RESPOND TO TWO CLASSMATES. 600 WORDS EACH

1

TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES

10

TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES

Discussion Board 2: Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations

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.

Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations

Introduction

Understanding the concept of technology structures and social boundaries for organizations is paramount in the modern age where an organization’s influence on us is everywhere. In the second week of class, members researched the different organization systems and perspectives: rational, natural, and open systems. This paper will review the three perspectives on technological structures and social boundaries. The structure of an organization provides a base for its performance and everyday work. Knowing and comprehending the influences within organizations and the perspective used on the technical structure and social construct provides the customer and potential shareholders with more information about the organization.

Technology Structures

Technology is a significant and relevant component that influences the modern age of the organizational structure. Technology has different meanings than it did over two decades ago. The focus on technology has shifted from the latest improvements and innovations to how educated, and knowledgeable the organization members use and leverage technology in the workplace. After all, technology is only as good as the people who use it and apply it to provide value to the customer and the process. Without the human component to control the latest technology or advanced technology, technology ceases to exist in its current identity.

Organizations comprise members with individual motivations to work for and accomplish the mission objectives. Those motivating factors may be intrinsic and lead to engagement with newer technology or work with higher caliber equipment in the industry. To fully understand the technical terminology an organization applies is to acknowledge the structure within and recognize that communication is a component of importance. Applying the three perspectives to organizations relating to the technological structure is discussed and analyzed below.

Natural Perspectives

The natural systems approach does not consider the social interests of the employees because its focus is on the informal structure and functional analysis of goals. Employees under a natural perspective approach relating to technology deal with problems and root causes directly since this perspective are less restrictive and confining.

Rational Perspectives

The opposite of a more restrictive perspective from the natural one is the rational perspective. This approach concentrates mainly on the structure and motivation to work for the organization and achieve its goals. The reason draws its members, and it is the very characterized structure that makes the association balanced.

Open System Perspectives

From an open system perspective, an organization can adjust to the technology advances or shortcomings. However, the downside to being flexible in the open system space of technology is that there are no controls in place, making it challenging to coordinate and maintain since it is the cooperation and reliance of different internal and external entities that make the organization function run efficiently. An open system perspective on management does not imply a need to adapt existing theories and models to the realities of the contextual diversity of the modern world (Filatotchev, Ireland, & Stahl, 2022).

Social Boundaries

In the technical structure, the argument for having people and a human component attached to technology to operate and control are necessary within organizations. Over the years, the question as to whether organizational boundaries have become more permeable or not can be decided empirically but is arguably a theoretical issue due to the different conclusions and diverging avenues of research (Ringel, Hiller, & Zietsma, 2018). Organizations consider skill sets from experience and education in social boundaries to decide where they will be most beneficial. Just like in a winning sports team, teammates have specific positions and roles on the team with defined responsibilities.

It is hard to find value in work accomplished and attribute that work toward a hard-working and diligent team. However, it is immediately recognizable and noticed when it surfaces, and the work and team are acknowledged. has an excellent passage that speaks to spotting value through work and appreciating what comes with it, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Psalms 139:14)."

The appropriateness of the social boundary includes knowing how to use the implemented technology of the organization to be readily available, communicative, and productive while working in a virtual environment without direct supervision of time and work. A cooperative approach to bridging social boundaries in an organization with lessons illustrated using a social ecosystem is ideal (Thomas, 2019). Like the technology structure discussion with the three different perspectives applied to organizations, the same will be reviewed and analyzed with the social boundaries below.

Natural Perspective

The opposite of the above is the natural perspective, where it is difficult to bypass external influences. External stimuli make up the organization tasked with breaking the social influences that could negatively affect it. The military is an excellent example of the natural perspective on a social boundary. The social norms of a recruit entering a military environment need to be broken for those influences to not bleed into the current construct of the organization.

Rational Perspective

In the rational systems approach, organizations need to be cogent in the communication of their hiring process so that the right people can fill the roles that can deliver the organization's goals. Organizations need to be careful in emphasizing external factors that could affect the internal structure that goes with a rational perspective that focuses on goal achievement.

