2
The Concept of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
The technical and social terminology for organizations today:
The term technology refers to “the hardware used in performing work, the skills and
knowledge of workers, and the characteristics of the objects on which work is performed” (Scott,
2007). Organizations connect technology components to the terminology of environments, tasks
environments, complexity, unpredictability, and interdependences. Like open systems, task
environments emphasize a setting relevant to its supply of inputs and its disposition of outputs.
According to the textbook reading, technology includes power-dependence relations within
which the organization conducts its exchanges. Technical complexity refers to the number of
different items or elements that must be dealt with simultaneously by the performer (Scott et al.,
2007). Organizations utilize the task of unpredictability for specialized purposes. In doing so, the
method may be a source used to supply the awareness of challenges in advance.
Interdependences in an organization refer to the extent to which the items or elements upon
which work is performed or the work processes themselves are interrelated. Changes in the state
of one part affect the state of the others (Scott et al., 2007).
Organizations are also affected by social structures today. In the last five years,
organizations changed rational ideas to cross-cultural studies, strategic choice, and sociotechnical
systems. Cross-cultural studies are conducted to determine whether contingency arguments are
culture-free (Scott et al., 2007). The term sociotechnical systems came into play when a theorist
demonstrated the combination of social and technical principles. The design objective is to
“jointly optimize” both components do not sacrifice one for others (Scott et al., 2007). According
to Scott, strategic choice in an organization is viewed as unified actors and shifting combinations
of varying interest groups moving in and out of the organization and up and down in relative
power (Scott et al., 2007). Corporate governance is a newer technical terminology for
organizations today. The phrase refers to a business arrangement in activities of their essential
subunits to lower the organizational coordination costs (Sambamurthy & Zmud, 1999). Another
term used in social terminology is sustainability development. The concept addresses the
meaning around a capacity to endure (Baden & Harwood, 2013). Corporations view
sustainability development as a development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Baden et al., 2013).
Another widely used social term is called moral muteness—organizations related to moral
muteness as the concept of moral muteness to express the lack of critical issues.
How does technical and social terminology apply to rational, natural, and open systems?
When applying technical and social terminology to a rational system, an organization
may develop profit loss. Traditionally, rational systems were goal-oriented, where employees
perform a task based on a corporation's profitability. The foundation of a rational system is a
series of action which leads to a predetermined goal (Scott et al., 2007). A solution that can help
organizations in a rational system with technical terminology is by way of understanding that the
best way to organize depends on the nature of the task environment to which the organization
relates. Scott argues that the greater the complexity, diversity, uncertainty, and interdependence
3
The Concept of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
of a rational organization, the more environmental factors can open the milestone of more
significant opportunity. Rational system organizations attempt to use buffering the core and
restructuring the core when dealing with environmental disturbances and technology demands.
Buffering the core is viewed as firms "protecting parts of the organization from a chaotic barrage
of outside influences, while also tracking closely with environmental shifts and variation (Lynn,
2005). One can alternate a buffering core process to act as a positive source for improving an
organization's structure.
Corporations use the term of cross-cultural in natural systems for technical and social
terminology. In making such a concept, organizational features must be seen as socially
constructed in different ways rather than measured along a standardized dimension (Scott et al.,
2007). According to Scott, the natural theorists propose three approaches: social and cultural
factors shaping the relation between technology and structure, substituting informal for formal
structure (Scott et al., 2007). The natural system recognizes the importance of the relationship
between technologies. Moreover, the natural system combines the elements from form and
informal approaches, stressing the internationalization of controls and worker contribution (Scott
et al., 2007).
In an open system, task environments emphasize features relevant to its supply of inputs
and its disposition of outputs. It includes the power-dependence relations within which the
organization conducts its exchanges (Scott et al., 2007). Sustainable development is a term used
in an open system to aspire environmental situations for constructing organizations. Corporations
currently operate by using environmental, economic, and social sustainability (Rosen, 2012). The
use of sustainability development varies by size, living standards, culture, and administrative
systems.
What areas of technology are an issue for participants?
Corporations that only emphasize a rational, structured system can have technical issues
for participants. The system is seen as mainly goal-oriented and emphasizes that participants'
merits are based on performance to reach a specific goal. Journalist Kroes argues that a rational
system has disadvantages when using technology. Kroes justifies the failure of technology in
rational systems by stating that “experiments are performed to learn and so to treat technological
innovations as experiments call for close monitoring of the societal effects of new technology
(Kroes, 2016). Most rational systems are studied based on controlled conditions, which decreases
the chance that technology can be of greater use in a corporation. The effects of introducing new
technology are not desirable for an employee or manager; afterward, most organizations stop
testing new technical concepts (Kroes et al., 2016).
