Read and Reply to the discussion below
- 550-word count
- APA format
- Reference list
- 3 peer-reviewed source citations published in the last 3 years
- 1 biblical principle from 1st or 2nd Kings
- 2 Bible scriptures related to the discussion
- All in-text citations must include a doi: hyperlink and page(s)
- DO NOT WRITE IN FIRST PERSON
- NO BOOKS AS REFERENCES
Provide:
- Analyze and explain how the discussion addressed the topic “technical and social terminology for organizations today”
- Write and explain whether the discussion used good scholarly references
- Write and explain whether the discussion used good Bible scriptures to support their position.
- Reply to the discussion’s major points
- Include analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts
DISCUSSION
Organizations can be described by the ways in which they differentiate from competitors through their unique use of technology, or how they accomplish tasks or activities, and through the boundaries of their social systems (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007). A main tenant to describing how organizations are differentiated is through the assumptions and implications of contingency theory, or how technology structures and social boundaries are shaped to suit the environment in which the organization exists (Scott, 2015). Through the lens of contingency theory, the ways organizations are structured and defined by social boundaries draw noteworthy distinctions between the three systems perspectives as applied to organizations today (Scott, 2015).
Technology Structures
Scott (2015) explains that the differentiation in systems of organization resulted from an alignment of different organizations to the array of heterogenous environments in which they operated in. Technology encompasses more than the hardware that is used to accomplish tasks within an organization as of way of determining structure (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007). The skills, hardware, environment, task system in which tasks are completed are all factors that help to shape how the organization aligns to the contingencies in the broader operating environment (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007).
Scott (2015) proposed three dimensions for predicting the technology structure of organizations that subsume the variety of features that shape the definition of technology. One dimension is the complexity or diversity of technology, or the general number of different items or inputs that must be addressed by one individual at one time (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007).
In exploration of this dimension of determining the way technology shapes organizational structure, a compelling example would be highly complex teams that have to monitor several different systems at one time through the production process. To take this a step further, systems that monitor temperature, thread dying or blending, transferring one output to be the input of the next system, all of these would be highly complex technology systems that rely on a performer to do them at once as part of production (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007).
The second dimension refers to the uncertainty or unpredictability of technology, or the variability of the inputs and elements one individual leverages through the scope of business (Scott, 2015). In highly uncertain and ever-changing environments, the scope of business must be flexible to appeal to the contingency of the environment it operates in (Scott, 2015). An example of this most notably seen is with how interaction and meetings have evolved very quickly in the pandemic, many organizations that existed in face to face communication had to transform their business operations and scope of work to appeal to a virtual environment. The transformation shaped the organizational structure to continue to appeal to its surrounding environment, providing further differentiation of organizations from competitors (Scott, 2015).
The third dimension relates to interdependences of technology, or the relationship between tasks, activities, and the individuals who perform them (Scott, 2015). Further, interdependence of technology can be further described by their degree of interrelatedness, either as pooled, sequential, or reciprocal interdependence (Saavedra et al., 1993). Pooled interdependence characterizes technology as being related to only the shared goal, such as the management of a customer account whereby individuals utilize hardware and skills to form a holistic picture as an output (Saavedra et al., 1993). Sequential interdependence best describes technology as relating to organizational structure through the need for specialized teams and capabilities in building a website, where individual tasks must be done in sequence to form a whole (Saavedra et al., 1993). Reciprocal interdependence best captures how technology relates to organizational structure through assembly lines where previous skills and technology used by the preceding person serves as the input to the next person’s scope of work (Saavedra et al., 1993).
Since technology is rarely developed in house, it has implications under the closed systems of organization including rational and natural systems which aren’t inclusive of the role of external inputs (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). Through the natural systems view, further distinctions can be drawn between the human factors that shape the relationship of organizational structure to technology and the balance between informal and formal structures and factors (Machado-da-Silva, 2003).
Most importantly, in challenge to the rational systems view, natural systems appeal to the ways technology shapes organizational structure through the value of informal processes and activities, a factor excluded largely from the rational system of organization (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). In contrast, rational systems of organization approach technology shaping organizational structure through increased formalization, or role structuring as complexity increases (Őnday, 2018).
