RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 1
Organizations
Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Lynn Evans
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 735 Understanding the Organization
Dr. Patrick Cline
August 31 , 2023
st
Author Note
Lynn Evans
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn Evans. Email:
levans@liberty.edu
Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open System
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 2
Organizations are described with an organizational chart or some form of picture that
encompasses the organization (Scott, 2018). Upon closer examination of an organization,
alternative approaches to its organizational structure may emerge. The perspectives are
commonly referred to as the rational system, natural system, and open system conceptions (Scott,
2018). Every viewpoint presents a distinct methodology for comprehending organizational
frameworks and their interrelationships.
Defining Characteristics of Rational, Natural, and Open Systems of Organizations
Rational System
According to Davis, the rational system is widely regarded as the prevailing perspective
adopted by a majority of managers and practitioners in the practical realm (2021). Unlike natural
and open system perspectives, the rational system is characterized by two structural features with
a specific goal. Firstly, rational organizations are focused on achieving objectives. Secondly, the
allocation of resources with rational systems is characterized by a high degree of formalization
(Columbo & Mella, 2021). Therefore, to identify and purposely define a rational system
perspective, Davis and DeWitt (2021) state, “organizations that are collectives oriented to the
pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting high formalized social structures” (p.1691). In
Scotts analysis of rational systems, he emphasizes efficiency, predictability, and control to
understand what the organization is about (2018). The fundamental tenets of the rational theory
are comprised of both overarching organizational objectives and a well-defined protocol for
making informed choices. Therefore, according to Scott, the presence of performance programs,
coordination, controls, and constraints within an organization are indicative of cognitive and
motivational limitations (2018).
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 3
Organizations have been frequently conceptualized as rational systems in various
accounts. The biblical narrative identifies one instance as Jesus sends out the twelve disciples.
Mark 6:7 (NKJV) records that Jesus divided the disciples into pairs, and Matthew 10:1 continues
to describes the power with which Jesus equipped them. The packing list for this expedition is
detailed in Matthew 10:9-10 and Mark 6:8-9. Furthermore, Jesus provided specific instructions
on where to go (Matthew 10:5-6), where to lodge (Mark 6:10), and the nature of their assignment
(Matthew 10:7-8). This group was characterized by a formal structure, received detailed orders
from their leader, operated efficiently, and ultimately achieved success due to their adherence to
Jesus’ plan (Mark 6:12-13).
Characteristics
According to Scott (2018), rational system theorists emphasize the importance of goal
specificity and formalization as defining features to this perspective. Goals specificity and
formalization have been distinctly identified due to important “rationality of organizational
action” (Scott, 2018, p.36).
Goal specificity.
Desired eventualities aid in defining a goal. In accordance with the rational system
perspective the organizational provision of goal specifications furnishes a set of directives for the
accomplishment of tasks, as well as a structured approach for the allocation of resources.
Colombo and Mella (2021) indicate that an organization not only delineates its preferred
activities, but also provides direction on the selection of specific structures to be adopted. These
structures may encompass the recruitment of personnel, the identification of daily tasks, as well
as those to be performed periodically.
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 4
The process of making choices can be challenging when goals lack specificity and are not
defined in detail. Failure to break down general goals into specific objectives can result in an
unstable or undefined organizational structure. Successful organizations that appear to have
broad goals to external stakeholders have, in fact, established specific goals that guide their daily
operations and facilitate the achievement of their overarching objectives (Ortenblad, 2018). The
specificity of goals plays a crucial role in defining organizational structures that are conducive to
the success of the organization.
Formalization.
“Formalization could be viewed as a means to express and highlight the structure of
relationships inside the organization and the organizational rules” (Colombo & Mella, 2021,
p.490). The rational system perspective posits that organizations are characterized by a precise
delineation of the roles played by each participant, irrespective of any personal relationships that
may exist between them. The pursuit of formalization aims to achieve efficacy, necessitating a
comprehensive and unambiguous definition of each system that is readily comprehensible to all
participants. Furthermore, the processes involved must be precise and exhaustive, accounting for
even the minutest details of the anticipated action.
