Discussion boards are collaborative learning experiences.
Therefore, the student will create a thread in response to the -Each thread must be 2,100 provided prompt for each forum.
(due by Thursday of each week) and demonstrate words 2,200
knowledge. In addition to the thread, the student related -course Each reply must will reply to the threads of at least 2 classmates.
(due by the end of the respective 700 words-be 600
module/week). Each initial thread must include a mínimum of 7
e Bible, and peer replies must include the sources in addition to th
reviewed source citations and -integration of at least 3 peer
scripture, in current APA format, outlined in each respective
Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at
.eleast 1 biblical principl
BMAL 710
DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM INSTRUCTIONS
Discussion Board Forums Modules 2, 4, 6, and 8 (130 Points Per DB)
Discussion boards are collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, the student will create a
thread in response to the provided prompt for each forum. Each thread must be 2,100-2,200
words (due by Thursday of each week) and demonstrate course-related knowledge. In addition
to the thread, the student will reply to the threads of at least 2 classmates. Each reply must be
600-700 words (due by the end of the respective module/week). Each initial thread must include
a mínimum of 7 sources in addition to the Bible, and peer replies must include the integration of
at least 3 peer-reviewed source citations and scripture, in current APA format, outlined in each
respective Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical
principle.
This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussion Board Forums. This means you will
only be able to read and interact with your classmates’ threads after you have submitted your
thread in response to the provided prompt. For additional information on Post-First,
click here for a tutorial.
Note: Students will not be permitted to attach files within the forum posts, you can copy/paste
from any Word file. Formatting consideration is provided due to the editing feature in
Blackboard, but students must attempt the best APA format as possible.
For Discussion Board Forums 1–3 (Modules 2, 4, and 6), submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET)
on Thursday of the assigned module/week, and submit your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on
Sunday of the same module/week.
For Discussion Board Forum 4 (Module 8), submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday
of Module/Week 8, and submit your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of the same
module/week.
Discussion Post 1
BMAL720 – Week 2
Businesses operate in a variety of methods depending on their purpose, mission, and their
values. These ideas come to together to form a sum greater than the total of its parts which is
known as an organization (Burton & Obel, 2018). Scott and Davis (2015) explain that an
organization is a single entity formed from multiple people with the purpose of accomplishing
goals. Every organization has its differences, but all organizations have ubiquitous areas that
naturally form (Scott & Davis, 2015). Scott & Davis explain that defining what an organization
is requires observation from three perspectives: a rational system, a natural system, and an open
system.
Rational Systems
Scott and Davis (2015) define the Rational System perspective by explaining that,
“organizations are collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting
relatively highly formalized social structures” (pp. 29). The Rational System perspective has the
defining characteristic of being very structured and formal (Burton & Obel, 2018). These
organizations focus on achieving specifics goals and exist to handle a specific focus (Scott &
Davis, 2015). For many organizations, the goal is to generate enough revenue to cover the costs
of a specific activity and have some additional revenue to invest in the service or product. Some
organizations have the single focus on making revenue through selling products, other through
selling services.
A subset theory of the Rational Systems perspective is the Scientific Management. The Scientific
Management theory focuses on establishing repeatable processes through building a
bureaucracy, hierarchy, and documented formal methods to achieve goals (Scott & Davis, 2015).
This theory was spearheaded by Frederick Taylor who firmly believed that organizations would
greatly improve by honing and controlling processes. This consistency led to increased
productivity through: the creation of measurable processes that can be improved, workers being
selected through a qualification process, managers hold employees accountable to accomplish
their tasks in accordance with the organizational policies, and that there is a specialization of
labor that creates and organizational hierarchy (Scott & Davis, 2015). Scott & Davis explain that
Administrative theory is another example of the organizational perspective that focuses on how
processes are changed to support the organization’s goals.
The Rational system is named the way it is because this perspective incorporates a large
understanding of how businesses and organizations operate. This perspective became more
rational as industries began to see an increased specialization in labor during the industrial
revolution (Burton & Obel, 2018). Even in the days of Solomon, there were hierarchical roles,
common organizational goals, and a specific mission (Merida, 2015). The Kingdom of Israel
would have most likely been classified as a rational system.
