TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
Maria Franco-Cortes
Liberty University
1
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
Technology refers to the work performed by an organization. However, most organization
theorists embrace the broader view that technology includes the hardware used in performing
work and the skills and knowledge of workers, and even the characteristics of the objects on
which it is performed (Scott, 2006). Several significant theories stress the interdependence of
organizational structures with the technical environment, and many embrace a contingency
perspective. Organizations are not just technical systems but also human and social systems.
Therefore, organizations require the participation of people to carry on activities related to goal
attainment. However, these relations vary across organizations and over time. To fully
understand the concept of technology structures and social boundaries for organizations, it is
essential to examine how the work being carried on affects the organizational structure
constructed to support it. The areas of technology and organizational boundaries representing
participants' issues should be identified by integrating theoretical viewpoints and even its biblical
perspective.
How do each of these apply to the three perspectives (natural, rational, and open)?
Natural, rational, and open viewpoints are affected by the definition of technology
systems and social boundaries. Technology has transformed the way professionals work and
interact within and between firms (Bonanomi et al., 2019). Theories stress the interdependence
of organizational structures with the technical environment. Many of these theories embrace the
contingency perspective, which assumes that an organization's structure depends on the nature of
its relation. Scott (2006) explains that complexity or diversity, uncertainty or unpredictability,
and interdependence are the three dimensions that encompass most of the critical variables
needed to predict the structural features of organizations. Complexity refers to the number of
2
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
different items or elements that must be dealt with simultaneously by the performer. Uncertainty
refers to the variability of items upon which work is performed of the extent to which it is
possible to predict their behavior in advance. Finally, interdependence refers to the extent to
which the elements are interrelated so that changes in the state of one element affect others'
states.
Bonanomi et al. (2019) clarify that leaders can identify both formal and informal
organizational structures within an organization. Formal structures determine how roles and
responsibilities are assigned and how different management levels share information and make
decisions. Informal structures include roles and relationships created informally and unofficially,
and that arise from outside the organization structure. Therefore, in response to more significant
task complexity, uncertainty, and interdependence, organizational forms exhibit higher
differentiation and structural flexibility. Simple structure, bureaucracy, functional or unitary,
multidivisional, matrix, adhocracy, and network are organizational forms representing structural
arrangements that can copy with increased information processing demands.
Scott (2006) affirms that natural systems propose alternatives that can be organized into
three themes. Substituting informal for formal structure, social and cultural factors shaping the
relation between technology and structure, and the importance of tactic knowledge are the three
alternatives. Studies have identified several value dimensions along which national cultures
appeared to vary, including differences in power distance and ways of dealing with uncertainty.
This demonstrates that the existence of substantial relative differences in cultural values across
nations. The duality of technology affirms that rather than being forced to choose between the
relative importance of technology versus structure, Orlinnkoski has formulated a better approach
(Cruz & Lee, 2019). Technology is both product and object, so users should be able to redesign
3
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
and change it through interaction. Finally, natural systems theorists recognize the importance of
patterned activities or routines and see them as workers' accomplishments rather than the
designer's expertise.
An organizational form constitutes the hybrid model, which combines aspects of sound
and natural systems (Scott, 2006). Professionals used to work independently; however, they have
become dependent on their equipment and resources. Current professional services development
in the United States suggests that structural arrangements are not a simple matter for rational
design. Although professional work within various organizational settings, all are subject to
managerial and financial controls than was earlier the case. Therefore, the increase in
specialization has resulted in the decline of organizations associated with traditional professional
work.
On the other hand, various elements come together to compromise an organization and
define its boundaries. Rational system theorists are confident that they understand the functions
of organizational boundaries. However, individuals' different organizational identities play a
small role in the organization's rational system views. For a natural system case, no organization
can eliminate the sources of disturbance. Conflict theorists within the natural systems perspective
observe that participants enter organizations with different and often conflicting interests and that
organizational resources are often deflected to serve personal ends. Also, human relations are
misguided because they do not challenge the fundamental nature of organizations. Opposite, they
help to shore it up by assuming a congruence of goals and providing managers new tools for
controlling workers.
4
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
What areas of technology are an issue for participants?