Open System Perspective

Changes in organizational context drive corporate governance innovations toward a greater account of stakeholders’ interests (Filatotchev, Aguilera, & Wright, 2020). An open system perspective suggests that factors define the nature of the organizational problems and their solutions relating to social boundaries and barriers.

Basic Organizational Structures

Various organizational forms or archetypes assume singularity and purpose or accommodate multiple objectives and divided authority (Scott & Davis, 2007). A deliberately thought and planned organizational structure, which defines management chains, allows alignment with the organization’s goals. Mintzberg (1979) derived five structural configurations and structures in response to organizations dealing with increasingly high information-processing demands. Those structures are simple, bureaucratic, functional, multidivisional, matrix, adhocracy, and network.

The simple structure is the most linear of all the structures. It offers flexibility and adaptability, but it lacks a long-range strategy. Startups or ‘mom and pop’ businesses typically begin as a simple structure. The bureaucracy structure incorporates role expectations of routine tasks that outline who does what, when, and how. Workers of a bureaucracy follow orders from managers who exercise authority through their offices that derive from the regulations of the organization.

The functional structure is the most common form used and is best for dividing an organization into separate specialized work functions. It is compartmentalization of work functions and departments. This type of structure is found in the rational systems perspectives and separates areas of expertise to be the most productive. An example is organizations with a marketing, human resources, and logistics or supply chain department.

The multidivisional structure is the most straightforward. It divides sectors to operate autonomously from each other while typically organized along functional structure lines (Scott & Davis, 2007). This type of structure ensures c-level leaders have oversight of line-level performance. Having a line, staff, and support function to drive the goal achievement of the organization is what makes up a successful divisional structure. This structure aligns with the natural system perspective since it has embedded social aspects.

The matrix structure combines functional and divisional models, bringing them together in a three-dimensional matrix. Matrix structures create a means of lateral linkage and integration but are notorious for creating conflict and confusion. Many more giant corporations function using the matrix structure to coordinate efforts of multiple plants and offices across the globe with multiple managers in charge that funnel to more minor corporate-level leaders.

The adhocracy structure is a loose, flexible, self-renewing form tied primarily through lateral means (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This type of structure is in diverse environments with spontaneity and impulsiveness. The last type of structure is the network structure, which allows the integration of internal and external factors into the organization. The relationships among all nodes and connections enable an organization to reach its goals and rely upon the “...premise that ties are often more influential in affecting behavior than the specific attributes of nodes—for example, demographic or psychological attributes of individuals (Scott & Davis, 2007, pg. 280).” All of the structures offer a blueprint for, or at least an appreciation of, organizational success and value-creation rules (Foss, McCaffrey, & Dorobat, 2022).

Technology Issues

Many organizations suffer from technology concerns and issues. The extent and context of the issues they face determine the success of parrying those concerns or result in failures from not being able to mitigate and overcome them. Everyone has been or observed someone in the workplace who refuses to or is behind the learning curve of technological implementations of their organization. An example of this is when the answer to communication during the pandemic was to use virtual meetings and technology platforms.

There seemed to be a generational gap in technology use and understanding that seemed to have some employees drinking from a proverbial firehose of information that they were otherwise not used to prior to the rollout of the latest technology. Instead of moving organizations forward and propelling them ahead of the competition, if most people employed by the organization are not versed or trained on the latest technology, the organization will revert backward, and goal achievement will suffer.

Technology serves to disrupt the typical view of how organizations approach work. The pandemic showed that technology could move organizations to accomplish tasks and reach objectives even when things shut down. A recent article (Wolor, 2020) indicates that companies must pay attention to e-training, e-leadership, and work-life balance to keep employees motivated and maintain optimal employee performance, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic through working online. However, when looking at the work-life balance, hard workers have active social lives and are passionate, flexible, and fully present in the moment (Whitbeck, 2019).

