RESPOND TO THE TWO CLASSMATES. 500 WORDS EACH. SUBMIT AS TWO SEPARATE FILES ADDRESSING EACH PERSON'S NAME

1

RATIONAL, NATURAL, AND OPEN SYSTEMS

11

RATIONAL, NATURAL, AND OPEN SYSTEMS

Discussion Board 1: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

John Ireland

Author Note

John Ireland

I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Ireland.

Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

Introduction

Three perspectives of the organizational structure identified as the rational, natural, and open systems encompass divergent types of collectivities but also emphasize various facets of the organization (Scott & Davis, 2007). They serve as guidance for the structure and development of organizations and organizing. Issues concerning organizations cannot be understood fully without complete clarity and knowledge of the perspectives that frame the work of organizations.

The first perspective discussed in this paper shows organizations structured toward pursuing specific goals. In contrast, the second perspective focuses on survival through consensus or conflict and leveraging social systems. The third perspective views organizations as intertwining with their environments, so the boundary is indistinct (Foster, 2022). Many organizations starting or in existence use the organizational structure that combines all three perspectives, pulling essential elements from each.

Defining Characteristics

Each perspective has its benefits that attract personnel to help achieve the organization's goals. It is vital to understand and acknowledge every industry and organization differently. Regardless of the size and scope of the organization, the perspective applied is crucial to view the goals and objectives. Although it is essential to recognize the different perspectives and theories within an organization, it is equally important to identify the changes and adaptations that cause an understandably melding of all three perspectives.

The three perspectives researched this week were born from old organizational theories that organizations today have adopted and morphed into a combination of all three. The following topics will define the varying characteristics of the three main perspectives applied to organizations, previously identified as rational, natural, and open systems.

Rational System Perspective

Under the rational system perspective, organizations operate under a higher than average level of formality. In the rational system, there is much emphasis on the organization's structure, and there is a belief that people select and seek out specific organizations because they want to be a part of the commitment to helping that organization reach its objectives. Organization's structured under the rational system perspective comprise like-minded personnel whose goals are aligned with and parallel the organization.

As the structure attracts the people within the organization, it also impacts them. The rational perspective aligns with the understanding of process improvement and change management tools, such as the bottom-up approach, referred to as the Hoshin Kanri methodology (Mitsis, 2021). The rational systems perspective does not focus on a single theory but instead incorporates four distinct approaches identified: scientific management, administrative theory, the theory of bureaucracy, and administrative behavior.

Scientific Management

The scientific management approach applies objectivity and takes on data-driven decision-making with the organization's best interests in mind. This approach focuses on the "importance of identifying work tasks and then making that method the standard (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 43)," emphasizing inspection and increased performance. The Defense Health Agency (DHA) uses a similar approach to track the cost of services, calculate the return on investment, and figure out the best, most cost-efficient method to treat patients within the network while maintaining the same standards of care. The tracking mechanism uses the only human resource integrated software system within the Department of Defense (DoD). The Defense Medical Human Resources System – internet (DMHRSi) tracks time-sensitive decisions regarding medical, personnel readiness, training, financial reporting, and other HR requirements for efficient and contingency planning (Defense Medical Human Resource System internet, 2022). DHA achieves this goal through labor cost reporting methods and conducting a cost comparison analysis with out-of-network providers.

Administrative Theory

The second approach is the administrative theory which emphasizes a top-down approach to management. This approach focuses on the management functions and people component rather than the process and actual work. The administrative theory believes in formalizing roles and responsibilities and defining the organization's needs for management to address with the coordination of a hierarchal structure or chain of command as the driver. This theory foreshadowed modern aspects of innovation management. The administrative theory is conceived of management for the modern and science-driven enterprise, with astonishing power to produce innovation and prosperity (Hatchuel & Segrestin, 2019). It is best as an approach to leverage creativity that favors research and innovation over the process and work.

Theory of Bureaucracy

The federal government is starkly familiar with the theory of bureaucracy. The federal government, specifically the military, is a prime example of a complex, difficult organization and essentially linear with high levels of analytical output. The military has many different levels of hierarchy that any one single department or division cannot manage. A private sector company or small business that relies on work produced by management and staff to accomplish with little to no authorization levels would not turn to this approach. However, in the military or federal government, where varying levels of decision-makers ensure accurate and precise courses of action chosen and where lives are dependent on the protection or offense of the nation, the theory of bureaucracy is the best option to levy.

