lOMoARcPSD|22671317
Liberty University BUSI 710 Board 1
Advanced Business Research Methods (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
Discussion Board Forum 1
Understanding and defining the structural and social aspects of an organization will determine how we view
the functionality and specifically the goal of the organization and its members. There are several different aspects
to determining the function and definition of an organizational structure, specifically how the members are
categorized in goal-focused and formalization, that help differ the focus and expectation for the members. Structures
can be determined as both informal and formal in decision making with structures such as situational factors,
addressing problems and issues, priorities, goals, and establishing operational protocols (Soderstrom & Weber,
2020).
Understanding the role of the members, the structure and the goal of the organization as a whole will help determine
how well the organization functions in the structure and task-related appearance in identifying organizational
success.
With the organizational structure being identified by function and overall goal, there can be different
combinations of these two identifiers. For example, there is a possibility to have a high structural function with a
low goal and task orientation. This can also be true vice-versa and so on. Organizational structures are constantly
changing and adapting with time, resources, and technology. The behavior of social constructs within the
organization can be changed, adapted, and redefined throughout the life of an organization, making it apparently
important for the goals and structure of the organization to be clearly identified and unambiguous in terms of
implementation (Sandhu & Kulik, 2019). For the sake of association, the three umbrellas that organizations will be
categorized in will be rational, natural, and open. These three systems will be clearly defined and explored with
understandable differences, relationships, theoretical viewpoints, and personal perspectives concluded by a biblical
integration and overview.
Rational System
Rational system is the first system that will be identified and explored as an organizational construct.
According to Scott (2015), a rational system is one that has a “pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting
relatively highly formalized social constructures” (p. 29). With this definition, it is not so much as to what or how
specific the goals are as much as it is how the implementation of the goals are being secured and executed. Because
of this specification, rational systems are focused on functionality and goal specificity at the highest regard in terms
of the three systems. Reliability is, therefore, a result of these two functions correlating together by identifying the
organizational design of structure. Reliability is more centered around the idea that there is success in the
implementation with several trials and practices, allowing for results to be consistent and obtainable in terms of
procedural implementation (Husted, 1993).
The goal specific aspect of rational systems is determined by how the goal is being implemented and
achieved through action of the members. The entire structure of the organization is fueled by the goal itself, not the
independence of the member’s ideologies or creativity. This major difference in this organizational theory is
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
focused on implementing the goal of the organization. There is little room for the members to change the goal and
have varying opinions of how the goal is to be implemented. The success of the organization is determined by how
efficient the goal is being lived out by each member, allowing for a congruent effort of auditing and structural
success being determined by the movement towards the goal being accomplished. Examples of the goal specificity
would be, in the negative sense, how Adolf Hitler organized a movement in Germany. The goal was specific and
the implementation of that goal was at the highest priority. In a positive sense, educators are able to identify the goal
of graduating and educating students. While the implementation might be more specific towards each
educator/teacher, the overall goal is congruent and easily measurable in terms of success (Scott, 2015). Biblically,
Christianity is a type of rational system in that there is one person in charge, Jesus, with the angel armies being in a
hierarchy system from archangels down to messenger angels (Hebrews 1 & Hebrews 2, NIV). There is a noticeable
goal in Christianity as well, to fill the earth with the Glory of God (Genesis 1:28, NIV). That goal is translated
through the Old and New Testament being more geared towards the ability to fulfill that mission in the New
Testament through the works of Jesus. By the pure definition and exploration of rational organizational systems,
Christianity has the aspect of hierarchy power with one goal focused agenda.
The regulation and reliability of the success of the goal is how the rational system functions and maintains
success within an organization. Reliability is of high importance in this system because of the intolerance for
failure within this particular construct (Husted, 1993). Reliability then becomes a tool in how to structuralize the
formality of the rational system, meaning that there is a stable expectation that can be met and standardized to be
evaluated in deeming the organizational success. Because the goal of the rational system lies within the goal no the
members themselves, the hierarchy and the organizational structure must be met with a very formal construct and
governmental focus. When members have clear expectations within their function, hierarchy and role, the goal is
the focus instead of status and constructive design. This is particularly important when dealing with timely goals
that have no room for efforts to be exhausted in determining personal power and movement within the linear chain.
In the previous example of Adolf Hitler, the goal was implemented by a series of hierarchy chain and power. Some
positive examples are historical charismatic leaders such as MLK Jr. and Gandhi. People were clearly in charge of
certain areas and aspects of the ‘army’ that allowed for people to stay in their lane and just do their job, even if that
army was a peaceful movement. This type of formality is important for sports teams and particular movements in
where the goal is the most important aspect of the organization. The goal has to be the most important aspect,
making no room for structural faults. That is why the formalization needs to have high importance with specific
roles and boundaries as members.
