Characteristics of rational, natural and open systems of
organizations
There are three primary theoretical perspectives involving organizations. Having
an understanding of each theoretical approach is helpful when working in, managing
and leading organizations as each provides a different way to look at, understand,
manage and classify organizational structure and culture. The first is the rational system
perspective of organizations. This perspective was developed in the early 1900s in an
effort to utilize formal scientifically based mechanisms to create efficient workflows in
newly formed manufacturing and production line industries. The defining characteristics
of this particular perspective are that organizations are seen as instruments that are
specifically designed to achieve their stated mission, vision and goals utilizing rationality
to achieve optimal efficiency (Scott & Davis, 2003). Actions are completed in a rational
and purposeful manner between well-coordinated organizational stakeholders. Each
organization establishes formal left and right limits of action with policies, regulations,
and standard operating procedures to control variance and sustain actions within these
acceptable limits. A highly formalized organizational structure, logically formulated by
purpose and function, creates standardization and predictability in a rational system of
operation (Scott & Davis, 2003). Specific goals and objectives are key components of
the rational organization and must be well-defined to guide employee and team energy,
unity, productivity, and overall engagement. These formal goals and objectives
differentiate organizations from other collective groups of individuals. A good example
of a highly formalized rational organizational structure is the military medical center in
which I currently work. There is a well understood hierarchy of command and control
and well-established left and right limits of action based on a plethora of existing
regulations, policies, and standard operating procedures. Military and civilian rank
structure and rating schemes are well established, and the roles and responsibilities of
each job description are clearly written and enforced by very formal managerial controls
of individual job objectives, task accomplishment and a rather robust employee
evaluation system.
The second primary theoretical organizational perspective to consider is that of
organizations being seen as natural systems. From the natural systems theoretical
perspective, an organizational structure is viewed more informally than formally as in
the rational system perspective (Scott & Davis, 2003). This theory views interpersonal
relationships and inter-relationships as the primary driving factor driving productivity and
shared productivity and engagement. The employees at a particular organization share
common goals, values and interests at making their company productive and successful
as their success is tied to that of the company at which they work. They will inherently
work together to ensure sustainable business as well as individual success. An
organizations values can be the driving factor of employee productivity as well. A good
example from my personal experience is that of the established Army “LDRSHIP”
values that are instilled in the Department of Defense (DoD) military and civilian
workforce: Leadership, Duty, Respect, Self-less Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal
Courage are the values expected from each employee. These values form the
organizational culture and ethos and have major influence over individual staff actions
and unity of effort. Individual competitiveness also plays a role in motivating and driving
individual workers in the organizational human dimension of this theory to strive to be
the best that they can be and be recognized as being the best.
The final primary theoretical organizational perspective is the open system
perspective of organizations. This theory sees organizations in terms of interrelated
systems open to internal and external environmental influences. Similar to a biological
entity, organizations can evolve and change over time as environmental factors such as
technology change and impact them in different ways. From my experience in
healthcare organizations, I can clearly see the impact that environmental influences
have had on the provision of healthcare. A good example is the improvement of surgical
outcomes and procedures due to less intrusive surgical methods and the corresponding
decrease in inpatient bed requirements and expenditures over the past 30 years. This
trend in medicine was brought about by an evolution of technology, pharmacology and
medical clinical practice guideline development and implementation, as well as other
factors and contributing changes. Organizations cannot maintain isolation from their
surrounding environment and must embrace those external stakeholders and
influencing factors that have effect on their operations and either act as barriers or
helpers towards their established goals (Hurth, 2017). There is a complex
interrelationship and interdependency between multiple overlapping systems and
environmental forces on how the organization affects them and how they affect the
organization. It is important for organizations to understand these environmental and
systemic relationships and to understand how their existence and purpose are shaped
and transformed by it. No organization is in isolation to itself and all are impacted by
external forces in some way.