Corporations use the concepts of qualitative and quantitative systems to solve technical
issues in a workplace. Qualitative experiments improve the process of data gathering and gain an
understanding of specific (Gibbs, Friese, & Mangabeira, 2002). According to Gibbs, "the use of
new technology still raises issues like what should be analyzed, how it should be analyzed, and
in what ways the knowledge and understanding gained are different" (Gibbs et al., 2002). The
4
The Concept of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
quantitative experiments focus on generating knowledge and create a better understanding of the
world. Kroes argues that whether an experiment is intended to explore phenomena without the
guidance of theory or intended to test a theory, experiments may be divided, only schematically,
into exploratory and hypothesis testing (Kroes et al., 2016).
The technology used in an open system has difficulties depending on the use of systems
and emphases taken from an environmental system. When treated as an input-output process in
an open system, an organization's technology represents a sequencing of events involving the
admission of input, such as raw materials, people, and knowledge (Roussea, 1979). If an
organization is going to treat technology as an input-conversion-output mechanism, it is to
recognize qualitatively the different activities that make up its workflow. The open system can be
used for environmental usages; however, technology can take a genuine key factor of workers
(Roussea et al., 1979).
What are the issues with organizational boundaries for participants?
The boundaries of an organization can develop issues based on the principles of
collectivity. According to Scott, "collectivity is a specific instance of social organization, or an
identifiable chunk of the social order" (Scott et al., 2007). The challenge that collectivity plays in
an organization happens when it is hard to define such engagements and find ways of solving
problems. Corporations that only bring the open system to a power format can overlook the
employee, manager, customer, and stakeholders' value. The rational system of goals and merits
can affect the boundaries of assessing an organization that is a part of a larger unit framework.
Individuals that make up the boundaries of an organization are the actors, network analysis, and
social relations (Scott et al., 2007). Each of the three components shares interests, strategies, and
structuring. Given their complex nature and their complex interplay with organizational
processes, boundaries must be studied as they are experienced and made sense of by members of
organizations (Jaeger & Petersen, 2020).
Other organizational boundaries mentioned in this discussion are efficiency, power,
competence, and identity. Corporations structure the boundary of efficiency by asking whether to
conduct a particular transaction inside the organization or outside through a market exchange
(Santos &Eisenhardt, 2005). The challenge for an organization with efficiency boundaries is
whether to use the traditional form of marketing or adopt a more technical approach to
profitability. Focusing on how organizational members control the broader set of exchange
relations in which their organization is directly or indirectly involved, the power conception asks
what the appropriate sphere of organizational influence (Santos et al., 2005). The boundary of
power maximize control over crucial relationships by controlling critical dependence.
Corporations that use the boundary of competence have one meaning of valued people,
goals, and context against the degree of viability (Santos et al., 2005) Such a concept builds a
bridge between a corporation’s structure, and the employees, occupational goals and over all
purpose. Moreover, a corporation’s boundary is determined by matching organizational resources
with environmental opportunities that are both attractive and amenable to the
5
The Concept of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
organization’s using its resources to gain competitive advantage (Santos et al., 2005). The
additional argument for organizational boundaries illustrates the importance where there is a
need for a point of maximized value of the firm’s resource portfolio. The boundary of identity is
how others see an organizational structure, and the determinants of outside influences (Santos et
al., 2005). Organizational boundaries must be made to achieve coherence between the identity of
the organization and its activities. The boundary of identity focus on the manager’s cognition and
organizational identity. A manager uses a certain type of framework to shape actions and
determine what decisions are best suited for the organization. The concept of organizational
identity is the relationship between shared values and norms of a corporation (Santos et al.,
2005). Important decisions-making and understood building blocks of an organization makes a
difference in how such boundaries can be reduce.
Theoretical Viewpoints
A corporation can focus on solving boundary challenges by formulating a goal that
broadens the relationship between employees, managers, structural changes, and innovation.
Communication boundaries reflect boundaries that result in decision-making conflicts and
workplace social elements. Such concepts set the scene for collaboration within and across
boundaries (Jaeger et al., 2020). According to Jaeger, understanding boundaries starts with the
realization that the notion of the organizational boundary has multiple meanings (Jaeger et al.,
2020). Most scholars operating with the notion of organizational boundaries agree on a
distinction between visible, formal boundaries on the one hand and invisible, imagined
boundaries on the other (Jaeger et al., 2020). Corporations distinguish the relationship of
boundaries between the concepts of efficiency, power, competence, and identity. A large portion
of organizational change happen with the use of an efficiency boundary. Organizational changes
organizational changes such as a flattening of hierarchies, centralization or decentralization, and
the introduction boundary-less organization take place as a rearrangement of boundaries, not a
removal of them (Jaeger et al., 2020).