The process of formalization renders the organizational structure readily discernible,
enabling participants to expeditiously identify their respective responsibilities vis-à-vis others
and, consequently, devise strategies to optimize their processes to attain outcomes that are
synergistic with the rest. Correspondingly, empirical evidence suggests that presenting this
structure in a comprehensive and comprehensible manner assuages the apprehension of newly
inducted participants in the organization (Scott, 2018). Comparatively, rules and expectations are
detailed in the commandments. Solomon, following the commandments would be blessed, while
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 5
David would disobey these commandments and not be as blessed as Solomon. The attainment of
success can be facilitated by adherence to the established rules, as each participant is equipped
with a clear understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities (Merida et al., 2015).
Natural System
Additionally, Scott (2018) delves deeper into his perspectives on organizational systems
by explicating the natural system perspective. He proceeds to shed light on the natural system
perspective, elucidating its representation as a progression form the notion that informal and
interpersonal structures within an organization hold greater significance than formal structures.
Within this organizational framework, individuals possess multiple interests or engage in
conflictual processes that drive the organization. This system is a familiar concept in leadership
training, particularly in outdoor leadership, and can be applied to achieve the goals of a group or
organization through the utilization of Theory X and Theory Y, sensitivity training, and
worker/follower participation. A comparison between the rational and natural systems reveals
two notable distinctions, namely goal complexity and informal structures (Singh et al., 2022).
Organizations often possess multiple complex and conflicting goals, and informal social
networks may hold greater importance than formal ones in comprehending and predicting
organizational behavior. In the realm of natural systems, organizations are viewed as akin to
other collectivities. While acknowledging that organizations may possess unique attributes,
natural systems also recognize certain commonalities (Scott, 2018). These shared characteristics
are deemed of utmost importance by the natural system perspective. Theorists believe that
“organizations are collectivities whose participants are pursuing multiple interests, both disparate
and common, but who recognize the value of perpetuating the organization as an important
resource” (Colombo & Mella, 2021, p.495).
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 6
Characteristics
According to Scott (2018), natural system theorists emphasize the importance of goal
complexity and informal structure as defining features to this perspective. The natural
perspective posits that the goals of an organization are often more intricate than what is explicitly
stated, and that there exists an underlying objective of organizational preservation that influences
all other goals. Laraswati et al. noted this phenomenon, specifically in the context of non-
governmental organizations, where efforts are made to ensure self-sustenance and act in their
own self-interest (2020).
Goal complexity.
In contrast to the rational system, which is highly focused on specific objectives, the
natural system recognizes that goals within an organization can be diverse and multifaceted. The
natural system perspective identifies three distinct themes pertaining to goal. These include
official organizational goals, ambiguous organizational goals, and organizations that are
primarily driven by the overarching objective of survival (Scott, 2018).
The natural system perspective is a theoretical framework that examines an organization's
formal and behavioral characteristics to determine their alignment. It is often observed that the
set goals and operative goals of an organization differ. Even when the set goals are being
pursued, they are not the only objectives being pursued. The complexity of goals can be
attributed to the fact that an organization must satisfy various needs to survive. The system can
only function effectively if these needs are met (Ra et al., 2023). However, the challenge lies in
distinguishing between the needs that must be satisfied for the organization's survival and those
that are put forward by participants seeking to exploit the company for financial gain or prestige.
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 7
Informal structure.
The informal structure is a salient feature of natural systems, which diverges from
rational systems that emphasize external roles and responsibilities while discouraging personal
relationships (Wash, 2023). In natural systems, the focus is on the personal relationships and
characteristics of the participants. The impact of a participant's personal characteristics on the
overall performance of their department is a pertinent inquiry. According to (Wash, 2023) this
phenomenon is readily observable when there is a change in personnel within a given
department. Over time, as participants interact, they develop an understanding of one another,
leading to the establishment of a stable informal structure. It can be posited that the informal
approach also possesses its own structure and order (Scott, 2018).