Natural Systems
The Natural System perspective is the evolution of the Rational System perspectives
(Scott & Davis, 2015). As organizations grew and matured through the time of the first world
war, researching began to take note of the social bonds that shape an employee’s commitment
and performance (Burton & Obel, 2018; Scott & Davis, 2015). What really separates this
perspective from all the others is that the Natural System perspective is differentiated through the
increased complexity of goals and the influence of informal structures within an organization
(Scott & Davis, 2015). The complexity of goals has increased over times because the
organizational design focuses on specialized business sections accomplishing a specific part of
the business model (David, 2019). The organization may of the formalized goal of selling truck
tires to consumers but this goal is accomplished by specialized departments that have a
significantly more complex and specific role within the organization; like lawyers mitigating
against the risk of selling truck tires to prevent unnecessary costs to the business (David 2019;
Scott & Davis, 2015).
The Human Relations school of thought digs into the informal structure of an
organization and how the informal structure is not influences the norms and values of a subset of
the organization (Scott & Davis, 2015). This school of thought captures the results of the
Hawthorne studies which showed that worker performance was influenced simply by giving
workers additional attention (Scott & Davis, 2015). This perspective helps understand how work
cliques form from cross-functional business areas. In my personal experience, it is common to
find a relationship between a software developer, financial analyst, and lawyer that has lasted
years because they experienced great success on a project together in the past. This perspective
help explains the informal motivations that always exist within an organization. This theory also
differentiates itself because it explains that individuals have competing goals with other
individuals inside the company (Scott & Davis, 2015). The competing goals are naturally
occurring and are focused on piecemealing the overall goal together.
The Natural System perspective has a lot of commonalities to the Rational System
perspective. Both systems are seen through the lens of formalized working environments that
have defined goals (Scott & Davis, 2015). The Natural System perspective feels like a
progression of the ideas that shape the Rational perspective lens. Both perspectives look at the
organization as a closed system and do not consider the influencers outside of the workday (Scott
& Davis, 2015).
Open Systems
The Open System perspective is yet another evolution of the understanding of
organizations (Scott & Davis, 2015). This theory looks at the individuals within the organization
and the influences outside of the natural and rational systems to understand the external factors
that influence an individual contributor’s ability to accomplish specific goals that add in the
organization reaching its overarching goal (David, 2019; Scott & Davis, 2015). This school of
thought was developed due to the need to understand the motivating factors that happen outside
of the organizational viewpoint. This theory is concerned with the internal and external
environment in which an organization operates (Scott & Davis, 2015).
Bounded relationality theory, transactional cost theory, and resource dependency theory
are all schools of thought within the theory of the open system perspective (David 2019; Scott &
Davis, 2015). These theories dig multiple layers deeper in understanding individuals within the
organization context and the variables that influence the employee’s commitment to the values,
commitment to the mission, an to understand the employee’s stressors.
Conclusion
The definition of what an organization is has three variants which show the growth and
change in the understanding of enterprises over time. The progression of understanding of
systematic perspectives that impact how productive an organization is through und formal rules
and regulations, strict hierarchies, and specific goals at the enterprise level, manager level, team
level, and individual level. There is a maturity from the rational perspective to the natural
perspective that is highlighted by the increased specificity in goals. Then there is more maturity
between the natural system and the open system perspectives. By understanding the history and
evolution of organizations, a definition of organizational theory appears through the definitions
of the three perspectives.
References
Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (2018). The science of organizational design: Fit between structure
and coordination. Journal of Organization Design (Aarhus), 7(1), 1-13.
doi:10.1186/s41469-018-0029-2
David, A. (2019). Understanding the invention phase of management innovation: A design
theory perspective. European Management Review, 16(2), 383-
398. doi:10.1111/emre.12299
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible
Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original work published 1769)
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open
systems perspectives. Routledge
Discussion Post 2
Discussion Board Forum #1
The comprehensive understanding of organizational functionality is paramount to the
study of leadership because, in a contemporary business context, leadership is synonymous with
organizational leadership. Therefore, leadership theory is intrinsically linked to an understanding
of organizational leadership approaches. Fundamentally, burgeoning scholars of leadership must
garner an appreciable knowledge base in organizational methodologies to take theory into
practice in an office environment. In this purview, the rational, natural, and open systems of
organizations exist to provide executives and scholars the framework necessary to evaluate and
implement successful organizational parameters.
