RATIONAL, NATURAL
Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
School of Business, Liberty University
RATIONAL, NATURAL
Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
In the 1950s, there was a movement led by the work of Max Weber to analyze
bureaucracy which then broke off into a field of sociology that focused on organizations (Őnday,
2018). Over time organizational theory emerged as a multidisciplinary field (Scott, 2007).
During the research by different fields, a fundamental assumption has been made that there is no
difference between public and private organizations (Dash & Padhi, 2020). Most organizational
theories focus on empirical data from research on businesses (Martz, 2013). This paper will
discuss the three dominant organizational theories: rational, natural, and open systems. The first
will be defining the theories. Second, we will be examining the relationships between the
theories. Third, we will compare the theoretical viewpoints. Lastly, I will give a personal
perspective on the theories related to an organization.
The rational system theory emphasizes the organization as a group working towards a
common goal (Őnday, 2018). Two variables at the heart of this system are a formalized structure
of the organization and goal specification (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). This theory has a simple
structure that believes a business is a rational organization whose employees and the organization
align with the same specific goals. For example, the university I am using this term has a
common goal to educate students. Each staff member has a specific job that relates to the
universities goals. If a business’s goal is to stay in business and make money, each member has a
specific role to play to allow it to succeed at its goals. One could argue that not all businesses are
considered rational. However, if the organization’s goals are clearly defined in each role, it can
overcome workplace politics and strive toward its goals (Martz, 2013). This theory assumes that
all employees will understand their roles and work efficiently to fill them. The rational theory
RATIONAL, NATURAL
model always follows processes in the same order, with all decisions based on facts and clear and
impartial principles (Scott, 2007). The process outlines a goal, gathers data, brainstorms ideas,
develops lists of possible outcomes, and finally bases a decision on the facts and implements
them immediately (Dash & Padhi, 2020). The advantage of this process is a straightforward and
streamlined approach to decision-making without considering ethical concerns. Another
advantage is using a brainstorming session which can produce new ideas that may not have been
considered before. The main disadvantage is the lack of consideration of the people working in
the organization and their ethical concerns (Őnday, 2018). As a Christian employee, this can be a
challenge if business practices do not align with their own. Colossians 3:17 states, “And
whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to
God the Father through him (King James Bible).
The natural system theory does not use formal rules, and the individual’s role does not
shape the organization but rather the need for the organization to exist to solve a problem
(Sarbaev et al., 2021). This model puts the needs of society first and then creates a business to
fulfill those needs (Dash & Padhi, 2020). An example of this is a university. The university has a
set curriculum, yet the professors can use their autonomy to determine how to present the
information. A natural system believes that informal and interpersonal relationships are the
organization’s primary focus and not a set of rules, such as in a rational system (Scott, 2007).
Therefore, the employees determine the crucial roles of the organization in solving the problem
they are focused on. The organization being discussed in this course is a university where it is
apparent that the natural system is being used. Hence, natural system models postulate the
actuality of specific operative goals that must be met to allow the system to continue (Machado-
da-Silva, 2003). The natural system argues that normative structures limit behavioral structures
RATIONAL, NATURAL
(Őnday, 2018). In other words, the structure of the rational system and its rules and values will
inevitably affect the employee’s behavior. An advantage of a natural system is that it gives the
organization different perspectives, insight, and control of how to make changes to the system to
ensure success (Dash & Padhi, 2020). The disadvantage of the natural system can be the lack of
direction in an organization when the consensus of the employees cannot agree upon a solution
(Scott, 2007). The natural system does not provide any tools to solve the problem, which can be
a challenge to overcome in trying to solve the problems (Őnday, 2018). This system can benefit
Christians if they are surrounded by like-minded Christians who will put God’s grace in every
decision. Matthew (2017) 28:19, states, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (King James
Bible).” This system will be examined more through the course based on the similarity of the
system and the university.
The open system theory argues that one cannot look at an individual organization by
itself but must be viewed in its environment and connection to it (Scott, 2007). Natural and
rational systems focus on the internal constraints of the organization and how to resolve issues
(Machado-da-Silva, 2003). The open system considers the environment and its effects on the
organization (Scott, 2007). The advantage of this system is that it allows organizations to
understand the environment better and make adjustments to ensure the organization’s survival.
The disadvantage of the open system theory is that organizations can get lost in attempting to
solve environmental issues that may not affect the organization (Martz, 2013). Therefore,
resources are spent on items with little or no value. The open system allows the organization to
get a more realistic picture of the challenges the organization faces. As Christians, this open
system allows for incorporating the Christian perspective in making choices. As in Colossian
RATIONAL, NATURAL
(2017) 3:2, “Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth (King James
Bible).”
There are relationships between these systems; in some cases, these systems can be
combined to create new organizational structures. All three systems have to function in an
environment that is affected by external factors such as laws, locations, and values (Őnday,
2018). Each system can be successful depending on what the organization is trying to
accomplish. A rational system can be successfully used for a company such as General Electric
which uses the six sigma system. The six sigma system uses designed processes and algorithmic
steps to achieve its goals (Dash & Padhi, 2020). A university such as Liberty University uses a
natural system that considers the problem they are trying to solve: providing a quality Christian
education. Both organizations are fiscally successful and provide a product people want and
need. The open system, which considers surrounding environments, can adapt to the changing
environment and has the highest chance of continuing (Merida, 2015). However, the natural and
rational systems are closed systems that only focus on the organization (Scott, 2007). The open
system is different because it also considers the surrounding environment (Dash & Padhi, 2020).