Comparison and Relationship
The most significant difference between rational and natural theoretical
organizational perspectives is that the rational theory sees the organization as an
instrument to obtain goals while the natural theory sees the organization as a social
group of individuals striving to survive (Scott & Davis, 2003). The rational approach puts
less emphasis on the human behavior element contribution to an organization’s
functionality and success while the natural approach more heavily weighs the impact
and importance of individual and collective human behavior on the organization (Scott &
Davis, 2003). Rational systems are intentionally shaped and organized around goal and
mission accomplishment while natural systems tend to evolve more spontaneously due
to changing environmental factors. The Open system theory of organizations finds that
the environment has effect on the organization, but the organization also has an effect
on its environment. It is a two-way, interconnected relationship. The reliance each has
on the other creates an interdependence as well as competition for limited and finite
resources. Combining facets of these three theoretical models into more complex and
balanced models has been attempted by theorists in an effort to capitalize on the
strengths and minimize or mitigate the inherent weaknesses of each individual
theoretical approach.
Organizational structure can be defined by these three differing perspectives in a
plethora of ways. Organizations are complicated and complex groups of individuals,
some small and some enormous, that work towards providing goods or services and
achieving the groups mission, vision and goals. To do this, managers and business
leaders need to understand these three perspectives and look through each of their
lenses at their respective organizations to look for ways in which they can improve
operations, streamline efficiencies and achieve better, more effective improved
processes and procedures. Applying these system theories to address different aspects
of an organization, such as from an engineering perspective, sociological perspective,
management perspective, employee perspective, economical, logistical, facilities and
political perspectives, helps managers to identify areas that can be improved (Onday,
2018). Organizational systems all interact and influence and effect one another and vie
for limited resources, including time, space, personal and budget. These organizational
systems consist of many subsystems whose interdependence and inter-relationships
with one another work to gain successful momentum and equilibrium within the overall
organizational system structure (Jackson, 2003). Considering an organizations formal,
structured rational groups without consideration of the informal natural groups or the
environmental factors only gives managers a partial picture with incomplete information
to make evidence-based and optimally effective business decisions. Combining these
system perspectives in various ways to glean a complete picture of an organizations
structure and interconnectivity is a good methodology that will result in better
management and reduced risk. Healthcare organizations striving to become High
Reliability Organizations (HROs) for example, must be able to look at themselves
through various lenses of theoretical application if they want to reduce risk to the
greatest degree possible. Also, in order to gain competitive advantage, organizations
must be able to effectively manage complex and complicated internal as well as
external environmental obstacles to achieving their mission, vision, goals and
objectives. They must see that there are varying degrees of open and closed systems
and subsystems and that they are not usually polarized single model perspectives
(Osifo, 2011). Conventionally, closed and internal organizational systems were the focus
area of study, however, the study of external environmental factors was found to be just
as important for an organization to survive and thrive (Amagoh, 2008). As another
personal example, to focus solely on my medical centers’ internal organizational
structure and not consider external stakeholders and environmental factors such as
COVID-19 impact, the effect of Defense Health Agency policy changes on operations,
and logistical external mask, glove and gown shortages to name a few, would be to
increase risk to our patients significantly and set up the organization for failure. It is
paramount to any organizations success that, with some degree of regularity and
frequency, they look at their operations through the various available systems theories
to conduct S.W.O.T. (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis and
strategic planning to account for changing environmental factors and internal as well as
external influences.
Theoretical Viewpoints
Comparing business organizational systems to natural living organism systems
can be useful but managers should remain cautious and realize that they are different
from one another (Osifo, 2011). Romme (2003) explored adding design theory to
organizational theory in order to find solutions to issues identified when looking at an
organization through the different theoretical lenses. It is important to utilize different
theories as using only one often results in overlooking other aspects of importance.