Before examining these three systems, it is vital to define and reflect upon the purpose of
organizations. According to Scott (2015), “an organization [is] a machine for accomplishing
goals, or as a small society with a social structure and culture, or as an organism making its way
through a resource environment” (p. 27). Disseminated, an organization is effectively a group of
individuals who combine to accomplish a common goal. Furthermore, Argandona (2008)
categorizes an organization as “a group of people who coordinate their actions to achieve
objectives in which they all have an interest, albeit for different reasons” (pp. 440-441). The last
portion of Argandona’s quote is why organizational leadership is critical because it is the
leadership role to get constituents to unify behind a cohesive vision. When properly
implemented, organizations, especially ethically run organizations, increase profitability,
effectiveness, and efficiency (Argandona, 2008). Holistically, that is the desired outcome for all
teams, as leaders and businesses are ultimately assessed based on the results they procure.
Thankfully, academic frameworks exist to augment scholars and executives in their pursuit of
optimum results. Ostensibly, the rational, natural, and open systems represent three distinct
outlines to conceptualize organizational theory. Scott (2015) describes “rational, natural, and
open systems as perspectives or paradigms because in each case we are dealing not with a single,
unified model of organizational structure, but rather with a number of varying approaches that
bear a strong family resemblance” (p. 32). Additionally, although these organizational systems
can be viewed through similar scopes, the disseminating of the three into separate entities allows
academics to better examine and contextualize organizations.
Defining Characteristics
Rational System
The rational system is the most notable of the three systems, as this is the methodology
typically associated with traditional organizational practices. Scott (2015) defines the rational
system as “organizations [that] are collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific
goals and exhibiting relatively highly formalized social structures” (Scott, 2015, p. 29).
Inherently, this is not dissimilar to conventional organizational definitions alluded to in the
previous section. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that “the rational model of
organization is the best established, and probably the most influential, theory of this kind”
(Gould & Melbin, 1964, p. 309). Holistically, the goal of the rational theory is to derive specific
outcomes, as “rationalism as the ‘quest for certainty’” (Taylor, 2001, p. 138). Conclusively, this
approach is effectively timeless and provides organizations the ability to bolster performance and
efficiency throughout the entire organization.
Natural System
Despite the lack of notoriety in comparison to the rational system, the natural system is a
contemporary organizational philosophy that contextualizes organizations in a less traditional
framework. The natural system can be defined as organizations “whose participants are pursuing
multiple interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize the value of perpetuating the
organization as an important resource” (Scott, 2015, p. 30). Inherently, this approach astutely
asserts an organization's merits, even under circumstances where, from an outside perspective, an
organization's perceived value may seem less significant. Once again, it is clear from a
leadership perspective that communicating a cohesive vision is paramount to effective
organizational hegemony. Although some will attempt to diminish the merits of this theory,
Silverman (1968) asserts that the “natural system [methodology] is not a reason to abandon
'Formal Organizations' but to develop alternative approach within [an organizational
framework]” (p.236). The merits of this approach will only grow in importance as modern office
constructs continue to be deconstructed.
Open System
Akin to the natural system, the open system also operates in a semi-
deconstructed fashion. Scott (2015) defines this methodology as “organizations [that] are
congeries of interdependent flows and activities linking shifting coalitions of participants
embedded in wider material-resource and institutional environments” (p. 31). Concurrently, the
open system allows “organizations to take a holistic approach to problem solving by
understanding how the internal structure and external environment interact” (Jung & Vakharia,
2019, p. 260). Despite being a relatively ambiguous framework, this approach enables
organizations to combat complex, present-day solutions that streamline effectiveness.
Additionally, this theory is unique because it encourages leaders to be cognizant of internal and
external factors. Ultimately, this delineation is the most critical aspect of what makes this system
invaluable in a contemporary purview.
