Open Systems Theory Issues - Research Paper Example

OPEN SYSTEM THEORY Introduction Organization theory is deep in concepts built late 1800s and 1900s industrial revolution. What was imported during this time was the study of Max Weber (1864-1920). Weber a German sociologist believed that bureaucratic societies, dominated by bureaucrats, presented the ideal organizational form. Weber based his idea of bureaucracy on absolute and legal authority, order and logic. Weber opined that idealized organizational structure, responsibilities for the human resource are uniquely defined and behavior is strictly controlled by policies, procedures and rules. Weber's organizational theory, like others of his time, provided indicated an impersonal attitude toward the staff in the organization. Indeed, the man power, with its personal inadequacies and weaknesses, was observed as a potential damage to the efficiency of any system. Although his school of thoughts is now regarded mechanistic and time bared, Weber's views on bureaucracy provided essential insight into the time's conceptions of process efficiency, labour division, as well as authority. Henry Fayol was another integral contributor to the organization theory in the early 1900s. Fayol is credited with strategic planning identification, recruitment of staff, man power motivation, and employee guidance (through rules, procedures and policies) as important unit of management functions in order to create and nourish a successful organization entity Both theories (Weber's and Fayol's) were broadly applied in the early and mid 1900 partly because of the influences of Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915). In a 1911 a text with a title entitled Principles of Scientific Management; Taylor explained his theories and finally implemented them on American factory floors. He is appreciated in assisting to define the role of training, pay incentives, man power selection, and work standardization in the overall organizational out put. Researchers started to appreciate a less mechanically oriented impression of organizations and concentrate on influence of human resource in the mid 1900s. This approach was motivated by many researches that gave light on the importance of human satisfaction in an organizational setting. The most reckoned among these was perhaps the so called Hawthorn Studies. The studies were conducted fundamentally under the leadership of Harvard University researcher Elton Mayo in the mid 1920 and 1930s at WEC (Western Electric Company) plant then known as Hawthorn Works. The major reason is that the company wanted to establish the level to which conditions of work affected the output of the human resource. Interestingly, the research did not show any remarkable positive relationship between conditions of the workplace and output. The outcome of the research showed that innate forces of human behaviour may have a greater effect on organizational performance than the incentives imparted by mechanized systems. In contrast to the organization theory, Douglas McGregor offered his famous Theory X and Y to prove the difference. Theory X portrayed worker as lazy, avoiding duties and preferred supervision while they appreciated financial freedom of them all. McGregor’s school of thought was that organizations McGregor believed that organizations that employed Theory Y appeared to be much better productive. Theory Y showed that the human resource could learn to seek and accept responsibility; majority of the people have a high level of creative and problem solving technic; the man power are able to effect self-direction; and many of them aim to achieve self actualization from working in the organization they are. Historical overview of management Organized responsibilities conducted and directed by individuals assigned for planning, organizing, leading, coordinating and even controlling events and activities are believed to have been in existence even before civilization responsible. The ancient features that stand to date to prove this school of thought include: The Pyramids of Egypt believed to be constructed in 2630 BCE–2611 BCE and the Great Wall of China. These features are just but a few that remain tangible evidence that projects of tremendous parameters, employing tens of thousands of human labour working as teams, were executed well before civilization. The pyramids are in particularly outstanding example. The construction of a single pyramid believed to have occupied more than 100,000 workers for a period of 20 years. The main questions we ask ourselves in minds are: Who was controlling and telling each worker what to do? Who was responsible for the planning, budgeting and ensuring the presence of enough materials at the scene and workers being kept active? The answer to such questions is management and managers. What managers were referred to as at the time notwithstanding, an individual had to be responsible of planning all that needs to be done, the number of people required and the raw material needed. The person was also responsible for leading the team directing and imposing the possible control measures to ensure all was done as required. It is not entirely difficult for anyone to imagine modern management techniques in the ancient time. True, we can find it humorous, imagining of revenue against costs sharing and other currently existing conditions present in the original land in the Nile, although the basic relationships of persons managing others must have possessed great identical aspects. In fact, majority of ancient literature have been reviewed to revealing that, as the time unfolded and the generations transformed, wherever individuals engaged in team work to accomplish their defined goals, many of the same phenomena have remained common. However most scholars, suggest that management, in its most basic makeup, had existed since the time when a person convinces another–whether with coerced persuaded to do something. Commonly, management is defined as the challenge of creating as an