Business Studies
Each reply must be a paragraph long of at least 135 words or more not including references which should supported by citing at least 2 peer-reviewed journal articles between 2017-2021 for each reply. The 2 discussions that need reply will be posted below. Your replies must be in current APA format and must include a reference list. Make sure that you are adding new and relevant information with each reply. Reference sample make sure to include DOI-Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychology & Marketing, 23(2), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20105
Reply 1:
Abstract
Setting aside the academic evaluation of organizations – their characteristics and the evolution of organizational disciplines – each of us may have an inherent definition of organizational structure based upon our own individual experiences. Those who have worked for Fortune 100 or Fortune 500 companies may see organizational systems through a distinctively different lens than those who have worked in smaller corporate environments. Often, when organizations are discussed, there are intuitive references to people, processes, and systems.
Equally, there is consideration given to culture, social norms, governing policies, and organizational hierarchy. Tenets by which we understand organizational perspectives. In contrast, as consumers or citizens, we may frame differing views of organizations that have left brand images embedded in our minds; marketing strategies that garner loyalty to an organization or institution. Each interaction continues to define our understanding of companies as entities.
Beyond personal bias, this discussion post will seek to qualify the similarities and differences between three prevailing organizational perspectives – Rational System, Natural System, and Open System of organizational theory. Yielding to a more rigorous academic examination of organization design theory as it influences the deeper understanding of organizations of all sizes.
Keywords: Organizational Theory, Rational System Perspective, Natural System Perspective, Open System Perspective.
Introduction
From the ancient Romans to the colonization of America, to the industrial revolution, extending through the great depression, and well into the 21st Century, there remains irrefutable evidence to the evolution of organizations. It is creating a phenomenon that has been the source of scholarly and practical research—further influencing concepts of leadership, human resources, business strategy, economic globalization, entrepreneurship, and big business.
Many years ago, I participated in a debate over which existed first – the employees or the organization? Interesting commentary on how business leaders across varying segments interpret the influence of company structure. Can any organization exist without employees? Or do organizations need to have a formalized structure before maturing a workforce?
Regardless of the personal bias held, there is merit to the notion that organizations adopt their own cultural values. Instituting social norms that come to define a company’s leadership, vision, mission, and core services. Ultimately, it directionally guides the formation of an accepted organizational structure. However, the relationship between person and organization is deemed to be reciprocal. Characteristics abound those influence organizational elements, “these include knowledge and skills and how they fit with the tasks they perform; their needs and preferences; and the broader background they bring to an organization” (Scott & Davis 2007, p. 24).
There are other elements that are critical to organizations – “environment, strategy, goals, work and technology” – that collide with the informal and formal influences that govern an organization’s evolution (Scott et al., 2007). It is these elements that will be examined more closely in relation to the subscribed theories known as rational, natural, and open systems. Presenting in this discussion objective-based peer scholarly reviews to articulate theoretical and personal perspectives, as rooted in each systems perspective.
Defining Characteristics
From the readings in this section, the text provides accepted definitions for each of the three perspectives. To further evaluate each system, it is important to clearly define what each means, distinguishing one phenomenon from the next (Scott et al. 2007), and it is these recognized definitions that will serve as the foundation for the remainder of this discussion post.
First, a Rational System is defined as “organizations are collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting relatively high formalized social structures” (Scott et al. 2007, p. 29). A Natural System is characterized as “organizations are collectivities whose participants are pursuing multiple interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize the value of perpetuating the organization as an important resource” (Scott et al. 2007, p. 30). Next, Open Systems is defined by “organizations are congeries of interdependent flows and activities linking shifting conditions of participants embedded in wider material-resources and institutional environments” (Scott et al. 2007, p.33)
Organizations as Rational Systems
As the name suggests, rational systems evoke a clearly defined structure that is logically and rationally exercised to achieve specific business goals and objectives—often referenced as “organizations as instruments” (Scott et al., 2007, p. 35). Thus we come to recognize organizations as rational systems as well-oiled machines that can thrive and survive well beyond its leaders and employees—referencing distinct characteristics as goal specificity, formalization, legality, bureaucracy, and hierarchy (Scott et al. 2007). In short, there is a scientific method to the construction of organizational principles that direct individual, less formalized behaviors as to the specific goals to be achieved.
