Organizational Effectiveness: Rational Approaches and Open Systems Approach - Coursework Example

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Topic Organizational Effectiveness Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Managers are faced with the task of setting strategies to ensure organizational goals are accomplished. They are supposed to guide their subordinates in decision making and ensuring that effectiveness is maintained to minimize costs and maximize output. Rational, open and natural systems approaches are among the strategies that can be adopted to accomplish organizational goals. This paper presents a critique as to why most managers find rational approaches to organizations and organising appealing. It highlights with examples how taking an open or a natural systems approach benefits managers. Rational Approaches The rational system perspective views organizations as mechanisms intended to accomplish particular goals. The approaches provide a means to the goals but not a basis for development of goals. In other words, rational approaches facilitate the achievement of organizational goals regardless of whether they are smart or not (Marnet 2007). According to Gans (1996), rationality requires specific goals that are formalized to enhance their accomplishment. This is necessitated by the fact that rational approaches involve various segments that contribute to the attainment of organizational goals. Goal specificity is usually appealing to managers since it allows them to make appropriate choices regarding the available alternatives without ambiguity. It allows the prioritization and assignment of various functions and resources in the organization (Das 2003). The organizational structure also highly depends on specificity of goals. Generally, specific goals guide decision making as to what particular tasks need to be performed, the nature of human resources to be engaged as well as how funds are to be distributed among the team players within the organization (Tolbert & Richard 2008). The significance of goal specificity can be illustrated through the functioning of military organizations. Although people might argue regarding the role of the military, there is a specific goal of enhancing defence in a particular jurisdiction. People are assigned particular. The decision making process is clearly defined and therefore there can be no confusion in accomplishing the organizational goals. Rationality applies regardless of whether the goals of the military organization are indecorous or not (Gans 1996). Rational approaches allow formalization of the organizational structure which in turn promotes ownership of the goals among members. Formalization enhances standardization of behaviours among members thereby maintaining predictability of outcomes of various actions (Provan & Milward 1995). Generally, formalization guides actions of various people involved in the accomplishment of goals. It also allows the presence of a smooth transition in a situation whereby replacement of an employee is needed. The incoming employee is selected on the basis of skills as stated in the formal structure (Handel 2002). Taylor’s model of scientific management is among the rational approaches that managers have found useful in accomplishing organizational goals. It involves assessing tasks in the workplace and ensuring that the processes involved produce maximum output with minimal inputs in terms of labour and materials (Christian 2003). All processes are experimented and proved to serve the desired purpose before putting them in practice. Scientific management helps to eliminate procedures that lead to time wasting and inefficiency. At a glance, managers are in a position to tell what activity every person in the organization is involved in. Workers do not have to wait for instructions to perform tasks. Rather, they have a scheme that they follow on daily basis (Tolbert & Richard 2008). Scientific management ensures that workplace rules govern the behaviour of individuals making management functions easy to undertake. Workers are selected scientifically through assessment of their skills in relation to the work involved. On the other hand, smooth workplace processes facilitate accomplishment of tasks leading to high output that is compensated through rewards and superior wages. In other words workers keep motivated by the high wages while managers ensure that there are no hindrances in the work place (Christian 2003). Fayol’s administrative model is also a significant rational approach to organizations that managers apply to ensure that activities are coordinated in an organized manner. The hierarchical structure ensures that workers are interconnected through a top down system in such a way that senior managers supervise a specified number of subordinates depending on their capacity. The model also encourages specialization in the organization whereby various inter-related activities are grouped in one department that is supervised by one superior (Alvesson & Willmott 2002).  Weber’s model bureaucracy is also a significant rational approach that managers use to enhance accomplishment of organizational goals. In its ideal form, managers apply it to maintain a systematized organizational structure whereby each individual understands his/her role in the organization. Positions in the organization are assigned particular tasks such that each activity takes place in a pre-determined process. Workers are expected to ensure that all the procedures are observed. It helps managers in problem identification as well as in situations that necessitate a position to be handed over to a different worker (Christian 2003). Under the bureaucratic structure, it is possible for a person to work in an acting capacity when the holder of the position is absent. The position is guided by rules and regulations that befit any person who is in charge. The positions in the organization are controlled in a hierarchical structure meaning that the area of jurisdiction is specified (Das 2003). Supervisory positions begin from the top to the bottom and the rules are fixed. These can be learned because they are rarely changed. Generally, it is the office that is recognized to have powers and privileges rather than the person holding the office. Most of the people in senior positions are answerable to the executive who in turn is the appointing authority. Managers find this strategy appealing since it maintains an effective chain of command and information flow (Handel 2002). Open Systems Approach This approach is significant for managers since it allows them to visualize organizations as systems comprising of various components that react to external pressures. Each component has a role to play in maintaining organizational competitiveness