Relationships Between the Three
In analyzing the three, it is apparent that the rational system operates on a more formal
plateau than its peer approaches do. However, despite its enumerable traditional benefits, it is an
imperfect system, which merits the existence of the other methodologies. According to Taylor
(2001), detractors of rational system theory argue that it is “argumentative or ‘paradigmatic’
thinking in organizational theory has been greatly exaggerated” (p. 140).
Additionally, Martz (2013) notes that “focus[ing] on maximizing the efficiency or productivity
of subsystems may constrict the organization’s ability to adapt to change,” which further maligns
the effectiveness of this methodology (p. 389). These critiques are exceptionally poignant and
underline why it is essential scholars have created alternative organizational system
methodologies. Nonetheless, of the three organizational systems, according to Martz (2013), it is
the rational system methodology that “direct[s] attention toward outcomes and … enables the
attainment of certain objectives” (p. 386). The focus on conventional organizational goals is
where this approach excels.
The natural and open system models work in juxtaposition to other organizational
models, including the rational system, which is closed in nature, and suggests “the past dictates
the future” (Broom, 2006, p. 145). This revelation is unsurprising considering Jung
& Vakharia (2019) describe the open system as “a flexible and multidisciplinary theory that can
be applied to many different aspects of organizational studies and social phenomena” (p. 257).
However, there is an intrinsic link between the natural and open systems because,
as Martz (2013) highlights, the natural system also functions “as a complex adaptive system that
behaves as a nonlinear feedback network that is neither stable nor unstable, but both at the same
time” (389). The adaptive nature of these methodologies highlights their correlated value.
Inherently, adaptability will continue to be a vital aspect of a flourishing contemporary office
setting, which will make these approaches increasingly more valuable to executives and scholars
as time elapses.
Theoretical Viewpoints
Before deciding which system to implement at the organizational level, it is imperative to
significantly comprehend a given office environment. Maximum performance can only be
achieved by deploying the approach that best accentuates the demands of an organization. In that
vein, academics must garner and expand their theoretical knowledge of all three systems. First,
rational theory, which “emphasizes that organizations are deliberately structured to achieve their
aims in a direct, efficient way” (Gould & Melbin, 1964, p. 309). Compared to the other two
systems, this framework is more rigid and enables organizations to maximize performance.
Essentially, rational theory can be categorized by the notion that it champions efficiency where
the other systems excel in adaptability (Taylor, 2001). Therefore, in the scope of adaptability, it
is unsurprising that the “natural system model of organizations is particularly appropriate to the
type of problems that management encounters in the newer, more technologically complex
industries” (Silverman, 1968, p. 231). Concurrently, the “open systems model that draws largely
on the concepts of complexity science and views organizations as complex adaptive systems”
(Martz, 2013, p. 388). At the organizational level, the natural and open systems fulfill the adage,
“modern problems require modern solutions.” However, it is imperative to acknowledge the
distinction between the two is that the open system has a wider scope, factoring in external
environments. Holistically, this enables each methodology to execute a specific potential
function in an organizational context.
Personal Perspectives
In my professional career, I have accrued some semblance of experience with each of
these three systems. However, it is the rational approach that I have the most tangible practice
with, considering we are designed in a traditional office construct. Leadership establishes an
organizational vision and goals, and the team executes within a defined departmental structure.
Ultimately, this is conducive to achieving preferred performance outcomes. However, we also
have aspects of our organization that operate through more of a natural system scope. The office
is divided into three distinct groups, each fulfilling a specific role but operating under a unified
organization's umbrella. Consequently, this does bolster flexibility on projects as we are not
inundated with bureaucratic rigidity commonly associated with the rational approach. There are
also minor aspects of the open system that have percolated into our organizational efficacy to a
lesser degree. Accordingly, we are better able to remain cognizant of outside environmental
shifts because the landscape of collegiate athletics is constantly evolving.
