization. Weick also observes that individual behavior is more a feature of circumstance than a defined position.

According to the contingency principle, an organization’s optimal course of action is determined by its internal and external setting. The contingency principle is derived from both natural and open systems perspectives. It considers human activities and the environment, extended to various fields other than the company, including leadership and behavioral (Chaudhry, 2020). Additionally, the contingency theory assists in guiding and explaining decision-making and behavior, as well as organizational structure, when people experience fluctuating internal and external environments.

Personal Perspectives of the Three Systems of Organizations

An organization is an organized group of people who collaborate under the auspices of a given framework designed to accomplish specific purposes, goals, especially a business, society, and association. Therefore, the rational, natural, and open system viewpoints encompass the organization, although from disparate perspectives. For example, rational organizations, such as government agencies, are extremely bureaucratic, while natural organizations are more like to consulting firms. However, the open organization is shown to possess the power of both rational and natural viewpoints. Moreover, it is intelligent enough to use the strengths of both organizational structures to become agile.

Organizations and individuals, as well as the environments in which they operate, are dynamic. Motives vary, beliefs vary, priorities vary, roles overlap, and the economy fluctuates continuously. A standard structure, such as that found in a rational system, is incapable of rapidly adapting to the changes and complexities encountered in the real world. However, both natural and open systems have an informal framework that enables them to be agile and resilient to changes in human behavior and environmental changes.

Biblical Organizational Perspectives

The contingency principle enables people to make errors and devise novel ways to correct them. Also, it is consistent with God and His grace. He is not the one to punish or isolate Himself – He is passionate about resolving problems and seeking the right people. Deuteronomy shows God designates the Israelites as the holy ones (King James Bible, 2017). Exodus 18:19-20 says, “It is proper for you to serve the people before God and bring their disputes to him. You should teach them God’s commands and instruct them about how and what to do” (King James Bible, 2017). Merida et al. (2015) talks about wisdom and states six interrelated dimensions. Dimension five is the justice dimension “For receiving wise instruction in righteousness, justice, and integrity” (Merida et al., 2015). Thus, the organizational structure is needed to ensure that things run smoothly and to provide direction on how to organize, whether in tasks or leadership appointments.

References

Baum, J., & Haveman, H. (2020). Editors’ Comments: The Future of Organizational Theory. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0030.

Chaudhry, S. (2020). Understanding Change Enablers in Service Organizations: A Contingency Theory Perspective. South Asian Journal of Management, 27(2), 54-83. https://www.proquest.com/openview/5c3386b304b39ec445dc76cdc8492698.

Jung, Y., & Vakharia, N. (2019). Open Systems Theory for Arts and Cultural Organizations: Linking Structure and Performance. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 49(4), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2019.1617813.

King James Bible (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org.

Jaki, A. & Zi?bicki, B. (2020). Knowledge – Economy – Society. External and Internal Determinants of Modern Business Management. TNOiK Dom Organizatora. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347556046.

Ledford, C., Fisher, C., Cafferty, L., Jackson, J., Crawford, P., & Seehusen, D. (2020). How Patients Make Sense of a Diabetes Diagnosis: An Application of Weick’s Model of Organizing. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 162, 108117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108117.

Merida, T., Platt D., Akin, D. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group. https://www.perlego.com/book/2693705/exalting-jesus-in-1-2-kings-pdf.

Onday, O. (2018). The Relationship between Concepts of Rational, Natural and Open Systems: Managing Organizations Today. International Journal of Information, Business, and Management, 10(1) (pp. 245-258). https://zenodo.org/record/3464730#.YjlYiOfMIuU.

Scott, R., & Davis, G. (2017). Organizations and Organizing Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 134-138. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393090.

Turner, J., & Baker, R. (2019). Complexity Theory: An Overview with Potential Applications for the Social Sciences. Systems, 7(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004.

PART 2

Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

         “But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:40). Hence, the organization was born. Merriam-Webster (n.d.) indicates that the term organization can either describe as a noun (an act or condition) or an adjective (a characteristic). In this case, it will be a noun based on the state of its functional structure (a condition). According to Scott and Davis (2016):

Organizations are viewed as the primary vehicle by which, systematically, the areas of our lives are rationalized – planned, articulated, scientized, made more efficient and orderly, and managed by “experts”. (p. 4)

         Further, Scott and Davis contend that organizations have several items in common. All organizations are social constructs used to support the accomplishment of specific goals and objectives. Organizations are purposeful. Successful organizations must define their goals and objectives. Organizations must define and redefine (as appropriate) their goals and objectives. Generally, all organizations must induce participants to (i) contribute services; (ii) control and coordinate these contributions; (iii) garner resources from the environment; (iv) dispensed products or services; and (v) select, train, and replace participants. Further, resources garnered in an organization cannot be entirely devoted to the goals and objectives because some of the resources have to be used to maintain the organization. Ultimately, organizations must find the means to combine workflow and resources, such as technology, equipment, skills/know-how, and communication methodology (p. 11).