In conclusion, technology influences organizational structures differently through the three systems of organization as well as the unique features that make up the contingencies of the environment the organization must operate in (Scott, 2015). Organizations are shaped by the ways in which technology is defined and used through the scope of business, the complexity of tasks and skills to perform them, the relatedness of tasks and hardware, and the ever-shifting scope of technology in the course of business (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007). But beyond how the tasks are executed through the unique features and contingencies from the environment, it is also important to consider the individuals directly involved in the execution of the tasks and activities (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007).
Social Boundaries
Scott (2015) posits that organizations are not only concerned with the technology that differentiates them against other but can also be described by the boundaries of their social systems. Given that social boundaries of organizations are innately complex and ever-changing, it can be challenging to fully identify the edges of their boundaries through one singular focus. A multi-faceted approach to defining organizations is prudent to examine the implications of social boundaries through the three systems perspective as well as view social boundaries at a macro and micro level (Neumeyer et al., 2019).
Social boundaries and their relationship with organizational structure can be analyzed through the members that make up organizations, the types of activities executed as an informative measure, and the social relations of interactions between members (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007). When examining social boundaries through the lens of its members, it is important to also examine how organizational structure through their recruitment criteria as a way of differentiating members from non-members (Neumeyer et al., 2019). This is especially apparent in rational systems of organization through which recruitment criteria adds an additional degree of formalization that contribute to the shared pursuit of an explicit goal (Scott, 2015).
Social boundaries in particular have the greatest implications under rational systems of organization compared to natural or open systems due to their human component (Őnday, 2018). Rational systems of organization view social boundaries as a challenge to the formalization and explicit goals collectivities pursue without interference of extra-organizational identities and priorities (Őnday, 2018). As a result, the rational systems of organization would emphasize formalization and strengthening of roles and structures to refocus only on the explicit goals of the organization, which can be at times in contrast to how individuals operate as members (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). Rational systems struggle to account for external parties as a closed system, pursuing ignorance or suppression through increased formalization instead of acknowledging and including these connections in the model as open systems do (Őnday, 2018).
In contrast, open systems of organization embrace the throughput of internal and external interactions as a way of both characterizing social boundaries of organizations and strengthening organizations (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). In open systems of organization, the interaction and exchange between internal collectivities and external players can become blurred by the complexity of modern organization environments (Őnday, 2018).
A number of problems can arise out of social boundaries from organizations that have meaningful implications for participants and members that are especially relevant in high performance modern organizations (Neumeyer et al., 2019). It is important to note that organizations do provide opportunities for their participants but also have a degree of influence in shaping their participant’s characteristics as well (Scott, 2015). Alienation can refer to distancing and isolation from a number of different areas, of which isolation from the end outcomes of efforts can demoralize participants (Sarros et al., 2002).
Another type of alienation that influences and poses challenges to participants is alienation from the process, or the denial of free-flowing avenues and ways of reaching the end product that benefit participants (Sarros et al., 2002). This type of alienation can be exacerbated through diminished autonomy which grants participants flexibility and enables creativity instead of segmented labor (Shantz et al., 2014). Both of these types of alienation together shape the characteristics of participants towards disengagement, burn out, and turnover (Shantz et al., 2014). The products of alienation create pain points for organizations due to resource losses and productivity losses as alienation continues (Shantz et al., 2014).
Another challenge to participants from social boundaries of organizations is inequity that remains an obstacle even in modern organizational contexts (Zhang et al., 2015). Inequity refers to the imbalance in several critical areas in comparison across notable groups and the lack of movement towards full alignment between treatment of groups, including minorities and women (Zhang et al., 2015). An additional challenge to participants is the insecurity that defines many roles today, through at-will employment without long-term security (Zhang et al., 2015). Even today, this insecurity influences characteristics of participants through downsizing, cutbacks, and furloughs as organizations struggle to align to environmental contingencies in the market and world (Cleaver, 2003). Beyond role security is the flexibility in which compensation is actively evaluated and reevaluated in flexible pay arrangements (Cleaver, 2003). These flexible pay arrangements capitalize on the flexing of which compensation is arranged and executed in response to the environment and sales, lessening the security and guarantee of a paycheck and salary (Cleaver, 2003).