Despite all three systems' convalescence in our current functionality, I would encourage
others within the executive team to promote the more adaptive, natural and open approaches as
we traverse a new landscape due to COVID-19. The adaptability of these methodologies would
allow for improved logistics in work from home scenarios and increased versatility to respond to
unexpected challenges. Additionally, I believe these approaches allow employees to take more
ownership in their work without extensive administrative oversight, which should bolster
constituent confidence and streamline production. Furthermore, this scenario equates to servant
leadership, which puts others' needs in front of our selfish desires. This equates directly to John
3:30 “He must increase, but I must decrease” (King James Bible, 1769/2020). Holistically, this is
not only applicable to uplifting others via servant leadership, but it also simultaneously refers to
the need to put God first. As a leader in God’s image, that is a foundational principle of my
approach to leadership. Through this lens, I am confident in our ability to improve as an
organization and for me to grow as a leader.
Conclusion
Modern office environments are more transient than ever before in human history.
Therefore, we need contemporary organizational approaches that can keep pace with these
exceedingly dynamic times. Fortunately, scholars have provided executives with organizational
frameworks that can match this unprecedented pace and acclimate to unforeseen circumstances.
Concurrently, the rational, natural, and open systems constitute the ideal present-day approaches
to excelling in these rapidly evolving times. The natural and open systems are particularly
encouraging because of their flexibility, which should only increase their usefulness. Ultimately,
that is why I would encourage my organization to begin transitioning to more adaptive
methodologies. However, each respective system has scholastic merit and can be deployed
across industries as an asset to all organizational leaders.
References
Argandona, A. (2008). Integrating ethics into action theory and organizational theory. Journal of
Business Ethics, 78, 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9340-x
Broom, G. M. (2006). An open-system approach to building theory in public relations. Journal
of Public Relations, 18(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_4
Gould, N., & Melbin, M. (1964). Formal structure and rational organization theory: A case
study. Human Organization, 23(4), 305–
311. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.23.4.n05368h3677203v2
Jung, Y., & Vakharia, N. (2019). Open systems theory for arts and cultural organizations:
Linking structure and performance. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and
Society, 49(4), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2019.1617813
King James Bible. (2020). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
(Original work published 1769)
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
Scott, W. R. (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Perspectives. Routledge.
Silverman, D. (1968). Formal organizations or industrial sociology: Towards a social action
analysis of organizations. Sociology, 2(2), 221–
238. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803856800200206
Taylor, J. R. (2001). The "Rational" organization reconsidered: An exploration of some of the
organizational implications of self-organizing. Communication Theory, 11(2), 137–
177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00237.x
Discussion Post 1 Response
It is indeed true that an organization is composed of people who have the same purpose
and goals. It is like a system. The concept of system theory is usually applicable in organization
where every unit of the organization work together to come up with an accumulative result that
helps the organization to move on. Instead of focusing on one single entity, the whole organization
is treated as one unit that is composed of several parts which interact together to come up with an
accumulative goal. It is the same concept for the Rational System which is compose of collective
units which work to achieve a specific goals. I would like to add up more information concerning
rational systems. Usually such systems work to group people as being together and working
together to achieve a given goal where each of the unit or participant is involved in a specific
functionality or a way of doing things. To achieve such a goal or purpose, the various units or
individuals in the system usually work together in a collaborative manner. Hence, interdisciplinary
collaboration is a very essential process that helps people from various disciplines to work together
to achieve a specific goal. For instance, the IT department can work with the human resource
management department to structure the information technology tools that can help to interview
candidates and select the best candidate.
Usually a natural system takes advantage of the interpersonal and informal structures which
exists in organization to come up with formal structures. The people in organizations usually have
consensus-building, multiple interests and conflictual process which drive actions in organization
(Sinclair et al., 2020). Hence, it is important to focus on those things which usually work to drive
the development of the organizational goals and achieve the purpose that the organization is
oriented to. What do you think are the best ways through which natural systems can be utilized by
organization to promote the growth of a specific department?
You have also discussed about an important concept of the open systems. The external and
internal environment in organization usually work to influence the way an organization works.
The external environment like the regulatory policies and legal issues usually can affect the way
organization work. They can influence the way auditing is performed in organizations. The
consideration of such factors in organization helps in making the appropriate decisions which can
help an organization move forward or lag behind. For instance, the lack of compliance to
regulatory policies like the HIPAA can cause an organization to pay huge fines and penalties which
can reduce the profit margin of an organization (Cohen & Mello, 2018). Therefore, the
understanding of the external factors that affect an organization is essential to determining whether
an organization would be successful or not.