environment where people can coexist and exercise teamwork with a common agenda or goal. While this is easily applicable for managers in private businesses, states, governments and some other organizations it is still within our hopes that all those pursuing management, will be able to effectively apply the concepts of management to outwit the constantly dynamic challenges. For that purpose, management is thus defined as the ideas, processes and techniques that enable goals to be achieved efficiently and effectively. What is an Organization An organization can be defined as “an entity where two or more persons come together or engage in a common activity or event for a common purpose’ Several organizations exist in our environment and in fact we visit several of them including Hospitals, Colleges, Factories, Farms and Government offices. It is worth noting that religious groups like churches and mosques among others are also examples of organizations. People attend to say prayers. Activities of praying are to achieve a certain goal probably spiritual contentment. Similarly, any firm or consortium in which two or more persons are working as a team for some uniquely defined reason is called an organization. If an organization does exist, then there must be the human resource commonly referred to as manpower who is highly regarded as they are the most treasured asset an organization posses at any particular moment in time. They work as a unit or team for a common purpose. Therefore, there must be a defined objective or purpose which is normally encompassed within the organization’s mission and vision. When an entity or an organization lacks an objective or purpose, then it may not survive for long. To achieve the purposes by using the human resource, the processes are needed. It is the processes that provide a systematic approach required for the human resource to go step by step in an achievement of an objective without which, you may not achieve any type of purpose or goal. In trying to asses our lives, we shall discover that in one way or another each one has a goal or simply a purpose. In order to attain these goals at all levels we require a systematic procedure known as process. Therefore, such procedures are equally beneficial for any business entity or organization. The final essential element for any form of an organization is that it requires to take into account the main pillars of management commonly known by the term ‘Posccob Analysis’ which comprises of Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Controlling, Coordinating and Budgeting. In essence, these are known in management discipline as the management functions. Who are Managers? “A manager is individual working with and through others with a specific target of accomplishing organizational defined objectives.” The dynamic nature of organizations and work has destabilized the clear cut lines of authority between managers and other employees. Many workers’ jobs now include managerial aspects in them. Definitions used in the past may not be applicable any more. Thus, a member of an organization who works with and through other people by coordinating their work activities with an intention of accomplishing organizational goals may be known as the manager. Organizational Cultures and Design Culture refers to the set of values, codes of practice and beliefs that make a specific community gain a unique identity. The self-image of community members, customs of society, the elements making them unique from other communities and societies, are its culture. Culture can also be a set of generic material artifacts or elements. They are the symbols and signs that the organization is identified with, but they can also be also the behaviour, people and behaviours that comprise culture. The medium of culture is inherently interaction, the network of communications that a community assumes. A shared language is particularly imperative in expressing and portraying or displaying a unique organizational culture. ‘Organisation design is the series of decisions that align strategy (goals and purpose) of the organisation, its major tasks, its structure, its informal organisation, its decision and reward systems, and the people who will do the work’ (Anderson 1988). It can also be defined as the process of creation of responsibilities, processes, procedures and chain of communication as well formal reporting relationships in an organization. The successes of the Open System Theory in relation to Coles Group Some operational mechanisms are efficient and effective while others may not. The systems that have succeeded can be attributed to the techniques practiced in developing and designing the system and its quality management practiced during the operation. These systems that were successful were specific on the way they did their operations. They are associated with the following characteristics which Coles Group practiced. "open systems" reflects the newly found belief that all organizations are unique in part as of the unique environment in which they dwell and that the organization should be developed to take in the specific unique challenges and opportunities. For instance in Coles Group, they had seriously degenerated to a record low in reaching the bottom line and they had seriously underestimated the drop. To put the organization back into the track, it required a total overhaul of the organizational culture of operation. This included realizing that bureaucracy had failed to realize the contribution of the local and regional cultural influences motivating staff and had also left a sense of suspicion and mistrust among the staff. They required altering the way they dealt with their suppliers, clients and how they communicated to the staff. In essence these groups of people formed the better part of the integral environment upon which the organization operated. Open System is actually a hybrid of the theories X, Y and the Bureaucracy that appreciates the shortfalls of each and strives to appreciate the importance of