In conclusion, organizations are shaped and changed through many factors stemming from what and how tasks are executed and characterized and how social systems are described and captured to satisfy contingencies in the external environment (Scott, 2015). Each of the three systems of organization view both technology and social boundaries differently from closed systems to open systems (Scott, 2015). The responses to technology and social boundary’s influence on structure further differentiate organizations from each other (Machado-da-Silva, 2003).
Personal Perspectives
The ways technology and social boundaries shape organizational structure revealed just how complex the modern organizational environment is today. What struck me most was the ways through which organizational systems responded to the influence of technology and social boundaries, highlighting the overarching value in contingency theory to explain how organization address environmental needs (Montgomery & Oliver, 2007).
What really challenged me was the types of obstacles impacting participants and how those challenges shape their characteristics and responses as part of a collectivity (Scott, 2015). This impacted me as a participant myself in the insecurity and inequity challenges that organizations pose on participants (Scott, 2015). The realignment of many organizations to market demands or lack thereof pose challenges on many essential workers during COVID-19. These have been largely enabled by both flexible pay arrangements and at-will employment contracts granting greater flexibility for organizations to remain flexible to environment changes (Zhang et al., 2015).
While many of these cost cutting measures staunch the loss of cash over time, it is important to acknowledge their long-term implications for social systems, performance, and productivity (Sarros et al., 2002). Many teams and units go through a grieving process when cutbacks and downsizing occur, facing dips in productivity as they process the change (Kalimo et al., 2003). In addition, for those who faces challenges of alienation, organizations suffer extensive losses from participants who turnover and the costs from training and hiring new individuals (Kalimo et al., 2003). It is critical for modern organizations who place high demands on participants as a result of satisfaction of contingencies in the environment to acknowledge the influence of those challenges on participants and issue corrective action where possible to negate the influence on participant characteristics (Sarros et al., 2002).
Biblical Integration
The bible helps to explain the implications of social systems in shaping organizational structures as well as acknowledging the damaging influence of the various challenges on participants. Closed systems of organization can never fully suppress the external connections of the environment of the extra-organizational identities of participants (Machado-da-Silva, 2003). Ignoring the human component of members and participants harms the organization through alienating them not only with their role but from others outside of the closed system (Sarros et al., 2002).
Matthew 6:24 censures against this pressure from organizations, stating: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (New International Version, 1979/2011). The bible calls humanity cast away inequity as Jesus took on humanity’s transgressions, holding others in the same regard regardless of group membership, inspiring all to a higher calling through Christ-centered followership (Merida, 2015). This is further described in Isiah 53:5, which states: “But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed” (New International Version, 1979/2011).
References
Cleaver, J. (2003). A changing pay environment: Straight salary is taking a back seat to flexible pay and working conditions at collection agencies and issuers’ collections departments. (collections & recovery). Credit Card Management, 16(1), 65.
Kalimo, R., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). The effects of past and anticipated future downsizing on survivor well-being: An equity perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(2), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.2.91
Machado-da-Silva, C. L. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Revista De Administração Contemporânea, 7(2), 219-219. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552003000200017
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings.
Montgomery, K., & Oliver, A. L. (2007). A fresh look at how professions take shape: Dual-directed networking dynamics and social boundaries. Organization Studies, 28(5), 661-687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076278
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Who is left out: Exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 462-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9694-0
New International Version Bible. (2011). New International Version Bible Online. https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ (Original work published 1973)
Őnday, Ő. (2018). The relationship between concepts of rational, natural and open systems: Managing organizations today. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 10(1), 245-258.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61
Sarros, J. C., Tanewski, G. A., Winter, R. P., Santora, J. C., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Work alienation and organizational leadership. British Journal of Management, 13(4), 285-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00247
Scott, W.R. (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. Routledge.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., & Truss, C. (2014). Alienation from work: Marxist ideologies and twenty-first-century practice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management: Ideas at Work, 25(18), 2529-2550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.667431
Zhang, Y., Fabel, O., & Thomann, C. (2015). Pay inequity effects on back-office employees’ job performances: The case of a large insurance firm. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 23(2), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-015-0381-z