Open Systems Approach - Essay Example

Most managers find rational approaches to organizations and organizing appealing. Why? How could taking an open systems approach benefit managers? Give examples. Name Institution Most managers find rational approaches to organizations and organizing appealing. Why? How could taking an open systems approach benefit managers? Give examples. Richard Scott contends that organizations have gained significance in every arena of the social life. They are an important characteristic of the contemporary society and equip individuals with the possibility of getting things done and to achieve outcomes that are out of their reach. Scott defined organizations as collective structures that are designed to support and help achieve shared goals (Scott, 2001). Orton and Weick (1990) conform to the view that organizations are loosely coupled systems. Organizational effectiveness entails the concept of how effective the organization is at doing the things that it aims to do, and how successfully has it achieved the outcomes. Over the time, the study of how effective the organization is in achieving the goals that it intended has undergone an evolution due to the changes in the environment that took place as well as the fast pace at which these changes occurred. There has been a shift towards the adoption of more rational approaches to organizations. This paper reviews the reasons why managers prefer rational approaches. It also explores the open systems theory and how is it of benefit to managers. Scott proposed three concepts for defining organizations: rational, natural and open systems. Rational systems concept deals with the fact that organizations are created to function as effectively as possible to achieve a set of intended objectives. The goals of the organization are specific and have been defined explicitly. The rational system also encompasses the view that organizations have a lot of formalization. One of the variables governing a formalized structure is that rules regulate behavior and are accurately and clearly drawn. Another variable of the formalized structure is that roles and role relations are devised independently of the personal qualities and interaction between the individuals having different positions within the organization (Scott, 2001). Frederick Taylor was an engineer-turned-management consultant and was a strong advocate of the rational system theory. In his view, all organizations did not function with the accomplishment of a certain goal in mind; however, this was a problem and needed to be dealt with. Managers nowadays prefer the rational systems approach for organizing. By regulating the behavior of the individuals through rules, the process of formalization can be carried out effectively. This will result in the mitigation of uncertainty. Uncertainty can lead to disorder, apprehension and disturbances in many organizations. If uncertainty is checked, organizations can function as much more stable entities and avert any potential turmoil that may occur due to unforeseen circumstances. As a result, organizations are able to focus all of their attention on the attainment of goals. In accordance with Jenkins (2009), formalization offers yet another advantage to managers. In the book Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives, Scott and Davis, observe that formalization helps to objectify the structure of the organization. Objectification of the structure encompasses the creation of the roles and relationships of the individuals as both objective and external to the participating actors. In a rational systems approach, the managers are the active actors and have the responsibility of making choices. The managers will choose that strategy that translates into the most benefit for the organization. Scott asserts that organizations are empowered to make individual choices, and the decisions that the managers make can have an influence on the demands of the environment. An understanding of how managers make decisions has the potential to affect organizational effectiveness (Salas, Rosen, & DiazGranados, 2010). This is another reason why managers prefer rational approaches to organizing. Rational approaches equip them with the power to make decisions that are centered on the achievement of the aims of the organization using the most cost-effective ways. Managers who are able to devise and incorporate formalization in the structure of the organization such that it gives a basis for action are the ones who successfully harness the potential of the rational approach concept. Managers use rational processes to regulate and make the working of the enterprise smooth and organized. Organizations that draw up a series of steps and tasks for employees to perform and use organizational charts are able to not only eliminate the element of insecurity but also make the employees more focused and prevent digression of the resources and the efforts of the employees. Moreover, managers uphold the rational approach by using best practices that are proven through experience to lead to a desired result, as well as regulatory courses of action. The fact that the goals are distinct and clearly defined is exemplary of good management and leadership strategies. According to Locke’s goal setting theory, employees are motivated when goals are clearly defined, subsequently leading to an improvement in their performance. There are certain drawbacks of the rational approach. In some organizations, there are changes on a daily basis, and workers can not follow a strict set of rules. They need to be flexible in order to adjust to the changes. Another approach to organizing is the open systems approach. The open systems approach is different from the rational one in the sense that it deals with the interaction of the environment with the organization, whereas the rational approach is concerned with the workflow inside the organization. An open system is one where the organizations regularly engage in the exchange of feedback with the environment. Organizations take in capability from the surrounding environment by merging with another organization, adding capital to the existing organization and by gaining feedback that can change the capability into intended outcomes. In accordance with Scott (2001), the open system view encompasses the concept that “organizations are systems of interdependent activities linking shifting coalitions of participants”. Environment has an impact on the organization and there is continuous exchange with and constituted by the environment. Open systems represent the view that environments tend to both form and sustain as infiltrate organizations; it is assumed that employees have loyalties to several organizations at the same time, and can not have shared goals. Since open systems function under the process of dynamic homeostasis, any changes in the environment are narrowly regulated and the process of analysis of the changes in the environment is carried out while staying focused on the main purpose of the business. This enables the organizations to enhance upon their capability to react and adjust to future events. One of the benefits of the open systems approach is that it gives makes problem solving more effective. In order to effectively solve a problem, it is essential to track down the cause of the problem and ways to deal with it. An open systems approach enables managers to comprehend the big picture, which allows them to broaden their focus from the behaviors and events related to the problem to the causes of the problem. Having knowledge of the big picture is important in health care; Fotaki (2006) asserts that comprehending the complexities and the various repercussions associated with applying individual patient choice in health care requires an analytic framework that goes beyond economic determinism and positivist social science paradigms. An open systems approach also allows for more effective leadership. A leader is responsible for the establishment of clear goals and the mobilization of his or her subordinates towards the achievement of common goals. For example, if a leader does not have detailed insight into the working of the organization, he or she would not be able to devise attainable and practical goals. Feldman and Pentland (2003) contend that routines are subject to change; a leader that does not comprehend the changes that the environment infuses in the organization structure is embroiled in a mess of problems emerging at the basic level and in day-to-day activities. This draws away focus from the allocation of resources and the achievement of shared goals. On the other hand, an open systems approach allows managers to understand the functioning and dynamics of the organization and to mould the structure of the organization according to environmental influences, so that organizational problems do not emerge and managers can channel resources into the attainment of common goals. Alby and Zucchermaglio (2006) analyzed the design practices of an Internet company to conclude that work practice and organizational features shape the decision-making process, while focusing on the core competency of the organization. In order for organizations to be successful in today’s competitive world, they need to bring about effective strategic change in response to the environment (Hardy, 2005). The interaction of the environment and the participant can be exemplified by a business meeting. The environment that the managers provide in business meetings affects the actions of the employees. If managers relate the information in a dry way, they will not be able to capture the attention of the employees. However, if they are animated in their discussions, they can engage the employees in more effective communication. The benefits of the open systems approach in contrast to the rational approaches can be buttressed by the research that was conducted during the 1960s. The findings of the research were that traditional bureaucratic organizations could not perform well in environments where technologies and markets were changing constantly. The research also found out that those managers who gave regard to cultural values of the employees, and other environmental factors, were able to improve their performance. Open systems grant organizations relative immunity to insecurity. This can be done by expanding into other lines. For instance, the owner of Gap mid-price clothing retailer also owns Banana Republic chain and the Old Navy chain. This enables the business to cover up for any sag in the sales at one end from other stores (Gabler, 2010). In conclusion, a rational approach allows managers to maximize their work efficiency by setting regulatory guidelines and a fixed set of rules to follow. On the other hand, an open systems approach allows businesses to adjust to the changes from the environment by absorbing the uncertainties in the environment in it. Both approaches are present in an enterprise and have respective benefits for the organizations; it is up to the managers to decide which aspect of organizational theory to focus and develop. Reference List Alby, F., & Zucchermaglio, C. (2006). ‘Afterwards we can understand what went wrong, but now let’s fix it’: How Situated Work Practices Shape Group Decision Making. Organization Studies, 27(7), 943-966. doi: 10.1177/0170840606065703 Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, March 2003. Retrieved from http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-109987988/reconceptualizing-organizational-routines-source.html Fotaki, M. (2006). Choice is yours: A psychodynamic exploration of health policymaking and its consequences for the English National Health Service. Human Relations, 59(12), 1711-1744. doi: 10.1177/0018726706072871 Gabler, J. (2010). Sociology For Dummies. New Jersey: For Dummies. Hardy, C. (2005). Understanding Power: Bringing about Strategic Change. British Journal of Management, 7(s1), s3-s16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00144.x Jenkins, L. (2009). The Rational System. Retrieved from http://businessmanagement.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_rational_system Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/258154 Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Expertise-Based Intuition and Decision Making in Organizations. Journal of Management, 36(4), 941-973. doi: 10.1177/0149206309350084 Scott, W. R. (2001). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Retrieved from http://studenten.samenvattingen.com/documenten/show/5451050/ Read More