Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, the United States saw the rise of a new American institution: the organization. Socialization, standard-setting, communication, and the pursuit of common goals were all made possible due to the efforts of these groups. Organizational theory is a valuable tool for learning about different types of businesses and how they are managed. Evaluations of businesses are conducted from several perspectives and for many reasons. These perspectives highlight the use of systems thinking. Organizations like this must adapt to a dynamic political and economic environment. As knowledge and technology progress, they are shifting from closed to open systems to foster innovation and idea exchange. Using environmental resources while limiting their potential impact on a business requires careful consideration. Even closed systems that have been diligently working on the inside to effect the transformation required for expansion have begun to acknowledge the significant role that external environmental factors play in bringing about the change essential for development. Organizational views have been beneficial to the development of contemporary organizational theory. In “Exalting Jesus in 1&2 Kings,” Tony Merida examines key scriptural verses that pertain to the three organizational models. Among all the times in history, it is during Solomon’s reign that the essential perspectives are most explicitly addressed. Christ’s perfect hierarchical organization is laid bare for us to see. The paper examines various aspects of the three ideas, giving similarities and differences, defining characteristics, and theoretical and personal viewpoints of each.
Defining Characteristics
Natural
According to Scott & Davis (2015), natural systems perceive organizations as “organic systems.” Organizations in natural systems may be seen as collectivities. In place of a logical strategy, which promotes goal clarity and formalization, natural systems emphasize models and assert that social characteristics are of utmost importance. Natural systems emphasize informal structures and complicated purposes heavily (Ostrom, 2019). Nevertheless, supporters of the natural systems approach concur that an organization’s goals may be varied rather than uniform. In other words, natural systems distinguish between proclaimed and operational objectives. This method suggests pursuing additional objectives besides the organization’s aims to achieve goal complexity. Even so, from the perspective of natural systems, organizations are more than just instruments for attaining predetermined objectives. They are, instead, social groupings that attempt to adapt and prosper (Martins et al., 2021). Furthermore, this informal structure is modified by individual characteristics, distinguishing it from the formal aspect.
Rational
From the standpoint of the rational system, organizations, and their members’ features are characterized as being performed by coordinated and decided agents (Scott & Davis, 2015). Regrettably, the rational system is passive on the topic of morality and the ethical standards of a firm. It focuses mainly on an organization’s objectives and structure. This slightly contradicts the First Kings book (Merida, 2015). Instead of focusing on an organization’s structure and objectives, the book focuses mainly on ethical ideals (Merida, 2015). This concept of the rational estimate is conveyed by the vocabulary utilized under rational systems; standard terms include optimization, knowledge, efficiency, information, and design. According to Scott and Davis, these phrases refer to the cognitive and motivational restrictions put on the choices and actions of individuals inside an organization. Also, the phrases suggest that logical systems inside organizations occur internally due to well-defined limits (Martins et al, 2021).
Open
The open system categorizes an organization as visible to the external world. Participants of an open system have varying interests and respond differently to incentives. The open system viewpoint modifies both the natural and rational system views since the concept focuses a great deal of attention on an organization’s behavioral and structural models. In addition, Scott and Davis believe that the open systems view incorporates the natural and rational system approaches, each dealing with a set of organizational forms, into a more comprehensive model (Scott & Davis, 2015). Despite input from the ecosystem, some evaluators have erroneously concluded that open systems can sustain themselves. Furthermore, an open system consists of various subsystems, each coordinating with other subsystems within the organization. Hence, the open system approach provides a normative foundation. The contingency theory is an instance of an open system concept (Scott & Davis, 2015). This theory provides support for both the open-rational model and limited rationality. The application of contingency theory to open systems seeks to strike a balance between the perspectives of natural and rational systems (Weber & Waeger, 2017).
Relationship Between the Three Systems of Organizations
The advent of open systems does not signal the demise of natural and logical system methodologies. Merging these systems with open systems has revived them in several ways. Thus, several approaches are generated. The systems that have arisen in the modern era are considered models. Both open-rational and open-natural systems are present. Both ideas emphasize individual conduct (Scott & Davis, 2015). Furthermore, the models assume that decision-makers and managers develop the appropriate structures to deal with environmental shifts, influencing environmental needs and organizational reactions. Open-rational systems focus heavily on the logical constraints that decision-makers should comply with and the responsibilities, norms, and other normative configuration elements crucial to enabling humans’ logical reactions to environmental wants (Weber & Waeger, 2017). On the other hand, open-rational theories highlight the significance of cognitive processes that help humans perceive and respond to environmental changes.