Personal Viewpoint
Technology and social terminology are essential factors in an organizational structure.
Today, most organizations use technology to enhance their products, decision-making, and
boundaries. One can agree that both components can alter the usage or the value of employees,
customers, and managers. However, combined solutions can add technology, social networking,
and human life-form to an organization. Since the covid-19 scare last year, organizations have
tried to find ways of combining technology and the workplace. Most employees are now
working remotely and learning new technology and social terminology. Organizations have
found ways to bring some of their workers back to a formal building and still use technology for
organizational boundaries. Leaders should consider the following as they envision the reinvented
workplace: by enabling flexibility in usage. The pandemic has underscored the importance of
organizational nimbleness, and organizations can design physical workplaces to support it
6
The Concept of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
(Kanda, Nanda, Phillips & Copulsky, 2021). According to Sara Armbruster, office furniture
manufacturer Steelcase is now developing product lines designed for on-the-fly adaptation, the
company's vice president of strategy, research, and digital transformation (Kanda et al., 2021).
Different office configurations could be employed depending on whether a group is
brainstorming, hosting a workshop, or conducting a daily stand-up meeting (Kanda et al., 2021).
Biblical Text Emphasis for the Discussion
The Bible presents technology and social terminology differently from our modern-day
usage. Individuals used different ways of working to the edification of God’s word. Cain and
Abel had different working skills to praise God, with farming and fieldwork. The use of new
skills, technology, and how people emphasize social networking in a profession can be critical. A
man in the Bible named Simon wanted to use God’s miracles for vainglory. Peter and the other
apostles used the miracles to help people and promote God’s word. One can view technology and
the emphasis on a new skill in the Bible, with Noah building the Ark in Genesis 6 and when
Sampson built the temple (Merida, 2015). Another passage in the Bible places an essential
emphasis on skills and technology in Exodus 31: 1-5, read “The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have
called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him
with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to
devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in
carving wood, to work in every craft” (Open Bible, 2021).
\
7
The Concept of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries for Organizations
References
Baden, D., & Harwood, I. A. (2013). Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate
Social Responsibility Terms: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 615-627.
Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1435036755?
pq-origsite=summon
Gibbs, G. R., Friese, S., & Mangabeira, W. C. (2002). The Use of New Technology in
Qualitative Research. Introduction to Issue 3 (2) of FQS. Qualitative Social
Research. 3(2), 1-16. Retrieved from: https://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/847/1841
Jaeger, K., & Pedersen, A.G. J. (2020). Understanding organizational boundaries. Volume 9, 1-
14. Globe: The Journal of Language, Culture, and Communication. Retrieved
from: https://somaesthetics.aau.dk/index.php/globe/article/view/4286/3677
Kanda, G. C., Nanda, R., Phillips, A., & Copulsky S. (2021). Redesigning the Post-
Pandemic Workplace. MIT Sloan Management Review. 62(3), 12-14. Retrieved
from: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2502929509?pq-
origsite=summon
Kroes, P. (2016). Experiments on Socio-Technical Systems: The Problem of Control. 2(3), 633-
635. Science and Engineering Ethics. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1797660828?pq-origsite=summon
Lynn, M. L. (2005). Organizational Buffering: Managing Boundaries and Cores. Organization
Studies, 26(1), 37–61. Retrieved from:
https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0170840605046348
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Nashville, TN:
B&H Publishing Group. ISBN: 9780805496703.
Open Bible. (2021). Technology. Exodus 31: 1-5. Retrieved
from: https://www.openbible.info/topics/technology
Rosen, Mark A. (2012). Engineering Sustainability: A Technical Approach to Sustainability.
Sustainability, 4(9), 2270-2292. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1537427261?pq-origsite=summon
Rousseau, D. M. (1979). Assessment of Technology in Organizations: Closed versus Open Systems
Approaches. The Academy of Management Review. 4(4), 531-542. Retrieved
from: https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/257853?pq-
origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Arrangements for information technology
governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 261-290.
Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/218128140?pq-
origsite=summon
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational Boundaries and Theories of
Organizations. Organization Science. 16(5), 491-508. Retrieved from: https://www-jstor-
org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/25145988?pq-
origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organization and Organizing Rational, Natural and Open
Perspectives. Taylor & Francis.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