Administrative Behavior

It is human nature to contemplate personal motivators and reasons for joining an organization and realize there is no correlation to decisions made while employed by that organization. This makes up the premise of administrative behavior. It brings about the reality that there are people who make up an organization with different motives and reasons for working with and achieving its goals and objectives. The relationship with external affairs regarding social performance may lead to one’s output with the organization, and the intricate and delicate balance of the line and staff divide also affects the organization's areas (Husted, 1993). Taking direction from the staff to take action on the line with personnel affected by their social life may negatively or positively affect the organization’s goals.

Natural System Perspective

The natural perspective takes on an approach that the rational perspective lacks. The natural perspective includes the workings of organizations that address motivation and social or human behavior. Organizations include some discretionary considerations from a humanistic view. As with the rational perspective, the natural perspective approach has diverse influential variants of the social consensus subtype identified as the Mayo Human Relations School, Barnard’s Cooperative System, Selznick’s Institutional Approach, and Parson’s AGIL Model (Scott & Davis, 2007).

Mayo Human Relations School

Elton Mayo paid particular attention to the impact of one’s environment on their work performance and the motivating driver. Initially, Mayo felt that physical factors would boost employee motivation alone. However, he found that social factors increased motivation and productivity levels. This school of thought asserted that the individual was the fundamental unit on which all legitimate cooperative organizations are founded and are the model for the bond between the individual and the business firm (Bruce & Nyland, 2011).

Barnard’s Cooperative System

Chester Barnard’s view is yet another approach that differs from the rest discussed in this paper. Bardnard’s idea is a top-down approach and cooperation with acceptance of authority. This approach aims for reasons to follow authority and the authority given to lead where people are inclined to push back if asked to do things contrary to the organization’s purpose or benefit. He realized the real benefits of cooperation as an essential element of an organization's functionality. The coworker effect is an important factor linking positive individual behavior with the broader social context of the workgroup (Love, Macy, Dougherty, & Dougherty, 2001).

Selznick’s Institutional Approach

The rational perspective uses structure and rules with formalized approaches to goal achievement, whereas the natural perspective uses employee motivation for goal achievement. A more significant driver, besides money, that motivates others is the fulfillment of life and seen in Keller’s book, “For others, the motivation is to bring home a paycheck so that they can enjoy “real life”—but that makes work into a pointless grind (Keller & Alsdorf, 2012).” The concept of natural perspective has an institutional approach that focuses on a holistic view of the organization and less on the employees or personnel. The difference is an underlining understanding that there are some elements of the rational perspective to consider in that organizations exist to achieve goals and objectives. Selznick’s institutional approach melds both rational and natural perspectives that incorporate a less formal approach to goal achievement.

Parson’s AGIL Model

Talcott Parson was a vital contributor to the theory of social action. According to Parsons’ theory, society is an organized network of groups that systematically cooperate based on rules and norms accepted by almost all members (Izadi, Mohammadi, Nasekhian, & Memar, 2020). The model encompasses four basic needs that comprise the AGIL acronym of adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency. The goal of this model details the needs met for a social system within organizations to thrive and exist. The structural level of analysis within the overarching social order in organizations to adapt to their environment for its continued operation.

Open Systems Perspective

Lastly, the open system concentrates on the idea that neither the rational nor natural perspectives work best when considering the environmental influences of the organization. Organizations that extend past the internal capacity and expand outwards to accomplish their vision use the open systems perspective, which circles back to how organizations rely upon their external environment to survive. As the conceptual frameworks of organizations evolve beyond open systems with physical or mechanical structures to complex systems that are emergent, self-organizing, and dynamical, professional evaluators need to be ready to incorporate multiple perspectives into organizational performance (Martz, 2013).

After the Korean War, organizations like consumer products giant Procter & Gamble built plants with innovation in mind and an open systems approach. The plants included good communication flow from top-down and bottom-top, self-managing teams, and a peer-controlled pay system, leading to 30% more productivity using the open systems approach (Bolman & Deal, 2003). A significant thing about the open system is focusing more on what keeps the organization on target to reach its goals. Organizations considered open systems must progress in organizational maturity to sustain themselves through reliance on interdependent resources and inputs.