Johansson et al. (2020) affirm that the growing access to new technologies in
organizations has created innovation opportunities while implementing challenges. Products and
production systems as increased complexity derived from integrating different disciplines and
organizations that are changing the forms of cooperation between different companies.
Interacting with technology is also a huge part of employee's days. Gaining acceptance at the
staff level can be challenging as employees might think that the new technologies are
challenging to manage. New technology means changes to job responsibilities, additional
training, and added workload, impacting an organization's politics. Introducing changes within
an organization may cause disruptions in behaviors that can cause loss of continuity.
Every organization needs to understand that the environment is the more inclusive term,
including technological, political, and institutional aspects (Scott, 2006). Task environment
emphasized the environment's features relevant to its supply of inputs and its disposition of
outputs and included the power-dependence relations within which the organization conducts its
exchange. Technology is only the physical combined with the intellectual knowledge by which
materials are transformed to outputs. Therefore, humans, as well as technical requirements, are to
be served. It means that it is necessary to determine what kinds of work situations motivate and
satisfy workers. For example, repetitive, undemanding, and isolated jobs are viewed as
undermining commitment and weakening performance motivation at the task level. Also, the
organizational environment sometimes becomes turbulent, and the work demands uncertain.
Workgroups can provide users with an ongoing source of incentives, assistance, and learning
opportunities to understand new technologies.
5
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
Tandon and Nair (2020) mention that information and communication technology projects
play a significant role in healthy development, but they differ from one organization to another
due to their economic status and resource use. Difficulties may arise if leaders are not able to
analyze or assess the success of any system. For example, two firms with the same amount of
investments can have different benefits based on the volume of money invested and the resources
invested in employee training. Therefore, every firm has to identify expected outcomes generated
from a new technology based on the objectives. Otherwise, participants may face issues using
technology as it is not aligned with the organization's goals.
What are the issues with organizational boundaries for participants?
Organizations provide meaningful opportunities and benefits for their participants.
However, alienation, inequity, and insecurity are the three types of frequent problems mentioned
(Scott 2006). Much time has been devoted over the years to analyze organizations' impact on
their participants' characteristics. Most empirical studies on alienation rely on data obtained from
individual respondents who report their feelings attitudes, such as work satisfaction. These and
related studies provide evidence that work and working conditions can have significant effects on
personality. Ross (2020) mentions that Marx emphasizes that alienation means individuals' social
power, existing outside of them, governing the will and men's action. Marx also states that if
people are ignorant of the origin and goal of the displaced social forces that govern them, they
cannot control them, but they can only be controlled. Although organizations serve as a source of
alienation and estrangement to their participants, leaders cannot accept the view that employment
organizations should become the principal centers of moral and social integration.
Inequity is another problem faced by participants in organizational boundaries. Formal
organizations are expected to be fair in their treatment of personnel. However, equalitarian
6
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
standards of employments have been implemented in the United States. Scott (2006) mentions
that despite advances throughout the twentieth century, a substantial disparity remains between
men's advancement and earnings compared to women and whites compared to non-whites.
Therefore, the race and gender of employees continue to be important factors affecting their
opportunities in organizations. However, to understand the distribution of social and economic
rewards to workers, it is necessary to examine workers' aspirations, human capital, and job
characteristics. Downsizing activities have removed large numbers of regular and secure
positions, which have been substituted y part-time and low-wage employees. Organizations have
use contact and temporary workers to save more money and not provide benefits to employees.
Frone and Blais's (2020) case study helps explain how many changes have occurred to
reduce workers' economic security. Downsizing represents the strategic reduction of an
organization's workforce to reduce labor costs, increase profitability, and prevent organizational
collapse. The organization has been using downsizing in the last deceased to deal with
macroeconomic shock and achieve short-term profit maximization. Therefore, some workers
involuntarily lose their jobs and workers who survived the downsizing. Involuntary job loss is
stressful and results in poor physical and even poor mental health. The study also supports that
downsizing is positively associated with overall work exhaustion and turnover intentions and is
negatively associated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. It also provides
evidence that organizational downsizing fails to deliver the financial and performance benefits
and may result in further financial declines Tandon and Nair (2020). Therefore, to minimize the
potential adverse outcomes, firms can consider alternatives to layoffs, such as job redesign and
cultural change. To better serve survivors experiencing stress, employee assistance program staff
can help them understand the situation.