Organizational Boundary Issues

The way to view organizational boundary issues and concerns is to recognize them and differentiate what is observed. The natural systems perspective views the organization as a social unit with human participants that affect outcomes for the organization by balancing their personal and professional objectives aligned with the organization. The rational system perspective views the organization, not the people, needed to achieve its goals on a more formalized approach. Regardless of the system perspective applied, they all serve different organizational purposes, including the open systems perspective.

Organizations can control and mitigate barriers by incorporating the latest communication technology training like virtual meeting spaces, telecommunication platforms, and social media. Continuity is vital to ensuring organizations continue the same path to success as outlined. Just because leadership changes out does not mean the path changes too. Organizations often fall apart because no one has trained future leaders (Merida, Platt, & Akin, 2015). The organizational culture is also a boundary. The best strategy in the world cannot overcome culture in an organization. Roles and responsibilities within and understanding processes make an organization efficient that are direct outputs of the cultural aspect that make an organization what it is, not the barriers.

Personal Perspectives

Understanding the importance of technological structures in an organization is an understatement. However, it is vital to ensure that such structures do not overstep the organizational boundaries and serve to protect the customer rather than create obstacles or harm them. This could cause strife and competition for resources internal and external to the organization. Individuals working in organizations can scan their internal environment for opportunities and threats to achieve positive outcomes, sometimes by altering the external environment.

The natural systems approach is the best system perspective to utilize when discussing technology as a topic because it takes people to operate the latest technology and work with existing technology to produce optimal results for the organization. The rational systems approach is best for organizational boundaries because it differentiates between external and internal barriers within the organization's control that affect the goals beholden to its stakeholders to ensure the organization is efficient, effective, and progressing forward.

Conclusion

Understanding organizational structures and the varying perspectives applied is essential to know the boundaries and reasons behind work, what makes the social environment a thriving one, and what embeds barriers and boundaries that hinder the productivity of organizations in reaching their goals and objectives. Communication, work culture, and job satisfaction become mediators for leadership to influence an organization’s commitment (Syakur, Susilo, Wike, & Ahmadi, 2020). The social fabric that creates a culture of efficiency is a key factor researched. As Keller (2012) puts it, “the purpose of work is to create a culture that honors God and enables people to thrive (Keller & Alsdorf, 2012, pg. 18).” The rational, natural, and open systems perspectives have been investigated and discussed in length since the first module of this class. The building upon each other and how things are intertwined help explain each perspective on the particular areas of organizations.

References

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

Filatotchev, I., Aguilera, R., & Wright, M. (2020). From governance of innovation to innovations in governance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0011/

Filatotchev, I., Ireland, R., & Stahl, G. K. (2022). Contextualizing management research: An open systems perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 59(4), 1036-1056. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1111/joms.12754/

Foss, N. J., McCaffrey, M. C., & Dorobat, C.-E. (2022). When Henry met Fritz: Rules as organizational frameworks for emergent strategy process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(2), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10564926211031290/

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)

Merida, T., Platt, D. & Akin, D. (2015). Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice Hall.

Ringel, L., Hiller, P., & Zietsma, C. (2018). Toward permeable boundaries of organizations? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 57(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20180000057001/

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

Syakur, A., Susilo, T., Wike, W., & Ahmadi, R. (2020). Sustainability of communication, organizational culture, cooperation, trust and leadership style for lecturer commitments in higher education. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal, 3(2), 1325-1335. https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v3i2.980/

Thomas, K. (2019). Bridging social boundaries and building social connectedness. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38(1), 1-17. http://doi.opg/10.1108/EDI-02-2018-0019/

Whitbeck, A. (2019, November 25). Are You a Workaholic? Or Just a Hard Worker? Medium. https://medium.com/@petite2queen/are-you-a-workaholic-or-just-a-hard-worker-1ddc7367b21f

Wolor, C. W. (2020). Effectiveness of e-Training, e-Leadership, and work-life balance on employee performance during COVID-19. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(10), 443–450. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO10.443/