An open system usually involves the external interactions. The interactions usually exist in
form of energy, information and material transfers which work in form of system boundary
parameters and disciplines which usually influence the organization. I would like to point out also
that open systems usually are different for isolated systems which are involved in the exchanges
of energy and work in influencing the flow of information in an environment. The external
interactions may involve the interactions with supply chain management. The understanding and
management of such an external interactions is essential in promoting the way an organization
work to achieve a balanced system. For instance, if an organization is not communicative enough
with the manufacturers and other supply chain entities, then an organization can find itself unable
to balance its stock level and inventory. In turn the effect can be realized when the customer orders
are not met. What do you think are the ways of bringing into awareness the theory discussed here
to the workforce of the organization?
References
Sinclair, J. S., Brown, J. A., & Lockwood, J. L. (2020). Reciprocal human-natural system feedback
loops within the invasion process. NeoBiota, 62, 489.
Cohen, I. G., & Mello, M. M. (2018). HIPAA and protecting health information in the 21st
century. Jama, 320(3), 231-232.
Discussion post 2 response
It is indeed true that organizational functionality is essential in the promotion of leadership
in an organization. The leadership theory is usually one of the important concepts in an
organization. Through a good leadership, an organization is able to form an organization that has
its employees and workforce working towards achieving a given results in an organization. For
instance, transformational leadership is a form of leadership that works to promote the capability
of the employees working under their own wits to suggest on ways through which corporations
can succeed or come up with solutions of a specific problem. The members in a team can
objectively work towards suggesting on ways through which the individual effort can be
cumulatively organized for the purpose of the whole team. Such aspects in organization is usually
achieved through a strong leadership approach in an organization.
You provided an interesting definition of an organization by Scott. It is indeed true that an
organization is like a machine that works to achieve a specific goal. When I look at this definition,
I see an organization as a system. Hence, the system theory can apply in organization where the
whole organization is viewed wholesomely. Instead of viewing the individual components, the
organization is viewed as the how the various units interact with each other to achieve a specific
goal. Such an approach helps in organization learning. As Peter Senge (2019) points out,
organization learning is usually effective when each of the units in the organization work together
to form a solution. It requires systemic thinking. Hence, instead of forcing growth, an organization
would work to reduce the factors that limit growth. It is a good way of viewing a system and
working to solve the problems which are inherent in an organization. It is a process through which
organizations are able to make prompt decisions concerning how the root cause of problems can
be solved and the way through which an organization can adapt to changes which are apparent at
the market environment.
I like the way you have discussed about rational system. It is indeed true that rational
systems are usually intended for organization’s to come up with specific results. The theory can
be applied when an organization is involved in a specific project. In such a case, an organization
would set up methodologies which are essential in facilitating the capability of achieving the
project goals. It involves setting up the methods and social structure which can help an organization
meet the goals and purpose for a specific project. I would like to add the fact that to achieve a
rational system, it is important for organizations to set up the goals which they need to achieve and
come up with solutions of achieving such goals (Harush & Barzel, 2017). You also mentioned
about the open systems. It is unique over all the other system because it involves flows of
information, events and activities in an organization or institution. The flow of information is
essential for facilitating the accumulative contribution of each unit to achieve a specific goal.
Hence, it is an important theory that helps an organization look at the aspects which influences a
specific results. For instance, the mining of the sales data can help an origination to come up with
predicative patterns that can foretell on how the organization will be in future. Subsequently, it can
help an organization come up with intelligent decisions which can help in promoting the growth
of the organization and help the organization achieve the results they want. What do you think are
the ways through which flows in an origination can be improved?
References
Harush, U., & Barzel, B. (2017). Dynamic patterns of information flow in complex
networks. Nature communications, 8(1), 1-11.
Senge, P., & von Ameln, F. (2019). We are not in control—embrace uncertainty and trust in what
emerges. Peter Senge on the legacy and future of Change Management. Gruppe.
Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie
(GIO), 50(2), 123-127.