         Organizations come in all shapes and sizes, and they evolved to support enumerable goals and objectives. Describing organizations as operating systematically under one of three perspectives (rational, natural, and open systems) helps to differentiate their methodologies and how they attempt to accomplish their goals and objectives. In the rational system, “organizations are collectivities oriented to pursue relatively specific goals and exhibiting relatively highly formalized social structures” (Scott & Davis, p. 29). In the natural system, “organizations are collectivities whose participants pursue multiple disparate and common interests, but recognize the value perpetuating the organization as an important resource” (p. 30). In the open system, “organizations are congeries of interdependent flows and activities linking shifting coalitions of participants embedded in wider material-resource and institutional environments” (p. 32).

Characteristics of the Three Perspectives

           Organizations are considered omnipresent – existing everywhere, all at the same time. There are three system perspectives highlighted in the text by Scott and Davis (2016) as influential in defining organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Under the rational system, the goal is established, and the participants in the organization work towards accomplishing the goal. Scott and Davis (2016) state that organizations are instruments, and they are designed to achieve the specified goals (p. 35).

         Characteristics of the rational system start with the idea of being purposeful. ?zgür ?nday (2018) indicates that the term “ration” is used to narrow the meaning of technical and functional rationality (p. 247). In general, organizations are goal-orientated, and rationality refers to implementing goals, not selecting goals (Scott & Davis, p. 35). Specific goals provide “unambiguous criteria for selecting among alternative activities” (Scott & Davis, p. 36). The goals direct the activities, and goal specification and structure help make participant behavior more predictable (?nday, p. 248). Another characteristic of the rational system is a formalized structure, which helps to make behavior more predictable. The rational system may be bureaucratic, but this structure may provide comfort for the individuals who work within it. The process and procedures within the organization are standardized and may even be regulated. This system brings to mind organizations such as governmental agencies or financial institutions which function under strict regulatory statutes or compliance requirements. These regulations (which are principles) govern the behaviors of the participants.

         The natural system perspective is described by Scott and Davis (2016) as an organization with a significant thrust beyond being an instrument for attaining defined goals. Natural systems are viewed fundamentally as social groups attempting to adapt and survive in their particular circumstances (p. 59). Beyond producing products or services (which are typically the stated goals), natural systems recognize that the maintenance and preservation of the organization are also paramount to its survival. The text gives an example of an organization established to fight a specific disease, and the disease was cured. So, the organization changed its focus to another condition (disease). Maintenance of the organization allows it to continue on the path of supporting disease elimination, in general, by modifying the initial goal to support the current environment. Since the goal is malleable, one might say that the organization can have perpetual life by adjusting its focus when needed. As one would expect, however, the concern to survive can undermine the achievement of goals. Early on in their study of natural systems,  Yeakley and Cate (1991) described the system as organized in a series of scales or levels. The team contended that the system failed to account for the inherent temporal dynamics that continually shape system structures (p. 203).

         According to Fraser Sherman (2019), the organization under open systems is shaped by environmental influences (general and specific at the same time). Thus, the central feature of open systems is the process. The process is emphasized over structure. The system relies on feedback from its environment. The flow of information is essential. The organization has to be sensitive to its environment. According to Scott and Davis (2016), open systems can self-maintenance (p. 95). Self-maintenance is derived from the throughput (item passing through a system) of resources from the environment. Boundaries within the organization exist, and organizations must expend energy to maintain the boundaries. Individuals in an open system have to accept that there is no absolute way to do something.

Compare and Contrast Organizational Perspectives

          Both the rational and natural systems are closed organizational structures compared to the open system. Closed systems are established with boundaries between the external environment and the organization. Closed systems are not considered to be as dynamic as open systems. In contrast, open systems draw substance from the external environment. Open systems are complex and dynamic. According to Dr. Kathleen Allen (2018), a leader in a closed system would not see or ignore the meaning of connections between an organizational system and its broader external environment. Influenced and configured by the environment, the open system is dynamically affected by external variables. Closed systems, in general, inhibit individuals from seeing connections between themselves, the overall organizations, or other external systems. Closed systems often function in silos.