Rational and natural systems prioritize organizational factors that persistently maintain environmental components. Their method has a closed-system viewpoint. Open-rational systems consider ideas from contingency theory, cost transaction theory, and restricted rationality. In contrast, open-natural systems use concepts such as “institutional theory,” “organized population ecology,” and “material dependence (Merida, 2015).” In addition to focusing on the formally rational properties of organizations, bounded rationality also considers the external environment. Furthermore, the theory evaluates how the environment influences decision-making (Weber & Waeger, 2017).
Many external limitations impact an organization’s structural characteristics in open-rational systems. On the other hand, open-natural systems emphasize the limitations of the structural design due to the technology level and other environmental constraints (Merida, 2015). The company’s working surroundings and technological capabilities determine the most efficient structure. Relationships between organizations and their surroundings play a crucial role in open-rational and open-natural systems that function at the ecological analysis level. Open-rational courses focus more precisely on the connections between businesses that operate in the same local or functional sectors (Scott & Davis, 2015). They presuppose that organizations are logical and open systems and change organizational norms to allow for inter-organizational activity. Contrarily, the relationships between organizations and their people are highly valued in open-natural systems. They include sense-making approaches to enable businesses to recognize differences in market demand and respond appropriately.
Theoretical Viewpoints
Many theories constitute the natural, rational, and open system viewpoints. The rational method is the foundation of administrative theory, bureaucratic theory, decision-making theory, and scientific management. Human relations and cooperative system theories are examples of natural perspective theories (Merida, 2015). The concepts of contingency theory bounded rationality, and transaction cost theory are incorporated in open system rational models. Institutional theory, resource dependency, and organizational population ecology are combined in open-system natural models (Weber & Waeger, 2017). The scientific management theory adopts the technique of measuring and improving the productivity of work processes through formal organizational frameworks. As opposed to the rule-of-thumb strategy, scientific management provides quantifiable rules, laws, and processes for work operations (Koval et al, 2021). The employment process and training programs utilize scientific methodologies, and management and staff collaborate to guarantee that the defined processes and standards are adhered to. Management and staff share the responsibilities and burdens (Scott & Davis, 2015). The major objective of scientific management is to increase efficiency by analyzing the elements impacting the production cycle inside organizations and utilizing this information to guarantee that efficiency is maximized through administrative and managerial monitoring of particular operations.
The administrative theory focuses mainly on the structural level of an organization. This perspective holds that top-down formal procedural change is superior to bottom-up formal procedural reform (Bhandari, 2020). The administrative theory examines specialization and coordination, two organizational structure characteristics. The administrative theory focuses on the organizational structure, not the person. The administrative theory focuses on knowing the formal aspects of organizations to promote productivity (Merida, 2015). The decision-making theory primarily concerns the formal features of organizations, including personnel, instead of the structure. By setting goals and premises, businesses simplify their decision-making processes. Furthermore, by including organizational restrictions and information gaps, decision-making theory expands our understanding of how employees make choices. It emphasizes the formal frameworks employed to accomplish predefined goals (Bhandari, 2020). The bureaucratic theory is characterized by a power structure, the authority to give directives, controlled qualifications and expectations, and rules and regulations. The bureaucratic ideology is defined by procedures based on a consistent and teachable set of norms, operating at total capacity, having a written charter, monitoring organizational activities, and achieving success through professional training (Scott & Davis, 2015). A bureaucratic employee often chooses a career requiring specialized training, is frequently appointed by superiors, and is accountable for his or her actions. Government employees are compensated and have a tenure structure. Bureaucracy is the most efficient form of social organization.
By recognizing the informal aspects necessary for the existence of an organization, cooperative systems theory uses a natural system model. Knowing how organizations operate involves knowing their informal aspects (Merida, 2015). Organizations anticipate informal participation through communication, desire to assist, and shared objectives. The bounded rationality viewpoint examines organizations from an open system rational standpoint, stressing their formal rational elements while considering the environment. Knowing rational decision-making inside businesses requires knowledge of the external world. This theory also examines how the environment significantly influences the decision-making process inside an organization (Khabarov et al, 2019). According to the restricted rationality concept, environmental stimulation is the basis for ordinary business activity. Leaders can attain public objectives by utilizing a formal mechanism as a tool since they are essential to the decision-making process, increasing their score on rational control and calculation. Based on hierarchies, leaders may dominate decision-making, or there could be discussions (Scott & Davis, 2015). The contingency theory stresses structural analysis and promotes an open-rational systems perspective in organizations. The contingency theory considers how the external environment influences the logical conduct of an organization. Based on this perspective, the external world confronts organizations with several possibilities and constraints (Khabarov et al, 2019). When reasonable decisions are made in response to environmental limits and opportunities, organizational structures emerge.