7
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
Personal perspectives and Biblical Component
It is clear that to remain competitive in a global economy, organizations need to adapt to
meet not only customer's needs but also employee's needs. This includes making changes to
processes and technology to deal with the new demands. Technology brings benefits like cost
reduction, innovation, and improved communications. Technology can increase the participation
and involvement of employees. For example, more participants can work and collaborate on
projects through shared databases and the internet. Organizations are also able to be in touch
with the market. Keeping current on the latest technology could allow an organization to seize
opportunities that the competitor is not filling.
Organizations require the participation of employees to carry on activities. However,
boundaries and technologies have brought some challenges that leaders need to mitigate
effectively. Complexity, uncertainty, and interdependence are the most critical dimensions to
represent in relating technology to structure. Technical complexity is associated with structural
complicity, so structural modifications need to be made to increase the capacity of information
processing systems. Although there are rational, natural, and open systems, the 21st century has
favored higher and tighter boundaries. Employers and workers alike must recognize that there is
a modern work environment in which everyone is experiencing a rise in alienation, inequity, and
insecurity. Therefore, leaders are new to implement new systems and always recognize the value
of those who perform the work.
The Bible is a book that is concerned with the relationships of man to God. Although the
Bible does not present direct statements or quantitative studies regarding management and
organizations, it serves as a valuable source of insight into these areas. Some verses show how
technology is a fantastic tool that organizations and the ministry are using. Luke 8:1-11 explains
8
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
the parable of the sower (King James Bible, 2017). It can be interpreted as sowers not limiting
themselves to specific soil; instead, they spread seeds everywhere. Therefore, humanity is
expected to do the same. People should not limit themselves and should always look for better
ways of doing any job. In the case of the ministry, Christians use technology to connect a bigger
audience than ever before. Scripture shows that technology can be used for both good and evil.
In other words, technology is not morally neutral as it influences and changes people each time
they use it. The Bible also mentions that people need to do all things decently and in order. Even
if it is a home or a business, any organization's goal is to use resources to create an environment
that can grow relationships with God, family, coworkers, and partners. Luke 14: 28-3 discusses
taking on a project (King James Bible, 2017). Leaders should first know what they have and
what they need to complete a project.
Word count: 2,114
9
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
References
Bonanomi, M. M., Hall, D. M., Staub-French, S., Tucker, A., & Talamo, C. M. L. (2019). The
impact of digital transformation on formal and informal organizational structures of large
architecture and engineering firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management 27, (4), 872–892. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-03-2019-0119
Cruz, R. A., & Lee, H. J. (2019). Open Governance and Duality of Technology: The open data
designer-user disconnect in the Philippines. JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy and
Open Government, 11(2), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v11i2.545
Frone, M. R., & Blais, A. R. (2020). Organizational Downsizing, Work Conditions, and
Employee Outcomes: Identifying Targets for Workplace Intervention among Survivors.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 719.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030719
Johansson, S., Kullström, M., Björk, J., Karlsson, A., & Nilsson, S. (2020). Digital production
innovation projects – The applicability of managerial controls under high levels of
complexity and uncertainty. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(3),
772–794. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-04-2019-0145
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
(original work published 1769).
10
TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL BOUNDARIES
Ross, L. (2020). On Disentangling Alienation, Estrangement, and Reification in Marx.
Rethinking Marxism, 32(4), 521–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2020.1809835
Saleem, F., Salim, N., Altalhi, A. H., Ullah, Z., AL-Malaise AL-Ghamdi, A., & Mahmood Khan,
Z. (2017). Assessing the effects of information and communication technologies on
organizational development: business values perspectives. Information Technology for
Development 26, (1), 54–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1335279
Scott, R. W. (2006). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open System
Perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge.
Tandon, A., & Nair, U. K. (2020). Understanding and managing learning in social enterprises:
The role of implicit organizational boundaries. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
31(2), 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21429
11
