TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 1
Technology Structures and Social Boundaries
BMAL 710
Degree and Cognate: PhD and Leadership
Liberty University
Author Note
I, XXXXXXX, have no known conflict of interest to disclose. By submitting this assignment, I
attest this submission represents my own work, and not that of another student, scholar, or
internet source. I understand I am responsible for knowing and correctly utilizing referencing and
bibliographical guidelines. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
XXXXXXXXX. Email: @liberty.edu
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 2
How Technology Structures Apply to Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Rational Systems Perspective
It was researched and discussed a couple weeks ago that organizations that follow a
rational system perspective are instruments designed to attain specific goals (Scott & Davis,
2015). This means that rational organizations tend to be formally structured and tend to follow a
scripted set of rules and guidelines. Technological structures within a rational systems
perspective organization will follow the same strict and hierarchical structure. The technology
incorporated within these organizations will have established protocols and detailed instructions
on the implementation and use of technologies in the performance of duties within an
organization. To put it another way, the rational perspective organization will typically have a set
of methodically considered, carefully crafted, and purposefully disseminated guidelines dictating
and directing organizational personnel on the incorporation and use of technology within the
organization. The intent behind this is to ensure the organizational departments and system’s
interface and collect as much information and data as possible. The data that is collected can in
turn be reviewed at a later point in time when problems arise. This data can be used for briefings
that are presented to the hierarchy for decision-making. There are pitfalls to this approach. The
number of systems or programs utilized by the organization causes complexity within the
organization. The complexity of the systems coupled with the end users’ level of familiarity can
cause a lag in producing and providing timely products or reports to the organization or the
customers. Basically, the technological structures within rational perspective organization that
are incorporated will be contingent upon the organization’s operational environment. The intent
is to reduce redundancy and overlapping which breeds and fosters inefficiency.
Natural Systems Perspective
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 3
The organization that follows a natural system perspective will typically stray from the
top-down hierarchical approach that is common within the rational organization. This more
relaxed, less structured, informal approach focuses more on personal interactions and social
dynamics. The natural perspective organization acknowledges the unpredictability and
uncertainty of daily activity and stresses the importance of flexibility and innovation.
Technological advancements and innovative practices are needed to respond to the
environmental pressures and gain sustainability (Zhang, et al., 2019). The technological structure
of a natural system organization will be less scripted and directive and driven more by the
organizational culture and societal preferences. This tactic allows the organization to remain
agile and adaptive through collaboration and innovation. Another characteristic is the way that
technology is employed and utilized in a natural organization. For example, technology that is
employed may warn or prompt personnel of potential crises situations. The technological
systems employed may, without personal interaction, adjust and adapt to system failures or
interruptions. This fluid and seamless interaction and adaptation to a crisis allows the
organization to remain operational. It should also be noted that the employment of technology in
different cultures may have varying levels of success. It is recommended that an organization
consider if the technology can accomplish the task for which it is intended, it is an improvement
from current practices, it is not repetitive or redundant, and it aligns with the organizations or
individual’s values and social interests.
Open Systems Perspective
An open system perspective is defined as a system that allows and permits the flow of
information, material, and energies between it, external organizations, and environments. This
flow of information allows for a seamless or free flow of information and resources between
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 4
departments, divisions, and organizations. The free-flowing exchange of data and information
allows for personnel to be more proactive than reactive to situations and circumstances that arise
within an organization. Additionally, this affords personnel to share their thoughts and ideas with
vertical and lateral departments and divisions to collaborate and innovate to solve current
problems or to prevent future crisis or disaster situations. Simply stated, the open system
configuration of the organization allows technological programs to interface with other operating
systems. This allows organizational personnel to be attuned to internal or external organizational
environments which allows personnel to have real-time data and information when conducting
team meetings or collaborating to solve situational problems.
How Social Boundaries Apply to Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Rational Systems Perspective
As was previously stated and discussed, an organization that operates on the premises of
a rational system has a hierarchical structure with a clearly defined set of policies and
procedures. The social boundaries in a rational system will articulate and explain in detail the
specific responsibilities and obligations of the position, billet, or assignment. These clearly
established set of expectations and responsibilities set the foundation of hierarchical positioning
within the organization. They also contribute to the expectations that are expected from the
individual(s) within a section, department, division, or organizational structure. The social
boundaries can also set a precedence of formal lines of communication and decision-making.