Open System
The open system perspective was developed much later than the rational and natural
system and has altered the conception of the organization and its’ specific features and processes
(Scott, 2018). The open system perspective places less emphasis on the differentiation between
formal and informal structures within organizations. Rather, it regards organizations as a
complex system comprised of interdependent activities (Scott, 2016). The concept of an open
system organizational structure posits that an individual organization cannot be examined in
isolation. Rather, organizations are intricately intertwined with their environments to the extent
that the boundaries between the organization and its environment are blurred (Davis & DeWitt,
2021).
Scott and Davis (2007) define an open system as one that is capable of self-maintenance
through the acquisition of resources from the environment. According to Colombo and Mella the
propose that this self-organizing system occurs in open systems that develop functional
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 8
structures without explicit instructions from external sources (2021). These open systems are
comprised of numerous interacting components, parts, and elements, and are considered "open"
due to their ability to exchange information with their environment. (Scott, 2018).
Characteristics
According to Scott (2018), open system theorists emphasize the importance of self-
maintenance based on throughput, diversity and the variety of the environment, and presence of
boundaries as defining features to this perspective. Self-maintenance based on throughput,
diversity and variety of the environment, and presence of boundaries have been distinctly
identified (Scott, 2018, p.36).
Self-maintenance based on throughput.
Scott (2018) indicates that the concept of an open system posits that organizations rely on
the external environment for their survival. In this regard, an organization acquires resources
from its surroundings and utilizes them to sustain its operations. Scholars, such as Scott and
Davis (2021), agree with Scott, indicating that the organization cannot replenish these resources,
it optimizes their utilization to generate additional resources that facilitate its continued
existence.
Diversity.
The present characteristic underscores the notion that the degree of complexity or
simplicity of an organization is significantly contingent upon the environment in which it
operates. A society that is highly intricate will necessitate an organization that is equally
complex, while a society that is uncomplicated will require an organization that is simple. This
phenomenon can be elucidated by the law of variety, as posited by Scott (2018) which asserts
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 9
that "a system will not manifest more variety than the variety to which it has been exposed in its
environment." (p.97)
Presence of boundaries.
The open system perspective underscores the integration of an organization with its
environment, while simultaneously emphasizing the establishment of boundaries to delimit
external access to the organization. Scott (2018) indicates that the organization may appear
without boundaries, they exist. As defined by his example, “does the university include within its
boundaries its students?” (p.95). This perspective acknowledges the challenge of defining
boundaries, given the inherent tension between the concepts of boundaries and openness.
Rational, Natural, and Open System Relationship
The three systems, namely rational, natural, and open systems, are characterized by
distinct structures that lead to outcomes. While the natural system may appear to lack structure
due to its emphasis on informality, all three systems have boundaries, with varying degrees of
strictness (Scott, 2018). The rational system defines organizations as collectivities that are
oriented towards achieving specific goals and exhibit highly formalized social structures. In
contrast, according to Colombo and Mella (2021), the natural system focuses on the behavioral
structure of participants within an organization, rather than the formally expected behavior. The
natural system defines organizations as collectivities with members who have diverse interests,
but all acknowledge the organization as a key resource to achieving these interests.
The natural system perspective highlights the similarities between organizations and
other social collectivities, as both are influenced by social consensus and social conflict (Scott,
2018). Social conflict arises from the suppression of some interests and the endorsement of
others, resulting in a uniformity of interests addressed. The open system perspective challenges
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 10
the notion that organizations are entirely separate from and unaffected by their environment
(Laraswati et al, 2020). Instead, it emphasizes that organizations are highly dependent on
external factors such as suppliers, customers, resources, and information from their environment,
which determine the direction the organization takes to ensure its success (Scott, 2018). The
elements of an organization must reflect the culture of the society it operates in to navigate the
complex and dynamic environment effectively.
Theoretical Viewpoint
Rational System Theoretical Viewpoint
Taylor’s Scientific Management
The theoretical framework of scientific management was initiated by Frederick W. Taylor
and subsequently developed by other scholars (Scott, 2018). This theoretical perspective
emerged during the industrialization revolution when engineers sought to standardize tools and
address the growing industrial unrest. According to Colombo and Mella (2021) Taylor and his
followers posited that the performance of a worker in a given task could be scientifically
measured to determine the maximum output achievable with minimal effort. Taylor advocated
for the subjection of workers to scientifically curated systems, arguing that the interests of
managers and workers could be made compatible through the principles of scientific
management. As Thompson (2017) notes, Taylor believed that the man at the head of the
business should be governed by rules and laws that have been developed through hundreds of
experiments, just as the worker is, and that the standards that have been developed are equitable.