Selected Schools/Theories
Four different theories will be discussed in terms of how the rational structure functions within an
organization. Taylor’s Scientific Management theory promotes the idea that workers are able to be scientifically
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
analyzed to discover what the perfect balance of maximum output combined with the minimum input of time and
resources. Taylor’s theory identifies with the industrial time where laborious efforts are capitalized on in terms of
efficiency. As stated before, the main focus of rational systems is the regulation and reliability of functionality. The
second theory is the Fayol’s Administrative Theory. Fayol in particular focuses on coordination and specialization
with a top down approach to gain a consensus on decision making and routine matters. This theory is a more
formalization-side of the rational system. The third theory is the Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy. This theory
focuses on the bureaucracy function of a rational system with traditional and rational-legal power that offers
structure to the organization. Traditional structures are patriarchal and customary for the time while charismatic
structures are in the example of Hitler being that members followed a leader based on their dream. The fourth
theory is the Simon’s Theory of Administrative Behavior. This theory by Herbert Simon creates a more
administrative approach than that of Weber. The same approach is somewhat taken with the difference being that
those closer to the top of an organization make more impactful decisions than those at the lower end of the
positional hierarchy. The organizational goal is protected by only allowing decisions to be made within the
constructs of the level of position in management and administrative duties. This allows for certain decisions and
goals to be met individually within the organization while moving in the same direction as a whole (Scott, 2015).
Natural System
The second organizational structure is the natural system. The natural system is better identified as an
organization that views the members as individuals who are pursuing a variety of interests while identifying the
organization as a resource (Scott, 2015). This is a very different view of organization from rational because the goal
is shifted from a specific goal being accomplished to the goal of the organization to be a tool for the member’s to
accomplish different goals. The natural system differs than the rational system in the goal complexity in that the
natural system focuses more on behavior of the members instead of the actual goal being implemented at whatever
behavior necessary as with the rational system.
How the organization is being experienced through the social structure of the organization is more of a
natural system and theory (Silverman, 1968). This functional analysis sees that the needs of the members need to be
met in order for the organization to survive. This is a very different approach in the rational system because of the
goal being obviously focused on the members instead of the output of the organization. Success in terms of
organization is shifted from output to inward dynamic with a natural flow of member satisfaction. The goals of the
organization would even be sacrificed in order to accomplish this organizational culture, keeping the members
strengthened and preserved. In terms of Christianity, the goal is rational in hierarchy and blessings, but a very
unusual thing happened when Jesus came to die on the cross for humanity. God chose relationship over the lording
right of securing the fate of humanity. This is a beautiful example of a natural system in that the goal was to
purposefully unite people to Himself. There is also the ability for people to choose to follow God or not, even after
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
experiencing Him and His ‘organization’. This is an example of a natural system because members are allowed to
exchange leaders based upon their wants and needs. While this is a heartbreaking example, it is in the vein of a
natural organizational structure: members are the ones who are running the show. It is only by personal sacrifice
and personal relief that a Christian changes from a natural system to a rightful rational system, the great exchange of
“not as I will but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, NKJV).
The structural system is less formal in the normative system than that of the rational system in that the
focus is still more on purpose than functionality and reliability. The members are allowed the freedom to question
and understand the motive of the structure of the organization with the ultimate right to terminate anything that
seems to be infringing upon the freedom of the members. Members do not simply take orders from a hierarchy
system but bring their own beliefs, behavior, and goals for accomplishment. This is particularly important in the
communication realm because there is a particular burden placed upon those in management within this natural
system. People are able to have their own opinions and abilities to participate in their own way which can make it
impossible for management to make goals without full participation. Personally, my MLM company faces this
challenge because there is only a way to motivate people to participate, not punish people into participating. This
can become extremely difficult and frustrating because the success of management (or higher levels within the tree)
is determine by the success of those below them. This is why a lot of MLM systems offer substantial
compensations and personal goal-oriented participation to keep the company moving forward.
Selected Schools/Theories
The Hawthorne studies observed how to identify physical and psychological factors that would determine
successful output of profit. Productivity was observed and scientifically measured in terms of characteristics such as
exhaustion and pressure that affect the overall output of a company. Mayo and the human relations school observed
the needs for human motivation and the informal structure’s importance in organizational behavior. This school of
thought has given much foundation to human relations and HR practices in that the sociological portion of the work-
life dynamic is important and vitally necessary for optimal organizational success.
The second school of thought is the Barnard’s Cooperative System. This system was developed by Chester
Bernard who established an organizational cooperative system in that there needs to be a cooperation between
cognitive performance and participation through contributions. His conclusions discovered that there needed to be a
top down approach to goals while a bottom up approach to participation. This system is coordinated in recent days
to partner with organizational culture to maintain a high output participation with a strong organizational natural
framework.