If the external environment changes, the closed systems of rational and nature will have
difficulty adapting. Therefore, including an open system approach may serve the organization
better in the long run for sustainability. The most efficient way a natural system works is when
knowledgeable and skilled members work together to achieve the goal (Dash & Padhi, 2020). If
the individuals focus on their objectives, the system begins to fail (Merida, 2015). This is also
true for the rational system. If the focus is not given to the outside environment, the organization
will continue its goals which will become unnecessary (Martz, 2013). Each system focuses on a
separate issue, yet a combination of systems may be the best choice for organizations. Most
RATIONAL, NATURAL
organizations follow a closed system, with the only part of the system being open are the areas
where a product or service is offered to the consumer (Sarbaev et al., 2021). This led to the
theoretical viewpoints of the systems and the combination of systems.
Both theoretical systems focus on the internal organization’s workings (Merida, 2015). A
closed system focusing only on internal influences will make the organization stale and not adapt
to the changing environment (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). For an organization to survive for an
extended period, they need to adopt an open system to consider the changing environments
(Sarbaev et al., 2021). However, if an organization uses an open system that does not reflect
internally on processes, it may not focus on its environmental health, leaving it with no identity
(Dash & Padhi, 2020). By cross-classifying two systems, new systems emerge that can benefit
the organization (Merida, 2015). Both rational and natural systems are, by default, closed.
However, combining a natural system with an open system can create a new open natural model
system. Combining the internal focus of the organization to solve through the autonomy of the
employees with an additional focus on the external environment allows the system to adapt to
environmental changes and gives it a better chance for longevity (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). This
would be considered an open natural system. On the contrary, combining a rational system with
an open system allows the organization to focus on its internal processes through specific rules
and acute tools, with a focus on the environment can also be beneficial (Scott, 2007). Although
combining these models has led to multiple theories on the subject (Machado-da-Silva, 2003).
These include rationality, contingency theory, comparative structural analysis, agency theory, and
transaction cost analysis (Őnday, 2018).
Both the open rational and natural models are subject to environmental changes that may
not align with internal processes (Martz, 2013). For the open, rational model, the organization
RATIONAL, NATURAL
must put its rules and roles into place since a rational system ignores the environment and
focuses on its internal roles (Scott, 2007). To adopt the open-type system, the organization must
also focus on the environment to ensure its longevity (Merida, 2015). However, this is at odds
with the rational system, which is why the environmental scans need to be in the rules and roles
(). On the other hand, the natural system is already primed for including external factors within
the system due to the organization’s autonomy to adjust roles to increase its success (Sarbaev et
al., 2021). One issue with the natural system is that individuals within the organization may
pursue their interests instead of adapting (Martz, 2013). Hence the inclusion of the open system
in the natural system may be a better fit regarding adaptation to the environment since the culture
of the natural system has been that of analysis and change within the organization.
To determine which system type or a hybrid of the systems will be determined by many
factors. A rational type system may be the best choice for a manufacturing business because its
members focus on their tasks. The rational system is at its best when all operating facets can be
controlled (Merida, 2015). However, this system can be dangerous for sustainability. If the
organization focuses on its internal processes and ignores outside environmental factors, it can
become outdated quickly. Our societal norms are changing, and external social pressures
organizations to change (Merida, 2015). For example, Chic-fil-A is an excellent example of
social pressures that can be put on an organization. The current anti-god and acceptance of all
lifestyles have pressured the organization to defend itself about its “not open Sunday” policy and
Christian morals. However, as Christians, we must remember Corinthians (2017) 4:4 “in whose
case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”(King James Bible).
Therefore, if the organization wants to continue following its dogma, it must overcome those
RATIONAL, NATURAL
challenges and stay on course with its beliefs. The organization I am working on this term has a
hybrid-type system. They have strict policies that they focus on and follow. Nevertheless, they
also have a natural type system where some internal processes work on creating and maintaining
the systems. The most significant concern is their lack of an open-type system. A university must
be aware of the outside environment to change its offerings to the newest trends in education.
This organization must begin to adopt an open-type system to ensure its sustainability.
In conclusion, each one of these types of systems and their hybrids can be beneficial for a
different types of organizations. While each one of these systems has strengths and weaknesses,
none are the best (Sarbaev et al., 2021). The critical part is understanding the benefits of each
system and fitting them into the organization.
RATIONAL, NATURAL
References:
Dash, S. S., & Padhi, M. (2020). Relevance of Max Weber’s Rational Bureaucratic Organizations
in Modern Society. , 31(1), 81-81–91. Management Revue https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-
9915-2020-1-81
King James Bible. (2017). https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original King James Bible
work published 1769)
Kurbatova, & Zaitseva, S. A. (2020). Retracted: Role of pedagogical higher education
institutions in solving the problem of rational organization of vocational guidelines.
Vestnik Mininskogo Universiteta., 8(3). https://doi.org/10.26795/2307-1281-2020-8-3-5
Machado-da-Silva. (2003). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Revista de
Administração Contemporânea., 7(2), 219–219. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-
65552003000200017
Martz, W. (2013). Evaluating organizational performance: Rational, natural, and open system
models. The American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 385-401.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013479151
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Nashville, TN:
B&H Publishing Group. ISBN: 9780805496703
Őnday, Ő. (2018). The relationship between rational, natural and open systems concepts:
managing organizations today. International Journal of Information, Business and
Management, 10(1), 245-258. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?
url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/relationship-between-concepts-rational-
natural/docview/1966054435/se-2
RATIONAL, NATURAL
Sarbaev, V., Boldin, A., Bogumil, V., & Chusova, A. (2021). The method of rational organization
of maintenance of light commercial vehicles of foreign production using specialized
diagnostic tools at the motor transport company in cooperation with the branded service
stations. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202134100056
Scott, W. R. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Perspectives. London, England: Prentice Hall, Inc. ISBN: 9780131958937
