Analysis of Organisational Systems - Coursework Example

Organisational Systems Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Organisational systems have been subject to major scrutiny over the years. Determination of an ideal organisational system is an uphill task based on a number of factors; these include an organisation’s set objectives, structures within the organisation, both formal and informal, environment, technology and so on. Three common organisational systems approach include the rational system approach, the natural system approach, and the open system approach. The rational system is best defined as a classic organisational principle oriented towards its objectives and how to achieve them. Formality is inherent within this system, thus organisational behaviour is shaped based on the formality that exists from within (Millet, 1998). It can therefore be concluded that formalisation is an effort to pre-determine behaviour through regulating the same. As opposed to the rational paradigm, the natural model views an organisation from the viewpoint of not only aiming to achieve its objectives, but also takes into account other significant issues. An organisational structure is viewed as a body that has needs that it seeks to fulfil. Therefore, based on the natural system, an organisation desires to maintain equilibrium of its different needs and objectives (Flynn & Hodgkinson, 2001). According to the open system, an organisation’s system is characterized by the external environment in which it operates. As a result, a state of balance is created between the organisation and its external environment. Information regarding the balance between the organisation and its environment is known as feedback. It can therefore be concluded that in the open system approach the organisational behaviour is pretty much determined with the environment in which operates. The aim of this paper is to critically analyse these three organisational systems approach, namely, natural and open system, and to identify and evaluate the benefits associated to these three. Managers prefer the rational system approach to the organisation because through existence of formalisation within the rational system, indecisiveness is eliminated. Indecisiveness often leads to anxiety, mayhem and unrest in several organisations, thus its elimination is a significant benefit to the organisation. If a formalised structure is entrenched within an organisation, the organisation can assume different positions but the inherent structure shall remain (Scott & Davis, 2007). Another advantage attributed to formalisation as a process within the rational approach system is that it objectifies the structure, that is, it makes the specified tasks and relationships to lean towards the organisation’s objectives to the active stakeholders made up of employees and the management (Scott & Davis, 2007). Managers also find the rational system approach to the organisation attractive because it provides logic for action under various circumstances. Presently, it is virtually impossible to come across an organisation that has not implemented the rational system in one way or another. For instance, organisations that apply the use of charts, workflow, best practices or regulatory procedures advocate for the rational system (Taylor, 2006). Boyle (2001), reasons that the rational systems approach distinguishes the line of authority and job tasks in a proper manner. He emphasizes that according to this organisational system, relationships in terms of authority are visibly hierarchical with formal rules that govern job tasks that are properly defined so as to achieve set objectives. A typical example is that of health care workers who offer services that are regulated by clear policies. The question here then is, can the rational organisational system influence the efficiency of a health care team? If you look at it from the affirmative angle, the rational system approach can be used to analyse profitability changes within the health care system. Is the continuous shift from specialized control to managerial control affecting efficiency in terms of billing, patient care, or the system’s profitability? The rational systems approach mainly focuses on a variety of issues that are ethically related. These issues could take the form of disobedience, routine procedures, organisational customs, and whether strict adherence to laid rules amounts to positive or negative results. The rational approach identifies and addresses problems in areas such as analysis and discipline of employees, for instance, how indiscipline is tackled and the criteria for promotion, it also looks at what measures ought to be taken when the organisation’s stipulated rules threaten to put the patient in harms way. With respect to billing, this approach addresses issues such as who is authorised to input codes on patients charts and if the physicians are allowed to delegate coding tasks to their subordinates, in other words, this analysis is aimed at ascertaining whether the formal coding and billing structure assigned to clinicians is the origin of irregularities or if this could be as a result of procedure and policy violations. Looked at from this angle, it is worth noting that rational approach enhances efficiency since underlying problems are easily identified and rectified, it also facilitates coordination among the health workers and other members of staff. There are weaknesses associated to the rational systems approach as well. From the health care example, it is clear that the rational system fails to put many significant issues into account. It overlooks the reality of the various subcultures within an organisation. This system does take into account that nurses, physicians, and administrators have a distinct culture, language, customs and beliefs. Incidentally, it fails to realise that there is a rift between the predetermined goals of an organisation and the ones that are realised in fact. The point that this approach is missing is that the way in which a certain task has been set to be done, is not necessarily the same way in which the task is to be executed. Contrary to the rational system, the natural system paradigm views the alteration of the organisation as a spontaneous and adaptive response to unstable circumstances that threaten the state of equilibrium of the organisation system as a whole. How an organisation reacts to challenges is influenced by the common beliefs engrained within the organisation’s members. This system is focused on factors that threaten an organisation’s equilibrium, that is, tasks and events that could upset the state of equilibrium within an organisation (Flynn & Hodgkinson, 2001). According to Boyle (2001), when an organisation’s focus deviates from its set objectives, it