This is done by systematically and methodically establishing a lineage of reporting and
established protocols that is designed to streamline the flow of information to decision makers.
To put this into perspective and to simplify it, the social boundaries in a rational system are
direct and specific. The rational system has detailed the roles, responsibilities, actions, and goals
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 5
for specific billets and positions. Think of it as a reflection of a job posting that can be found on
a popular website. The organization is stating and informing the individual(s) of the specific
details of their responsibilities of their billet or position.
Natural Systems Perspective
In a natural systems perspective, the social boundaries differ from that of the rational
system. The social boundaries in the natural system are not as formalized and structured as that
of the rational system. This design and operational arrangement allow for a more ordinary or less
structured flow of data and information between personnel, sections, departments, divisions, and
organizations. The natural system perspective recognizes that personal relationships as well as
personal skills and individual abilities can strengthen and bolster an organization’s structure,
productivity, and efficiency. This is done in part by the natural and genuine concern for one
another and for the organization for which the personnel are a member of. It is the sense of
ownership and the refuse to fail attitude that allows the organization to morph into a highly
efficient well-oiled institution. The simplest way of explaining this is that social boundaries in a
natural system are adaptive and organic. The basic foundational characteristics are reflective of a
resilient organization where the members feel as though they are family and can adapt to an ever-
changing and evolving environment. They believe in respectful communication that tends to
answer the three foundational questions of: What do I know? Who needs to know? Have I told
them?
Open Systems Perspective
The social boundaries in an open system perspective acknowledge the consequences of
collaboration and the importance of external relationships. They understand that the social
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 6
boundaries are not limited to just the organization but extend beyond the confines of the
establishment. These relationships are not exclusive and allow for interaction and collaboration
between entities. The openness leads to diverse perspectives from a wide and broad range of
departments, organizations, and personnel with varying abilities, skillsets, and backgrounds. In
an article on social boundaries the authors contend that social boundaries are what bind people
together in a mutual relationship (Jæger, & Pedersen ,2020). These relations are found among
groups and organizational members. These social interactions are theorized to build trust and
respect while shaping the organizational landscape.
Technological Concerns for Participants
The rule of thumb is that technology is everywhere and comes in various forms. Virtually
every organization has multiple technological systems and participants or people are in contact
with it on a continuous basis during their daily activity. These various technological systems can
range from security cameras, computers, internet, and organizational program systems.
Organizations are concerned with cyber security and preventing hackers from breaching their
firewalls and wreaking havoc on their technological systems. This protection of real, personal,
and intellectual property is critical to the longevity of the organization. Just as the organization is
concerned about a would-be hacker, employees tend to be concerned with employers that
monitor computers and record or have access to every key stroke. This leads to another concern,
organizational email. It is opined that each employee has, at least once, lost themselves for
moments in time and used organizational assets to pay bills, order food, shop, or sent an email
that contained information that the individual might not want to fall into the wrong hands,
displayed on the organizational read board, or read in open forum. There is also an ethical and
moral aspect to technology. People or participants have used technology to harass, intimidate,
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 7
belittle, and discredit others. This is a topic that can be expanded and elaborated upon but is
probably best suited for a standalone discussion. Anyone reading this can most likely relate to or
has knowledge of an incident involving inappropriate conduct or deviant behaviors at the
expense of the individual, others, and the institution.
Organizational Concerns for Participants
Organizational boundaries have altered organizational strategies, structures, and
processes (Baum, & Haveman, 2020). Organizational boundaries have an impact on everyone
from the proverbial mailroom to the ivory tower. Every participant or person within an
organization has or will soon be affected by organizational boundaries. The organizational
boundaries can range from personal or interoffice conflicts to communication failures and from
job dissatisfaction to discrimination. Organizations should establish a culture that promotes open
communication about job related frustrations (de Clercq, Haq, & Azeem, 2020). One of the most
common concerns is a breakdown in communication. Inaccurate or conflicting reports can hinder
the flow of information that is needed to take or make corrective action. The flow of information
needs to be timely, accurate, and free from duplication. The duplication of information can
exacerbate an extremely difficult situation in a time of crisis. Participants or people that are
affected the most by organizational boundaries are those that feel as though the organization has
abandoned them. This is the case when personnel or participants feel discriminated against based
on their gender, race, color, creed, national origin, political or religious affiliation. In an article
on organizational discrimination the authors contend that enhancing prosocial behaviors on
behalf of management would spread throughout the whole organization. This would attract
employees that are concerned with diversity and sustainability for improving economic
development and social equity (Castaño, Fontanil, & García-Izquierdo, 2019).