Of similar interest, rational systems possess unique characteristics that contribute to the rational predictability of business outcomes. One such example is “In organizational interactions, goal specification and structure formalization may be viewed as a test drive to make participants interactional behavior more predictable by standardizing and regulating it” (Onday 2018). Unlike the other systems theories, rational systems is specifically oriented towards establishing governing policies that can effectively direct individual and group behaviors within a formal structure to a unified goal.
A fair supposition is that the larger and more complex an institution becomes, the more it will be inclined to leverage a rational systems perspective. The structure supersedes the needs of the individual to preserve the organizational culture through a disciplined framework. Given these characteristics, each of us can identify organizations that we have either worked for or interacted with that best exemplify this model. We, too may be able to identify gaps or issues within this view of organizational design theory that can challenge the validity of a rational systems perspective.
Organizations as Natural Systems
In reading the text, a natural system stirs images of nature and natural selection—the evolution of species, groups, and social environments that come to define an organization. As Scott and Davis allude to, a natural system is less concerned with the structure but emphasizes individuals’ behaviors. Not to the exclusion of the tenets presented in a rational system, just giving more merit to the informal structure and the inherent relationships between individuals and the organization as most important (Scott et al. 2007).
Another important distinction is the concept of goals. Rather than being specific, natural system theorists suggest “goals can be pluralistic” (Onday 2018, p. 4), which means that there is a distinguishable difference between stated goals by the organization and those realistically achieved by constituents of the organization—further accentuating the informal nature of an organization. In the investigation of a natural system, some have associated this perspective with being analogous with “irrational” or “dysfunctional” (Scott et al., 2007). The narrative is that characteristics of a natural system focus on the chaotic nature of an organization or institution with a bias towards the innumerable influences that cannot predict nor direct human behavior. For organizations to thrive, there must be an acceptance of the informal nature of an organization that ultimately steers attainment of business goals – stressing that individuals do not function as “agents who behave as rational economic actors” (Scott et al., 2007, p. 65). Ozgur Onday adds to the characteristics of the natural system perspective as those best defined by an individual or team’s “sentiments, activities, and interactions” (Onday 2018, p. 5).
Organizations as Open Systems
Open system theorists emphasize the relationship between an organization and its environment (Onday, 2018). The environment provides critical elements that direct and help organizations to survive in the environment they operate in (Onday, 2018). Relevant to this lens for viewing organizational systems is the focus on hierarchy and programs (Scott et al., 2007). Not to the extent that rational system theorists suggest, negating a formal structure for a more fluid and interactive structure with the external environment. Proposing that decisions are made largely on how best for an organization to survive then solely directing its energy and efforts towards specific goal attainment.
Onday makes it clear that an open system perspective and the theorist that support this model do not strive to denounce the rational or natural systems perspective but rather expand upon it—adding to the characteristics and considerations to make it more robust and comprehensive. Scott and Davis provide additional color by stating that, “cybernetic framework can be applied to the organization as a whole or to any of its subsystem;” and “the recognition that many systems – especially social systems – contain elements that only weakly connect to others and capable of fairly autonomous actions” (Scott et al. 2007, p. 93).
Defining Relationships in System Perspectives
One of the most important contributions of rational and natural systems perspectives is how it provided the foundation for addressing the type of organization. Whereas open systems in an extension of both rational and natural system perspectives in that it incorporates the environment into the dichotomy of debates around how organizations operate. Social institutions, government agencies, nonprofit charities, and publicly traded global organizations all can be evaluated on the basis of organizational design models.