The third theory is the Selznick’s Institutional Approach. Philip Selznick created several books and
theories based upon his findings of the collaboration of Michels and Barnard. The focus of Selznick was on the
realization that people made up organization and thus need to be the focus of exploring the overall character of
an
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
organization based upon its members. In simple terms, people who participate in an organization make the
organization what it is. The details come in how the organization can motivate the individuals to participate.
The last theory is the Parsons’ AGIL Schema. This multi-level ecological finding was founded by Talcott
Parsons, a Harvard scholar. Parsons utilized a general model that analyzed different types of social systems into the
categories of : adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency. These four categories were sorted through
organizational types and examples of those types. The basis of this theory was to develop a structure for the
organization based upon the category with the ability of that structure to adapt to external and internal
environments. Like the other theories, there is a clear focus on social systems within an organization with the
highest regard towards goal attainment. The overall statement in this conclusion is that “conflict and change are a
part of organizational life no less than consensus and stability” (Scott, 2015, p. 82).
Open System
An open system is the most different than the other two being that rational and natural systems are
considered closed systems in that they are exclusive from their environment. The issue with this thought process is
that organizations are “open to and dependent on flows of personnel, resources, and information from the outside”
(Scott, 2015, p. 31). An open system adopts the idea that people can come and go as they please and as they chose
with the integrity that the organization will continue to succeed during the process of member transition. The
interdependent activities are based around constructs and ideas than in structure and goals. The open system is more
of a uniquely organic behavior that has a natural element of changing to the external environment and internal
information (Gallagher, 2020). Being a part of the non-organizational factors is what makes an open system just
that, open to constructs, environments, and elements that are not of its own (Starnes, 2000). The main distinguisher
of an open system is that an open system organization can function on a self-maintenance basis. In the sense of
Christianity, the Church is only existent if there are members to be associated. The missing factor in this not being a
closed system is that the organization itself is self-sustaining depending upon one or thousands of members. The
even flow of a body of believers is determined by the environment and how that body of believers is serving the
environment. There is a strong correlation with the people and the environment and vice versa. As a human system,
the open organization expresses the creativity in Christianity with the outreach nd evangelical mission at the focus
of the existence.
Selected Schools/Theories
The system design for an open system shows levels of system complexity and variables that account for
behaviors that interact within an environment. This system of complexity illustrates how order and chaos are
handled naturally and at the measure of the existence of interaction. This is how an open system is able to function
because there is a level of engagement that occurs naturally within an organization that is found in a more wholistic
approach to hierarchy. The contingency theory demonstrates that the “organization’s internal features match the
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
demands of their environments will achieve the best adaptation” (Scott, 2015, p. 103). This school of thought
allows for structure to arise within an open system through natural means and collaboration within the open
system. The last school of thought is the Weick’s model of organizing. This theory explains how stability and
flexibility coexist within an organization to move forward like in an open system.
Conclusion
The three organizational structures act as umbrellas to help categorize organizations into functionality and
structure. The rational, natural, and open systems have distinctly different ideologies, the open system being the
most different. One thing remains neutral in all three systems: it takes members to be existing. Even while an open
system is self-sustaining, it still takes members for an organization to be just that, an organization. Christianity is
expressed in multiple ways in all three of these systems. It just shows the complexity of Jesus, His Church, and how
Heaven is operating and awaiting our full inheritance.
Resources:
Gallagher, B. K. (2020). The Roots of Great Innovation: State-Level Entrepreneurial Climate and
Sustainability of Nonprofit Arts and Culture Organizations. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in
the Arts, 9(1), 67–81.
Husted, B. W. (1993). Reliability and the Design of Ethical Organizations: A Rational Systems
Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10), 761–769. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/BF00881308
Sandhu, S., & Kulik, C. T. (2019). Shaping and Being Shaped: How Organizational Structure
and Managerial Discretion Co-evolve in New Managerial Roles. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 64(3), 619–658. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/000183921877
8018
Scott, W. R. (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Perspectives. London, England: Routledge: ISBN: 9780131958937
Silverman, D. (1968). Formal Organizations or Industrial Sociology: Towards a Social Action
Analysis of Organizations. Sociology, 2(2), 221–238. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/003803856800200206
Soderstrom, S. B., & Weber, K. (2020). Organizational Structure from Interaction: Evidence
from Corporate Sustainability Efforts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 226–271. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/0001839219836670
Systems Theory and the Development of Strategic Alliances: A Guide for Managers of Nonprofit
Organizations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 8(2), 15.
Starnes, B. J. (2000). Achieving Competitive Advantage Through the Application of Open
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
