Open Systems Theory Analysis for Deckers Outdoor Corporation - Research Paper Example

? Open Systems Theory (OD) Analysis for Deckers Outdoor Corporation Task: Introduction Deckers Outdoor Corporation is a firm involved in the production and marketing of premium footwear and other accessories. The firm is situated in Goleta, California. People purchase their footwear products for diverse purposes that include casual, sports, and official use. The firm manufactures comfortable footwear under various trademark names. These include UGG Australia, Sanuk, and Simple shoes among others. Other products include handbags and outerwear. Through various planning, management and management, the firm has become popular across the US and other global parts. However, the company has recently encountered several challenges, forcing the company to incur various losses. Therefore, this manuscript will mull over these challenges and thereby discuss various organization diagnostic models that the firm can employ in resolving these challenges. Brief Overview of Deckers Outdoor Corporation The firm set off in 1973, with Doug Otto running it during its inception in Goleta, California. During its inception, the firm used to manufacture sandals. However, the company has grown to international level, distributing its products to diverse kinds of retailers. These include departmental stores and outlet stores among others (Latimer, 2012). Besides, the firm makes direct sales to its customers. The firm has independent distributors across Europe, Canada, Latin America, as well as Asia. It has also formed a union with Stella International Holdings for the sale of UGG brand in China. The firm manufactures well-designed trendy shoes that sell across leading countries worldwide. Challenges facing the firm Counterfeit is a significant challenge that the firm is experiencing. China is the key source of these products. These counterfeits have significantly affected the UGG brand. Survey shows that the authorities impounded nearly 600 000 products, while the firm litigated over 2000 websites that sold falsified Deckers products (Latimer, 2012). These products were of low quality as contrasted to Deckers products, and thereby cheaper. This posed a considerable threat in the high profit realization of the firm, as well as company’s image. Besides, the country faces brand name controversies with various firms in Australia and Europe. These firms claim to have the sole ownership of the UGG brand. As such, there have been various court proceedings over the ownership of the brand, particularly in Australia where Uggs-n-Rugs sold their footwear item under this brand (Latimer, 2012). However, the firm still sells shoes to Australia under the brand. Additionally, various reviewers argue that the brand shoes have significant effects on animals. These critics claim that they contribute significantly towards the extinction of some animals (Latimer, 2012). As a result, they campaign against the purchase of these products, thereby compelling the firm into severe revenue loss. Organizational Diagnosis (OD) has become basic in enhancing an organization’s success. In an endeavor to improve the organizational effectiveness, it is essential to establish its current performance level thus devising apt strategies sufficient for the modification process. The concept of diagnosis in organizations applies similarly to the medical diagnosis, whereby the doctor tests the patient, gathers all the useful information prior to prescribing the best medication for the ailment. In a similar style, the management team assembles all the critical information, conducts an analysis, before devising the most suitable intervention for the organization to undertake. The current literature on organizational performance has depicted numerous benefits of performing the OD. Some of these entail the detection of all problems present in the organization, therefore, devising suitable strategies. Identification of such information is necessary in enhancing the company’s efficiency in its performance. Force Field Analysis The first model, Force Field Analysis, pioneered by Kurt Lewin, aids diverse organizations in evaluation and management of various organizational challenges. The model examines the driving force of the organization development as well as the restricting factors. Once identified, the management can easily employ various strategies towards change (Jones & Brazzel, 2006). The model is advantageous, since it assists the organization in forecasting the probable success of the change plan. Additionally, it aids in identifying the restricting forces, thereby alleviating them. However, the model contains some loopholes. For instance, it requires full contribution of all parties of the organization. Failure to participate makes the model inapplicable in solving various organizational predicaments. Besides, there may be over-participation, leading to ambiguous ideas. Additionally, the model requires multiple sessions in order for it to be effective, thereby using an organization’s scarce time. Leavitt’s Model The next model is known as Leavitt’s, from its founder. The model specifies variables within a firm, instead of the driving force. They consist of task, people, technological and structural variables. The model suggests that an alteration in one variable results in a subsequent change in other variables. It is a useful model, since it is easy for analysis and does not time implications (Jones & Brazzel, 2006). The demerit of the model is that it is too simple in solving complex organizational predicaments. Likert System Analysis Additionally, Likert came up with another model, and named it the Likert System Analysis. He concentrated on inspiration, communication, resolution, objective setting, organization, and performance. Open Systems Theory The next model is the Open Systems Theory This model theorizes that the environment has a significant impact on the organization. Other organizations make up the environment and may put forth political, societal, and economic forces to the firm (Raoprasert & Islam, 2010). The model is advantageous in that the company blueprint that is more societal-cognizant and market-oriented (Jones & Brazzel, 2006). However, it is complex, since it necessitates recognizing supply functions, an attempt to bring an excellent outcome from the model. Weisbord’s Six-Box Model Weisbord’s Six-Box Model may also be applicable in the organization’s diagnosis. The model has six groups of the life of an organization. The first component is purpose, which explains the intention of the firm. Structure is the next factor, explaining the way in which an organization shares tasks. The next component is relationships, which explains modes of solving disputes among the organizational staff. Reward is another component and suggests the incentives a company gives for performing a task correctly (Raoprasert & Islam, 2010). Helpful mechanisms explain the adequacy of employing technology within an organization. The model is beneficial, since it aids in evaluating the inefficiencies in firms compositions and procedures (Jones & Brazzel, 2006). However, it is disadvantageous, since it limited application of pinpointing theories and processes, and does not assess gaps. Congruence Model for Organization Analysis This model addresses issues that affect an organization in a more comprehensive manner as compared to models discussed above. Although this model is steady with some of the discussed models, its uniqueness is significant. It has a strong basis for numerous assumptions discussed below. Several of these assumptions are similar to specifications of modern organizational models. One of the assumptions depicts organizations as dynamic entities that are prone to change. The second assumption based on this model focuses on the issue of organizational behavior (Burke, 2010). The