Not that an organization has to be one or the other, but all three can exist in unison. As explained in the text, a rational system accounts for the technical, a natural system the managerial elements, and an open system the institutional level – which require all three to account for an organization to survive and thrive (Scott et al. 2007, p. 109).
Organizational theories offer implementation researchers a host of existing, highly relevant, and heretofore largely untapped explanations of the complex interaction between organizations and their environment. Organizational theories describe, explain, and predict the complex interaction between organizations and their external environments. Thus, these theories have the potential to explain and ground investigations focused on the role of policies, institutions, funding fluctuations, contract design, procurement processes, and workforce dynamics in implementation (Birken et al. 2017, p. 2).
The system perspectives approach allows for a deeper understanding of the critical influences that drive organizational structures. They, too, offer up a foundation for continued research into this scholarly discipline. Organizations, regardless of type, are not static but are fluid, often rapidly evolving entities that stress the inter-dependencies between rational, natural, and open systems. Especially in our volatile global economic landscape, which lends to how organizations respond or proactively plan for innovation changes – citing “weigh the resources to be gained against the autonomy to be lost from innovation implementation” (Birken et al. 2017).
To this end, the relationship between the three systems perspectives is revealed in the implementation research surrounding organizational theories. Providing for dynamic and pragmatic analysis of the tenets of each perspective in its authentic, real-world application, where institutions are continually updating their model to adjust to the external environment on both a “macro and micro-level” (Hernandez et al. 2018).
Personal Perspectives
Through additional research – direct and peripheral – I gravitate to an open system perspective and complex adaptive system (CAS). Theory, in and of itself, is good for understanding, but further research delves into the maturity of the research within an organizational theory. Without question, it is easy to identify the merits of each of the three system perspectives. Each provides for the future evolution of organizational theory.
Complex adaptive systems view to progress through the lens of complexity, inter-dependencies, and establishing order within in chaos (Pafford, 2018). Drawing from personal experience, I fail to identify many organizations that are solely rational or natural in their systems perspective. At best, they most closely relate to an open system perspective. Even at that, an open system fails to fully articulate the complexities that exist both internally and externally within organizations—attributing chaos to environmental influences and variables that impose challenges to the organizational culture.
In addition, Maznevski and DiStefano point to leadership in ambiguous times as derived from knowledge, and according to Glor, a leader’s ability to manage chaos in times of disruption is a catalyst for innovative growth (Pafford. 2018). Theory aside, it is difficult to find practical relevance in theory without digesting the pertinent elements that drive organizational evolution. This can only be sought through a holistic lens that indirectly marries the concepts of rational, natural, and open system perspectives with other organizational theories.
There is no question that the circumstances of the past 18 to 24 months with a global pandemic have unearthed organizational vulnerabilities. Additionally, remote or hybrid work environments in conjunction with increased digitization are presenting new organizational challenges. Environmental, regulatory, legal, geopolitical, social, and health-related issues have stressed companies of all sizes across industry segments and markets. Proving the importance of an open systems perspective. Justifying continued research to formulate new organizational theories.
Not to suggest longstanding theories be abandoned, but rather new theories are developed from the origins of these early theories in relationship to rational and natural systems perspectives. Instead, the underlying message is that “demographic, relational, and cultural theoretical perspectives” (Baum et al. 2020) must be updated to account for a broad range of new processes and systems. Returning to an important point made by Scott and Davis in the reading – organizations must adapt and evolve in the face of environmental shifts to survive.
“As Sull and Eisenhardt (2015, p. 5) specified, it is in and through the very “use” of organizational heuristics through which organizational actors “make decisions and take action” to effectuate these outcomes” (Wenzel et al. 2021). Thus proving the criticality of decision-making in guiding strategic organizational outcomes. A formalized structure alone cannot govern behavior to such a point that the unpredictable nature of decisions can be anticipated. Referred to as “rule-of-thumb” decision making, a heuristic perspective assumes that such an ontological approach cannot solely exist. As globalization of supply chains has transformed organizations, so too has the complexity that drives organizational culture, processes, systems, and models – embarking on a new era of theorizing. By all accounts, this is directionally forecasting the future of research in this domain.