is considered to be a product of limitations arising out of the social structure within the organisation rather than as a result of ignorance or miscalculation. By and large, the natural system of an organisation is conceptualized around the idea that organisations are bodies comprising interconnected and interdependent parts. Thus, should one part of an organisation be altered, this alteration will have an impact on other parts of the organisation as well. Practically, the natural paradigm aims to balance the needs of every member to the organisation including all the stake holders made up of shareholders, customers and vendors. According to this system, an organisation can only function properly when members are affiliated to at least one effective group within the organisation where they can contribute towards the organisation’s objectives. These groups can take the form of committees, staff or departmental groups. Members of the organisation affiliated to more than one of these work groups assist in connecting the organisation’s different units as well as enabling efficiency in terms of communication and exchange of communication within the entire organisation. The natural system approach assumes a holistic approach, it considers any form of change as not only affecting individuals or even individual units; rather, it assumes that any form of change within the organisation affects the organisation in its entirety. This therefore implies that managers cannot alter only a small fraction of the organisation, instead, any alterations made should to be made should be carried out on the entire organisation. Thus, an organisation’s change strategies have to be methodical and comprehensive as well. In theoretical terms, the natural system model assists in averting conflicts in the sense that any alteration to be made can only take place with the participation of every member of the organisation. This is beneficial to the organisation in that conflicts arising as result of change are significantly reduced. Incidentally, commitment by the organisation’s members to change is amplified. A relevant example that can identify to natural organisational systems is that of innovative military forces. The natural system is the most suitable approach when it comes to evaluating a military force innovative capabilities. This is based on the fact that in reality, organisational systems are not actually rational systems mostly due to cognitive restraints. In its application to military innovation, the natural systems approach is split into two, professionalist and industrialist schools of thought. The latter approach is based on the argument that military organisations are in essence motivated by the well being of the institution which in turn impedes successful innovation. This approach is of the perception that organisation are inherently conservative, that organisations would rather sustain their well being at the expense of their set objectives. The weakness associated with this approach is that it is short term in nature and that the organisations goals are hardly realised. Modus operandi centres on maximizing control of the external environments. Research carried out is aimed at solving current issues instead of innovation. Thus the necessary condition to be taken into account before innovation can take place is the intervention by the civilian leadership that would compel the military to innovate. The professionalist school of thought holds that military forces as institutions are motivated by the objective to maximise security. This school of thought favours successful innovation because it speculates that organisations can learn given favourable conditions. As opposed to the industrialist school of thought, this approach depicts that military institutions innovate under their own initiative based on the fact that they are motivated by the drive to offer state security. This could take the form of latest military equipment, junior officers who are reform oriented, and establishing career path from within the organisation that facilitates promotion of reform minded junior officers (Tellis & Centre, 2000, p 154). An open organisation systems is made of the following characteristics: the system comprises interrelated parts and is whole thus its performance requirements are viewed as interrelated. Problems are likely to arise based on this when staff concentrate more on their respective departments as opposed to that of the entire organisation. Every system converts outputs into input, and thus, feedback received is acted upon. Open systems organize themselves around predetermined objectives and aim at attaining a dynamic state of equilibrium. Feedback provides information concerning the dynamic state of equilibrium, for instance, a fall in revenue due to lack of diversification of investment by the company in the form of new product lines (Vigoda-Gadot, 2002; Thomson, 2007). Managers could benefit from taking an open system approach to the organisation in through the ways next highlighted. The open system is effective when it comes to problem solving: managers of an organisation, who lack a better understanding of the organisation’s goals, tend to direct their focus on events and behavioural patterns linked to difficulties arising within the organisation. An open system offers a better understanding of the overall picture (Thomson, 2007). It is daunting for a manager to set direction for the organisation and at the same time maintain course for that organisation. Rather, it is easy for a manager to lose track of the daily activities of the organisation if they lack proper understanding of the overall structure and requirements of the organisation both internally and externally. Additionally, a manager who pays less attention to important tasks such as organising resources and setting the overall direction is likely to experience difficulties in the execution of tasks. An open system therefore assists the manager fully comprehend the structure of the whole organisation including its dynamics and measures that must be put in place to enable the organisation to meet its strategic goals (Thomson, 2007). An important recipe for the success of any system lies on the constant feedback, in addition to seamless flow of communication in every part of the organisation. One of the unique observations that signal an organisation experiencing difficulties in its operations is intermittent and inadequate flow of communication. In such situations, individuals usually struggle to see past their assigned tasks in the organisation. Therefore, with no comprehension of how the subsystems of the organisation co-ordinate with each other, it would be difficult to ascertain the flow of information (Thomson, 2007). The very successful organisations usually apply a