model reveals the managerial behavior to occur at all the three levels, which include the individual self, groups, and finally the system. Additionally, the model considers the interaction existing among these levels as vital to the organization’s performance. The final assumption regards organizations as open systems meaning that they can devise policies to aid in their processes of reacting to completion, searching for new markets, along with acquiring current technologies for performance enhancement (National Defense University). Its strength is inherent in its ability to split the organizational analysis into four parts along with reviewing on how such components react for the benefit of the organization. As opposed to other models, this model analyzes the inputs of an organization, therefore, revealing a clear picture of its assets that are necessary for performance improvement. The main limitation of this model is that it fails to attend to the organizational management composition together with its cultural aspects. McKinsey 7S Framework This model has been useful in conducting research in more than 70 outsized organizations globally. It is one of the easy to recall models germane in business. The model works based on the seven different variables. These variables are some of the key components necessary for improvement in the performance of an organization. Authors refer these variables under a universal name, which is the 7S framework resulting from the fact that they all begin with the letter S (Doole & Lowel, 2005). These variables include the structure; usually defined as the backbone of the organization, the strategy; which the author describes as the essential predetermined actions, the systems, entailing the processes together with all the procedures incorporated, the staff simply regarded as the personnel. Moreover, skills also identified as capability of such individuals deemed a key component of the organization. The final variables addressed by this model include the style and the shared values. This model is appropriate as it focuses on enhancing the organization’s management. A number of weaknesses are inherent in this model. For instance, it fails to discuss the notion of augmenting the organization’s efficacy, or the performance. In addition to this, this model does not indicate the consequence of altering one of the variables, and measures to endorse in counteracting such effects (Doole & Lowel, 2005). Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework This model is consistent to the open model theory and bases its discussion on an organization’s inputs reflecting on its assets, throughputs that consist of numerous variables such as strategy, tasks, and processes, and finally the outputs defining the organizational effectiveness. According to Tichy’s model strategy, which refers to the approach adopted by an organization in the achievement of its mission is amongst the crucial variables. The focal point of this model is the output variable. However, the three components necessary for the organization to be victorious are closely interlinked thus the necessity to address each of them with utmost consideration. In addition, this model surpasses the rest in efficacy as it focuses on the political, cultural, as well as the cultural aspects of the organization. The model advises for the existence of a clear alignment in such subsystems. Although, this model describes the different ways of initiating change in an organization, it fails to explicate on all the external variables required for goals’ attainment (Doole & Lowel, 2005). High performance programming This model is of profound significance in identification of the diverse performance levels. According to this model, the realization of an organization’s performance level is vital in deciding the most suitable strategy to implement for the change initiation process. The four main levels upon which this model basis its discussion on are the proactive, high performing, reactive and responsive organizations. The attainment of these organizational levels strongly depends on the organizational leadership. An organization’s leadership is what determines its performance level. Effective leadership skills are an indication that the organization is capable to realizing the set goals. As compared to other models that consider the application of other variables, this model focuses only on leadership (Doole & Lowel, 2005). Diagnosing individual and group behavior Harrison devised this model in 1987 for diagnosing the behavior depicted by different organizational entities. It is also among those models that have incorporated the open system theory, and highly depends on the organization’s outputs. Similar to the Tichy’s model, the organizational outputs indicates its efficiency in performance. According to this model, an individual’s attitudes and values can have both positive and adverse impact to the organization. This model, in addition examines what the external environment, can pose to the organization. This model can be of significance in enhancing the organizational and individual’s performance. However, it model fails to identify the source of such resources. The sources could emanate from either the external environment, or the organization itself. Organizational intelligence model This is the latest model invented by Falletta (2004), and later polished in 2008 leading to its publishing. It discusses several elements that are basic in improving an individual’s involvement in the business thus enhancing their performance. This is an improvement to the traditional method, which utilized questionnaires in appraise the efforts applied by each employee in performance advancement. In an event of a complexity the intelligence of organization’s management, as well as the employees’ experiences and skills are useful. This model fails to address the entire variables, which are of impact. Open System Theory (OD) The Deckers Outdoor Corporation firm may apply Open Systems Theory in diagnosing its predicaments. This results from the fact that most of the organization’s challenges emanate from its interaction with the environment. For instance, one of the challenges discussed is the issue of counterfeits (Jones & Brazzel, 2006). Fraudulent products pose a significant challenge to the firm’s revenue accrual. As a result, the model will be applicable in mitigation of the issue. Besides, the concern of trademark disputes is also an environmental issue, since other organizations compete with Deckers for the Ugg brand (Latimer, 2012). The firm employs legal aid in an attempt to solve this predicament. Additionally, the firm faces the challenge of animal extinction. As such, this is an environmental challenge and thus Open Systems Theory comes in handy. References Burke, W. (2010). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Californnia, CA: Sage Publishers. Doole, I., & Lowel, R. (2005). Strategic marketing decisions in global markets. London, LDN: Cengage Learning EMEA. Falletta, S. (2005). Organizational diagnostic models: A review and synthesis. Retrieved February 18, 2012 from: http://www.leadersphere.com/img/OrgmodelsR2009.pdf Jones, B., & Brazzel, M. (2006).The NTL handbook of organization development and change: principles, practices, and perspectives. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Publishers. Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law, 2012. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Press Limited. National Defense University (ND). Systems thinking and learning organizations. Retrieved February 18, 2012 from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt1ch4.html Raoprasert, T., & Islam, S. (2010). Designing an efficient management system: modeling of convergence factors exemplified by the case of Japanese Businesses in Thailand., New York, NY: Springer Publishers. Read More