The organizational population ecology views companies as natural systems and does not consider organizational behavior rational. Organizational population ecology primarily focuses on the ecological level. As comparable companies operate in comparable environments with equivalent needs and generally have identical organizational structures, organizational populations are usually comparable (Scott & Davis, 2015). Environmental compatibility influences the organizational structure, not efficiency. The paradigm of resource dependency views organizations as natural, open systems. According to the resource dependency approach, organizations impact their environment and are influenced by it. Organizations are reliant on their external environment for life. This dependency leads to rivalry for resources inside and between businesses and interdependence. Members of an organization seek chances and threats in their environment and interpret them to achieve the best outcomes, sometimes through influencing the external environment. The institutional theory employs the open-natural systems perspective at the ecological level (Merida, 2015). The institutional theory asserts that an organization’s formal structure and actual functioning are distinct. The institutional theory explains the cognitive controls of organizations. Institutional myths and symbols, rather than transparent, rational processes, determine behavior, according to institutional theory (Deephouse et al, 2017). Institutional symbols have a substantial effect on an organization.
Personal Perspectives
Rational systems tend to focus on the formal sectors of companies and presume that the company comprises individuals who work to achieve specific goals. Second, the natural systems viewpoint advocates for the importance of informal networks and human interactions within an organization above formal structure (Deephouse et al, 2017). Focusing on a single organization is counterproductive, as open systems’ perspectives prove it. It is sometimes challenging to differentiate across organizations due to their shared reliance on their local environments. Each type of organization may trace its roots back to a different time and place. The background and experiences of the respective organizations were used as a source in some of the discussions. The researchers’ unique perspectives also had a role in widening the gap between the two sets of data. My observations and those in the previous research suggest that rational and naturalistic worldviews developed due to increasing attention to different types of institutions (Deephouse et al, 2017). Systems that were more in tune with nature prioritized service and professional organizations, whereas those more logical prioritized manufacturing businesses. Furthermore, rational theorists only consider the significance of individuals’ task-related attributes, while natural theorists claim that actions alter people’s dedication and inspiration. Many perspectives on the system may be used to the company’s benefit. A complete image of an organization’s opportunities and limitations is provided by, for example, the open system perspective. Organizational theory may also foretell a business’s future success or failure in the marketplace. So, for organizations to thrive, organizational theory should be implemented (Koval et al, 2021).
Conclusion
Studies of organizational theory may be divided into a variety of system approaches. Several organizational objectives could be attained based on the course of action. Research on organizational interaction employs a related connection between system strategies or views. In organizational theory, each approach depends on the others. The natural system model builds upon the rational method. Open system viewpoints, however, provide a clear connection between rational and natural perspectives. One must clearly understand the essential logical and organic tactics to appreciate the open system model fully. There are more connected processes for each system course. Following the previously mentioned research, similarities and differences between the system views are analyzed. According to system perspectives, the systems are hierarchical, ranging from rational to open systems, and organizations are directly tied to them.
References
Bhandari, M. P. (2020). Theories and Contemporary Development of Organizational Perspectives in Social Sciences. The development of organizational theory and the emergence of challenges to the traditional rational approaches to understand the organization. Part 2. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej, 24(1), 14-19.
Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 4(2), 27-54.
Martins, I. Y. A. M. A. B. H. O. R., & Precious, A. O. (2021). Beyond Rational Systems: Managing Organizational Conflicts From Pluralistic, Open Systems and Stakeholder Perspectives. Archives of Business Research, 9(7).
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.
Khabarov, D. A., Valiev, D. S., & Khabarova, I. A. (2019). Theoretical bases of the organization of rational nature management and protection of lands of agricultural purpose. International Agricultural Journal, (1), 5-7.
Koval, V., Mikhno, I., Udovychenko, I., Gordiichuk, Y., & Kalina, I. (2021). Sustainable natural resource management to ensure strategic environmental development. TEM Journal, 10(3), 1022.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
Weber, K., & Waeger, D. (2017). Organizations as polities: An open systems perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 886-918.
Ostrom, E. (2019). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 21-64). Routledge.
write