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 8
Personal Perspective
Business management is entering a new era in how we think of business. Better yet, how
we conduct business. The world in which we operated pre-pandemic is quite different from the
world we live and operate in post-COVID pandemic of 2020. Anker states, “we are at the
tipping point of what might be the biggest structural revolution in business and
society since the end of World War II” (Anker, 2021). If one pauses and thinks about the
dynamics of this statement one can conclude that this might very well be an understatement. Just
think about the number of businesses that are filing for bankruptcy, people cancelling businesses
for a political position, or businesses being ridiculed for their international affiliation. Betta said
it best, “the main issue for an organization is survival. An organization, more precisely, must
keep its human resources intact if it is to survive” (Betta, 2019). The dynamics of how businesses
and organizational personnel interact and communicate with one another is ever changing.
Advancements in technology will only increase and personnel and organizations will innovate
and find new ways of incorporating and instituting this into the organization. The organization
and management must continue to stress the importance of diversity, cultural awareness,
courtesy, respect, and effective communication. The primary purpose is to remain relevant and at
the forefront of the respective operational industry. M
Biblical Integration
There are several Biblical passages that can be related to the technological structures and
social boundaries as they apply to the rational, natural, and open organizational system
perspectives. There are several passages in the book of Genesis that speak to the uses of
technology. For starters, Cain is said to have built a city in Genesis 4:17, Tubal-Cain crafted
items that were made from bronze and iron (Genesis 4-22), in Genesis 11:1-9 people are said to
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 9
have built the Tower of Babel, and in Genesis 6 we read of Noah building the ark. King Solomon
built a temple in 1 Kings 6. Let us not forget that Jesus was a carpenter and used tools in His
profession.
There are several Biblical passages that relate to social boundaries. In Colossians 6:14
Paul tells us to speak with graciousness and to ensure what is said adds value to conversation and
is helpful and uplifting for those that hear. Paul reminds us in the Book of Titus2:11-12 to
renounce ungodliness and worldly passions and to live an honorable and self-controlled life.
Another passage on setting boundaries can be found in 2 Corinthians 6:14. This passage informs
Christians to be cautious and reserved and warned to refrain from entering into binding relations
with those who are not with Christ.
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 10
References
Anker, T. B. (2021). At the boundary: Post-COVID agenda for business and management
research in Europe and beyond.MEuropean Management Journal,M39(2), 171-
178.Mhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.01.003
Baum, J. A. C., & Haveman, H. A. (2020). Editors’ comments: The future of organizational
theory.MThe Academy of Management Review,M45(2), 268-
272.Mhttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0030
Betta, M. (2019). Business, organization theory, and the current challenge of
neocharisma.MBusiness and Society Review (1974),M124(2), 261-
281.Mhttps://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12171
Castaño, A. M., Fontanil, Y., & García-Izquierdo, A. L. (2019). "Why can't I become a
manager?"-A systematic review of gender stereotypes and organizational
discrimination.MInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health,M16(10), 1813.Mhttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101813
de Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2020). When does job dissatisfaction lead to deviant
behaviour? the critical roles of abusive supervision and adaptive humour.MAustralian
Journal of Management,M45(2), 294-316.Mhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877679
English Standard Version Bible. (2001).
Jæger, K., & Anne Grethe Julius Pedersen. (2020). Understanding organizational
boundaries.MGlobe,M9
New International Version Bible. (2011). Biblica Inc.
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES 11
Scott, W. R. & Davis, G. F., (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and
Open Systems Perspectives. London, England: Routledge. ISBN: 9780131958937
Zhang, Y., Khan, U., Lee, S., & Salik, M. (2019). The influence of management innovation and
technological innovation on organization performance. A mediating role of
sustainability.MSustainability (Basel, Switzerland),M11(2),
495.Mhttps://doi.org/10.3390/su11020495