range of methods to attain results. The said methods in an organisation are made up of; development of management and leadership, strategic planning, business forecast, performance management of the organisation and its employees, and organisational change based on a set of ideologies. It would an uphill task for any manager to put into practice any of the methods mentioned above if they lack full understanding of the general structure of the entire organisation, thus an open system is imperative if an organisation is to achieve any level of success (Aguilera et al, 2008). An open system eliminates the founder’s syndrome. Founders’ syndrome refers to an organisation that runs its operations based on the concepts and ideologies of its founder(s) rather than basing its operations in tandem to the organisation’s goals and objectives (Aguilera et al, 2008). In the initial stages of an organisation, the founders often employ tactics aimed at moving the company from its initial stages to consequent stages: this includes dealing with teething problems and major setbacks that are likely to occur. Based on this, founders rarely get to see the bigger picture and thus are not capable of making appropriate plans to reach proactive resolutions. Consequently, the organisation gets stuck in a reactive position highly characterised by inadequate funds and a long chain of crisis. Therefore, an open system that offers a better understanding of the organisation and its systems is an appropriate means of eliminating the founders’ syndrome Even though the open system is hailed for its numerous benefits to the organisation, it also has setbacks. One of the setbacks associated with the open system is its reaction to change; if its reaction to change is either too fast or too slow then some difficulties might abound. For instance, an organisation undergoing huge amounts of external pressure is likely to go into depression despite efforts to sustain it through implementation of one initiative after the other (Adams & Lamont, 2003). Another setback identified with the open system is that it has to always strive to blend with the environment. Prior to bringing other stake holders on board, it is imperative for managers to fully comprehend the open systems approach. A typical example is that of firms originating from Japan with operations abroad. These firms have to fully adapt to their environments in order for them to react to demands. This pretty much falls within: the structural elements of every unit within the organisation, and the integration or differentiation that need to be put in place to facilitate the organisation adapt to multifaceted environments. This implies that the firm needs to look at the needs of the customers, employees, and the community as a whole. In foreign ventures, an organisation’s success can only amplified by their knowledge on native culture and reliance on relationship networks formed within that particular subsystem. Another example is the coca cola company in Ecuador which does voice-over in Ecuadorian Spanish accent since production of many marketing pieces is done in Argentina. Another example of an organisation that failed because of lack of knowledge of the local culture is the Sears Roebuck Company that closed six months into operations following its unveiling in the coastal city. Its main misgiving was its policy on returns; the company was overwhelmed as consumers were returning products at an alarming rate. This could never had happened if they had done a comprehensive research to ascertain if the policy was going to work and its rate of success (Thomson, 2007). In conclusion, company managers must always aim at selecting an organisational system that is relevant to their field of operation. This offers optimal control, coordination and specialisation. Additionally, it takes into account issues regarding effectiveness and efficiency of business operations. Before reaching a decision on the organisational system that best suits the organisation it is imperative that the managers consider a number of factors such as; if their nature of business blends in with the potential systems approach, that is, can a natural system approach blend with a health care organisation? Another factor to be considered prior to reaching an appropriate organisational system is the gains to be derived in terms of profitability and other significant benefits like employee satisfaction and so on. Another critical factor that ought to be looked at is the organisation’s flow of information, for instance, does the flow of information trickle from the top management downwards? In this situation, the rational systems approach would be the most suitable. But if the organisation has an open door policy where subordinates can easily interact with their superiors then the natural systems would be the most appropriate system to go for. Finally, it is important to note that it is not advisable to implement a complicated systems approach for an organisation with a simple structure; for instance, there is no need for taking the rational systems approach for a small retail business, an open system in this case would be the most appropriate. References Adams, G. L. & Lamont, B. T. (2003). Knowledge management systems and developing sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 (2): 142:154. Aguilera, V.R., Filatotchev, I. Gospel, H. & Jackson, G. (2008). An Organizational Approach to Comparative Corporate Governance: Costs, Contingencies, and Complementarities. Organization Science, 19 (3): 475-492. Boyle, P. (2001). Organizational ethics in health care: principles, cases, and practical solutions. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. Flynn, P. & Hodgkinson, V. (2001). Measuring the impact of the non-profit sector. Plenum Publishers. New York. Islo, E. (2001). Simulation models of organisational systems. International Journal of Technology Management, 21(3/4): 393-419. Millet, B. (1998). Understanding organisations: the dominance of systems theory. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 1(1): 1-2. Scott, R. & Davis, S. (2007). Organisations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems. Upper Saddle River New Jersey. Taylor, J.R. (2006). The 'rational' organization reconsidered: an exploration of some of the organizational implications of self-organizing. Communication Theory, 1(2): 137-177. Tellis, A. J. & Center, A. (2000). Measuring national power in the post-industrial age. Rand Publication. United States of America Thomson, G. (2007). The Open-systems Approach in Organizational Design. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2): 281-317. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2002). Public administration: an interdisciplinary critical analysis. Marcel Dekker. New York. Read More