Fayol’s Administrative Theory
Scott (2018) highlights Taylors emphasis on management functions, which involved the
development of general administrative principles as a framework for administrators to structure
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 11
and instruct their workers. Taylor's approach centered on the measurement of worker
performance to determine the most effective approach to work (bottom-up), while Fayol
provided general instructions on how to elicit optimal employee performance (top-down) Davis
and DeWitt (2021) states, “..this theory faced criticism due to the specialization issue, as the
departmentalization principle was overly general and assumed a homogeneity of purpose”
(p.1694). Additionally, the line-staff principles resulted in the segregation of power. Another
issue was the coordination problem.
Natural System Theoretical Viewpoint
Mayo and the Human Relations School
According to research, it has been observed that the behavior of individuals within a
group is influenced by one another. Additionally, it has been discovered that individuals tend to
perform better when under the leadership of a democratic figure as opposed to an authoritarian
one (Colombo & Mella, 2021) Furthermore, it has been noted that individual differences, such as
race, play a significant role in determining the type of work allocated to everyone.
Open System Theoretical Viewpoint
System Design
Theorists have deliberated on the optimal approach to adopt when designing an
organization. Beer, for instance, advocates for a systematic classification of all the systems
within the organization based on their complexity (Scott, 2018). This approach enables the
identification of the unique needs of each system, which should be treated as distinct entities.
Furthermore, system design facilitates the development of tailored methods that cater to the
specific requirements of the organization, thereby ensuring comprehensive coverage of its needs
along with continual improvement (Scott, 2018).
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 12
Personal Perspectives
The optimal approach to organizational management involves a combination of rational
and open systems. Natural systems are inherent to human social behavior and therefore occur
spontaneously. However, a rational approach is necessary to curate effective methods for
participants to achieve optimal results. By establishing clear expectations, individuals can
integrate their tasks into their daily routines. As Taylor proposed, inspection should be
incorporated to ensure adherence to established protocols. The organization relies on society for
both reputational and monetary gain, and the open system component is essential in this regard.
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 13
References
Colombo, C.M. & Mella, P. (2021). “Organization”. a multi facet concept. Economia Aziendal
Online, 12(4). 487-506. https://doi.org/10.13132/2038-5498/12.4.487-506.
Davis, G.F., & DeWitt, T. (2021). Organization theory and the resource-based view of the firm:
the great divide. (7), 1684-1697. Journal of Management, 47
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320982650.
Laraswati, D., Rahaya, S., Sahide, M.A.K., Soraya, E., Pratama, A.A., Fisher, M., & Naryudi, A.
(2020). The anachronistic category of non-government organizations: moving from
normative to empirical-based definitions for identifying organized interest groups in
forest policymaking. Forest Policy and Economics, 112, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102016.
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition commentary: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B &
H Publishing Group.
Ortenblad,A. (2018). What does “learning organization” mean? The Learning Organization,
25(3), 150-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2018-0016.
Ra, K., Hong, S., & Yang, D. (2023). How are firm’s strategic motives for environmental
innovation impeded? The negative influences of institutional pressures. Systems, 11(79).
1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020079
Scott, W.R., & Davis, G.F. (2016). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open
System Perspectives. Routledge.
Singh, R., Goel, G., & Ghosh, P. (2022). People-centric interventions in change implementation:
an analysis of change models. Organization Development Journal, 40(3). 8-21.
RATIONAL NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS 14
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/people-centric-interventions-change/docview/2698713503/se-2
The Holy Bible, New King James Version (1982). Thomas Nelson, Inc
Wash, G.L. (2023). Improving employee performance through corporate education. Journal of
Business and Educational Leadership, 13(1). 95-108.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/improving-employee-performance-through-corporate/docview/2813049668/se-2