Theoretical Viewpoints

There is always a driver to innovate and create to improve flow and dominate the war space in the DoD so foreign enemies will not consider a step in the direction of threatening the nation. Many organizations also seek to innovate and be creative. However, they do so for different means and to remain competitive and progressive in their industry. As organizations continue to be more technological and sophisticated, the demand for higher levels of innovation increases.

Changes to organization policy and standard work go hand in hand with innovation applications. All organization members should be used to the changes, but adaptation is the difficult part where many organizations struggle, aside from the DoD (due to their organizational structure). Proper use of the most suitably fit organizational perspectives will lighten the internal blow.

Personal Perspectives

There are pros and cons to each perspective discussed within this paper. Organizations choosing to apply the approaches and embrace the changes and applications of theory only serve to benefit. Each of the three perspective systems offers benefits and challenges to the organization. One thing to mention on top of the varying perspectives is leadership. Good leadership includes improving the quality of life at work that transposes itself to personal life. However, areas of improvement, however slight (Kaizen), lead to higher productivity and performance, and the output equates to increased morale and a better work-life balance.

Still, even high-performing personnel who keep the organization’s goals in mind explore options and constantly scan their current environments and networks for opportunities. As quoted in 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world (King James Bible, 1769/2017, 1 John 4:1).” Only God knows the true direction and path. If there is a better opportunity than the existing journey in life, God will steer them regardless of the perspective or approach of the organization.

Conclusion

Since the organizational theory is the foundation, modern perspectives combine rational, natural, and open organization systems. Both rational and natural perspectives are closed systems, which differ significantly from open systems. However, the ascendance of the open systems view has not meant the disappearance of the views of the earlier rational or natural system (Őnday, 2018).

The interesting thing identified in the research of this paper is the amount of information available for research for rational and natural perspectives but not nearly as much supporting documents or literature for open systems. The most practical perspective of the three discussed in this paper is the combination of all three. The modern-day approach to leveraging all three approaches and perspectives, since they are related so that each makes the other possible, makes for an organization that is not mutually exclusive but wholly beneficial to the customer or end-user.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (3d ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bruce, K., & Nyland, C. (2011). Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations. Organization Studies, 32(3), 383-405. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177%2F0170840610397478/

Defense Medical Human Resource System internet. (n.d.). Military Health System. Retrieved May 18, 2022, from https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Technology/Healthcare-Resources/Defense-Medical-Human-Resource-System-internet/

Foster, K. (2022, May 14). Organization Theory. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/adhocracy/

Hatchuel, A., & Segrestin, B. (2019). A century old and still visionary: Fayol's innovative theory of management. The Journal of the European Academy of Management, 16(2), 399-412. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1111/emre.12292/

Husted, B. W. (1993). Reliability and the design of ethical organizations: A rational systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10), 761-769. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Freliability-design-ethical-organizations-rational%2Fdocview%2F1302757071%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085/

Izadi, A., Mohammadi, M., Nasekhian, S., & Memar, S. (2020). Structural functionalism, social sustainability and the historic environment: A role for theory in urban regeneration. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 11(2-3), 158-180. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1080/17567505.2020.1723248/

Keller, T., & Alsdorf, L. (2012). Every Good Endeavor. Penguin Random House.

King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original work published 1769)

Love, M. S., Macy, G., Dougherty, T. W., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Barnard’s cooperative systems and the power of the coworker effect. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 4(3-4), 389-415. https://doi.org/10.1081/OTB-100105410/

Martz, W. (2013). Evaluating organizational performance: Rational, Natural, and Open System models. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 385-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013479151/

Mitsis, C. (n.d.). The Hoshin Kanri Method Explained. Cascade. https://www.cascade.app/blog/hoshin-kanri-method/

Őnday, Ő. (2018). The relationship between concepts of rational, natural and open systems: Managing organizations today. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 10(1), 245-258. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Frelationship-between-concepts-rational-natural%2Fdocview%2F1966054435%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085/

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives. Routledge.