as well as driving the system to sustainability (Zoghi & Mohr 2011). Scott & Davis (2007) observe that the policy making component is influenced by the business environment. Policies are developed to cope with competition and to satisfy customer demands. On the other hand, employees are compelled to change their ways of accomplishing tasks to accommodate the new policies. These may include recruiting more staff or injecting more resources to the system. Output increases and quality improves. Customers give the feedback regarding the products and services to the managers. The managers act on the feedback to inform policy makers. Shafritz et al. (2010) observe that organizations as open systems continue developing as they respond and adapt to the external environment. For example, the emergence of Information Technology in the operating environment necessitated the computerization of operations to enhance external relations with other organizations as well as improvement of marketing strategies in many organizations (Scott & Davis 2007). Such strategies that are developed to help the organization adapt to the changing environment end up improving the organization’s competitiveness. Moreover, organizational growth is accomplished as the system tries to adapt to changes in the operating environment such as through organizational learning, and skills upgrading. For example with the emergence of computers, contemporary organizations supported their staff to acquire computer skills while others were supported for further studies in computer science (Watad 2000). Managers benefit from organizational flexibility in the sense that growth is stimulated by the environment. The organization differentiates greatly in form and also becomes highly structured over time. In addition to growth and expansion, open systems approach enhances sustainability since there is some degree of independence in the various subsystems within the organization. When one subsystem fails, it is easy to address the problems affecting it while the integrity of the other subsystems is maintained (Pyka 2002). Natural Systems Approach Managers find this approach beneficial since it allows them to maintain the integrity of the organization regardless of whether they have to change the original goals to enhance its survival. Initially, the organization acts as a means to attain a particular goal after which it becomes an end in itself (Park et al. 2011). Under such circumstances the managers try to balance internal and external environmental factors. For example, increased competition may lead the managers to lower product costs or retrench their staff to lower the overhead costs (Taylor & Hansen 2005). Generally, the organization acts as a system with a complex goal that is highly significant for its existence. Inputs are obtained from the environment after which the output gets back to the environment (Schofer & Longhofer 2011). In other words, there exists some inter-dependence between the organization and its operating environment. The organizational structure is largely informal and greater emphasis is placed on behaviours that are significant to the survival of the organization. Managers are mainly concerned with the satisfaction of the needs that may hinder survival of the organization. In other words, it is easy for managers to recognize what the organization requires to maintain its status (Endres et al. 2007). Conclusion Rational approaches assume organizations as mechanisms established to accomplish particular goals. Goal specificity is significant in decision making. Rational approaches allow the organizational structure to be formalized, which is important in guiding the actions of people involved in the attainment of goals. Some rational approaches include; Taylor’s model of scientific management, Fayol’s administrative model and Weber’s model of bureaucracy. The open systems approach allows managers to envisage organizations as systems comprising of various components. The natural systems approach enhances the organization’s integrity. References Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002), “Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual”, Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644. Christian, M. (2003) “Post-bureaucracy – control through professional freedom”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16(5), pp.547 - 566 Das, A. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge and productivity in technical support work’’, Management Science, Vol. 49(4), pp. 416-31. Endres, M. E., Endres, S. P., Chowdhury, S. K. & Alam, I, (2007), “Tacit knowledge sharing, self-efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source community”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11(3) pp 92-103 Gans, J. S. (1996), “On the impossibility of rational choice under incomplete information”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 29 pp 287-309 Handel, M. J. (2002), Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary and Critical Readings, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Marnet, O. (2007), “History repeats itself: The failure of rational choice models in corporate governance”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 pp 191–210 Park, S., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2011), “Professions, Organizations, and Institutions: Tenure Systems in Colleges and Universities” Work and Occupations, Vol. 38(4) pp 340-371, Provan, K. and H. B. Milward. (1995). “A Preliminary Theory of Inter-organizational Network Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, 1 pp 1 - 33 Pyka, A. (2002), “Innovation networks in economics: from the incentive-based to the knowledge based approaches”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 5(3), pp. 152-63. Schofer, E. & Longhofer, W. (2011), “The Structural Sources of Association”, American Journa of Sociology, Vol. 117(2) pp 539-585 Scott, R. W. & Davis, G. F. (2007), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S. & Jang, Y. S. (2010), Classics of Organization Theory, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing  Tolbert, P. S. &Richard, H. (2008), Organizations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Taylor, S. & Hansen, H. (2005) “Finding form: looking at the field of organizational aesthetics” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 (6) pp. 1211–1231 Watad, M. (2000). “Information Systems Assessment in Public Service Organizations”, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 1, (4) pp 1-12. Zoghi, C. & Mohr, R. (2011), “The Decentralization of Decision Making and Employee Involvement within the Workplace: Evidence from Four Establishment Datasets”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 49(3) pp. 411–600 Read More