           Rational systems relate well to organizations that have managerial characteristics requiring a formal type structure and hierarchy. As aforementioned, rational systems are purposeful and goal-oriented, and they operate in mechanic mode. Banks are an excellent example of an organization that employs a rational system as they are regulated and structured to ensure compliance with regulations to secure customer confidence. Regulations guide the approach to work. Tasks are integrated throughout the system. Policies and procedures are modified to accommodate changes in regulations and standards. Obolenska, et al. (2019) contend that using rational systems for global marketing communications enterprises is ideal as by doing so, it can suit all the effectiveness requirements and at the same time minimize marketing risks (p. 14). The key metric for rational systems is CONTROL.

         The natural systems perspective has goals specification and formalized structure. However, natural systems emphasize goal complexity and informal structures (?nday, 2018, p. 248). Natural systems meet well with the complex goals associated with the academic environment requiring the organization to be more flexible to encourage participation. The environment is evolutionary to provoke thoughtfulness. As an organic model, natural systems are a more informal structure. However, they may purposefully formalize the structure by designing it to regulate behaviors within the organization (Scott & Davis, p. 62). Natural system models presume the existence of specific operative goals because these goals are required for the organization to survive (?nday, p. 248). The key metric for natural systems is MALLEABILITY.

         Interdependence is flexible in an open system to allow for response to the environment. Connections are relatively loose. Reese (2021) says that we would be naïve to assume that whatever happens outside of the organization does not affect what happens within the organization (p. 502). The open system perspective cares about interactions between an organization and elements constituting the organization’s environment (?nday, 2018, p. 250). Open systems have a high level of complexity. The open system environment is fluid. Open systems are constructed/based on throughput, which is the matter (information or material) that comes through the organization. Banerjee, et al. (2020) contend that perceptions (perspectives) that narrow concepts are canonized, often unwittingly, in everyday life (p. 339). Boundaries are not as well defined in the open system perspectives. However, boundaries do (and must) exist, and organizations must take caution to ensure boundaries are maintained. Therefore, efforts have to be made to determine the boundaries throughout the organization’s life. The key metric for an open system is INCLUSIVENESS.

Theoretical Difference Between Organizational Systems

         Scott and Davis (2016) believe that the open system has transformed the field of Organization but not eliminated rational or natural system views. The team contends that the former two system perspectives have been updated, elaborated, and combined with the open systems approaches (p. 107). Therefore, historical differences between the three systems perspectives are not as significant as the new theories offer with variations and contingent models.

         Under this new paradigm, Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch’s 1967 Contingency Theory Model states that when the open system is employed in a specific environment, the rational and natural systems function like guidepost at the opposite “end of a single continuum representing the range of organizational forms” (Scott & Davis, p. 108). James Thompson’s Levels Model (1967:2003) suggests that all three systems of an organization (rational, natural, and open) apply in differing amounts, at differing levels, in different organizations (p.108). Thompson recommends flexibility. Whereas W. Richard Scott’s Layered model (2003) states, no perspective was supplanted by the other system(s). The natural system did not eliminate the rational system – and the open system did not eliminate the rational and natural systems. Each system adhered to the philosophy of evolution. Although, Scott indicated that the two earlier systems (rational and natural) were strongly challenged. However, they were quickly combined with the open systems model (pp. 110-111). Open systems models, whether merged with rational or natural systems, work on both structural (rational) and social psychological (natural) levels (?nday, 2018, p. 251).

The Biblical Viewpoints

         1 Kings 3:25 tells the story of two women in debate (fighting) over a child. They wanted to know who was the rightful mother of the child. The discussion was so intense they requested an audience with King Solomon to decide with whom the child belonged. King Solomon pondered the question, and after a time, he decreed that the living child should be cut in half, and each woman was to be given half of the child. That would not work because, obviously, by cutting the child in half, they would destroy the child. The same is true with the system of organization. There are different perspectives (rational, natural, and open), but there is no organizational structure that ultimately outweighs the others. By eliminating one (or two) of the systems, you eliminate the history or disqualify an arrangement that could work under any other circumstance. The system evolves/steps forward for the specific organizational need – like how the true mother stepped forward in the debate over the child. The art is not to destroy but instead build upon the past and develop the future.

Conclusion

         Organizational perspectives have evolved from rule-based systems to organic systems to open systems. Wadhwani, et al. (2018) proffered that interpretation of the past in organizations may prove to be one of the most original lines of inquiry in the field of Organization. The past understanding may position the organization strategically in the present. This position can be seen as commonplace in the world we now inhabit, consisting of the rational and natural systems that have evolved into open systems (p. 1677). The open system