Cultural values, which often shapes views of ethics while determining the relative essentials of various issues. Coles Group appreciated the integral part the man power of the organization played in the successes and failures the organization may register. While taking this into account Coles Group essestially adopted the theory X and Y. They recognized that significant remuneration based on performance and deliveries was very important motivational tool to ensure that the staff feel that their input is being appreciated. The Coles Group while recognizing the remedial measure to take in order to salvage the company embarked on series of environmental scanning and skimming. They essentially did a SWOT Analysis. This enabled them understand the company from within it and from outside. SWOT Analysis Strength The Strength of the organization was anchored among the following pillars; People; This in other studies or organizations can be referred to as man-power or the human resource. It does not matter how the organization the organization is mechanized or how much technology the organization has adopted but the human resource remain the prime factor in the success or failure of the organization. Finances; this is the second most important pillar for the organizational success or failure. The finances enable the organization to run its businesses, pay its staff and the suppliers. The improvement of the services and loyalty of the man-power still entirely relies on how favourable their wages are, their working condition notwithstanding. Materials; they may be movable or immovable assets. Whatever their medium, they are also very important as they form a platform upon which all other business transactions are developed. Technology and the organizational propensity to adopt; Based on the trend of globalization, the most successful organization in moment in time are those that have successfully been able to completely integrate technology into their daily operations. Technology therefore forms another vital pillar of the organizational strengths. Information; It is said that information is power. The Open System appreciates that with communication well integrated in to the day-to-day organization’s operation, the organization is able to understand its position in the suppliers, consumers, employees and the locals mind. This will enable the organization to clearly develop a functional work plan that will help the organization attain the strides it has aspired to. Open System theory unlike Bureaucracy, does not have a thoroughly rigid mode of communication. Instead, it appreciates every little contribution any member of the organization may provide. The clients’ feedback is also very important for the organization to understand the impact it has created with its products in the consumers’ mind. These however, would be achieved or harnessed only when there are processes that provide a sense of direction. These processes require being least rigid and as dynamic as the organization’s human resource and at the same time incorporating the other fundamental pillars. Once all these are successfully done the out put or the products and services or otherwise finished products will without doubt be appreciated by the clients and eventually provide a positive feedback. Weaknesses These are factors that affect the organization from within and which the organization may have a way of solving them by exploiting its strength. Coles Group realized its weaknesses that brought them from grace to grass and initiated remedial mechanism hence reengaging the right tools necessary that so them once again dominate their market niche. Opportunities These are the existing avenues that remain unutilized by the organization. They may be immediate or potentially future exploits. Some may be technology, product line, human resource or materials. Once the company utilizes these opportunities they are able to minimize weaknesses as well as; Threats These are factors that offer to the organization a great challenge. They may be controllable but cannot be eradicated. Some are associated with the regulations and policies developed by the government; others may be related to the fiscal performance of a country’s currency over others. Open System theory takes that all grand organizations are made of systems and sub-systems each of which receives some inputs from others and helps converting them into finished products that can be utilized by other subsystems. The subsystems may not necessarily be equated to departments in an organization although they may sometimes resemble a pattern of events and activities. The outstanding distinction between the open system theory and the other traditional theories is that open system theory assumes a sub-system hierarchical arrangement, meaning that not all of the sub-systems are necessarily important. Moreover, a failure within of one sub-system will not necessarily thwart the all system. By contrast, traditional mechanistic theories implied that a malfunction in any part of a system would have an equally debilitating impact. References UNDERSTANDING ORGANISATIONS: THE DOMINANCE OF SYSTEMS THEORY. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.8808&rep=rep1&type= Ahrne, Goeran (1994) Social Organizations: Interaction inside, outside and between organizations. London: Sage. Anderson, Philip W., Kenneth J. Arrow, and David Pines [Eds.] (1988), The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley. Ashby, W. Ross, An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall, 1956 Bailey, K.F. (1994) Sociology and the New Systems Theory. Albany: State University of New York. Buckley, Walter (ed.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine, 1968 Capra, Fritjof (1993), "A Systems Approach to the Emerging Paradigm," in The New Paradigm in Business, Michael Ray & Alan Rinzler (World Business Academy) [Eds.], NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Perigee Books, 230-237. Checkland, Peter (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Read More