Mary Zey (1998) for instance offers an organizational strategic perspective which
combines sociological, psychological, historical and economic theories and models to
understand more completely how an organization is structured and functions as well as
how it is effected by various discipline perspectives and theories. There have been
many theorists over the years to add to and enhance the rational, natural and open and
closed system theories of organization. The human relations school focused their efforts
on analysis of work groups and employee-manager relations, which improved
understanding of organizational processes and structure and added detailed complexity
(Scott & Davis, 2003). Scott and Davis provide a good summarization of the shifting
dominant layered theoretical models that developed over the years. They looked at
social, psychological, structural and ecological levels of analysis involving open and
closed system models such as Taylor’s scientific management, Whyte’s human relations
and Lawrence and Lorsch’es contingency theory (Scott & Davis, 2003). Each of these
and other theories addresses various and diverse organizational components and
perspectives. It is helpful to consider them all or at least representative numbers of
theories to view your organization from different vantage points and considerations.
Utilizing administrative theory, cooperative systems theory, knowledge-based theory,
organizational ecology, institutional theory, sociotechnical systems theory, contingency
theory, comparative structure theory and/or the plethora of other organizational theories,
models and perspectives helps managers make better, more effective managerial and
strategic decisions and use limited resources with more efficiency and greater return on
investment. Thinking outside of the box and considering other industries and applying
their technologies and organizational structure can sometimes yield great return for an
organization. A good example was when I was serving as the Executive Officer at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center and we purchased a 3D printer that we identified
being used in the automotive industry to test car models before production. We applied
the 3D models to surgical cases with the results being less intrusive and less risky
surgeries, faster recoveries and better outcomes. The utilization of this methodology
has spread far and wide throughout the healthcare industry and recently has even
become available for home use for other applications. N.A.S.A. even adopted the use of
3D printers to enable the astronauts to make tools as needed while on space missions.
Biblical Perspective
Adding a biblical perspective to these three organizational perspectives further
improves organization functionality and efficiency and increases the likelihood of
business improvement and growth. Christian leaders must pray as Solomon prayed in
the Book of Psalms and must ask God for wisdom to lead effectively (Psalm 72:1-17).
King Solomon understood the importance of effective organization and he had the gift of
administration and leadership as well as wisdom in order to establish his team in an
effective manner. He divided his structure based on internal and external forces into a
rational and natural structure consisting of economic, political, diplomatic and religious
organizational structure (Merida, 2015). His organizational wisdom and understanding
of the importance of organizational structure lead to the great expansion of Israel under
his kingship (Provan, 2000). Approaching from a rational perspective, one can shape
the organizational structure. Adding a natural perspective, one can focus on the people
that make up the organization and their relationships. This multi-perspective
consideration and approach is needed for a business or organization to most effectively
go from, in Jim Collins words, “good to great, built to last” (Collins, 2001). Solomon’s
temple lasted for over four hundred years as a testament to the effectiveness of his
organizational structure, wisdom and administration skills and to the glory of God.
Conclusion
Applying various organizational theory perspectives utilizing a Christian-
worldview and biblical foundation will serve Christian leaders and managers well and
will enable the optimization of team cohesiveness, teamwork and productivity. These
theoretical perspective theories and models are important tools in the business leaders
toolbox that must be understood and utilized to improve the organization they work in
and the community that they support.
References
Amagoh, F. (2008). Perspectives on organizational change: Systems and complexity
theories. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), article 3.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: why some companies make the leap…and others
don’t.(1st Ed.). HarperBusiness.
Hurth, V. (2017). Organizations as open systems that need purpose and integrated
thinking. , 2017(150), 1-8. doi: 10.1002/bl.30069.Board Leadership
Jackson, M.C., & NetLibrary, I. (2003,2004:). Systems Thinking: Creative holism for
managers. Hoboken, N.J: Chinchester, West Sussex, England: J. Wiley.
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-Centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Nashville:
B & H Publishing Group.
Onday, O. (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.
Osifo, S.J., & Omoregbe, O. (2011). Organizational change with the system and
complexity theories in mind. , 22(2).Knowledge Review
Provan, I.W. (2000). 1 and 2 Kings. New International Biblical Commentary 7. Peabody,
MA: Paternoster.
Roome, G.(2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. , Organization Science
14(4), 558-573.
Scott, W.R., & Davis, G.F. (2003). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, natural, and
open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Zey, M. (1998). Rational systems of organization and rational choice economic theories
of organizations. (pp. 71). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781483325863.n5