Biblical Principle
Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you. To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly[a] with your God (NIV).
This scripture offers a prescriptive approach to organizational leadership, and in response, adhering to God’s guidance can influence the core foundation for organizational design. Within the context of the readings for this module, theorizing about system perspectives offers insights to deploy the will of God – justly, mercifully, and humbly. Characterizing critical elements of organizational leadership. Or more often coined as servant leadership. Bringing together tenets of rational, natural, and open system perspectives.
References
Baum, J., & Haveman, H. (2020). Editors’ Comments: The Future of Organizational Theory. Academy of Management Review 45(2), 268 – 272. https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=d043d379-6a62-4dab-ad77-0312b68b3b67%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bah&AN=142683690 Doi: 10.5465/amr.2020.0030
Birken, S., Bunger, A., Powell, B., Turner, K., Clary, A., Klaman, S., Yu, Y., Whitaker, D., Self, S., Rostad, W., Chatham, J., Kirk, A. Shea, C., Haines, E., & Weiner, B. (2017). Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research. Implementation Science, 12(62), 1 – 16. DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0592-x
Hernandez, V., Campos, J., Calderon, J., Calderon, P., & Almanza, R. (2018). ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN OPEN SYSTEM. Challenges of the Knowledge Society, 942 – 948. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2130762791?parentSessionId=uVlejr8DZR3rOf%2FsvR6vu62QRGKYWoN27nyvfJoJxlg%3D&pq-origsite=summon&accountid=12085
Onday, O. (2018). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONCEPTS OF RATIONAL, NATURAL AND OPEN SYSTEMS: MANAGING ORGANIZATIONS TODAY. International Journal of Information, Business & Management, 10(1), 1 – 15.
Pafford, S. (2018). LEADING ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, & Conflict, 22(2) 1 – 7. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2177046300?parentSessionId=XLg9t36DfRBVgA9XOLYdjbiOVaH8sgibtiLp9NNTEcA%3D&pq-origsite=summon&accountid=12085
Scott, R. & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives. (1st ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Wenzel, M., & Stjerne, I. (2021). Heuristics-in-use: Toward a practice theory of organizational heuristics. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 164(1), 1 – 9. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/science/article/pii/S0040162520313433?via%3Dihub Doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120517
Reply 2:
This week’s assignment focuses on comparing and contrasting the rational, natural, and open systems of organizations. We are asked to define the characteristics of each of the three systems, explain how each is interrelated, talk through the theoretical viewpoints, and give our perspectives. Organizational systems can be set up in a variety of ways and designed in a way that is the best fit based on the organization’s objectives. How they are structured and the type of system they are modeled after has changed as we observed the world around us and as influences have challenged organizations to adapt. Many internal and external factors can lead to selecting one system or another. Some of the systems we learned about this week consider one factor or both. The specific type of organization system or the combination of an entity should depend on many factors, especially the collective of individuals who are a part of the system, various influences, and goals and purpose of the organization.
The definition of rational systems is “collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting relatively highly formalized social structures” (Scott, 2007, p. 28). Organizations are created to serve some end and accomplish an objective. There is also a structure and hierarchy with defined roles and responsibilities for the team members in the organization. Some words associated with the system are: “information, efficiency, optimization, implementation, design, authority, control, coordination, rules, directives, and performance programs” (Landreneau, 2006, p. 45). A rational system is very rigid, and “efficiency is measured by a cost-benefit analysis which attempts to obtain the greatest benefit for the least cost” (Husted, 1993, p. 766). Rational organizational systems also have concrete goals (Landreneau, 2006). When thinking about a rational system, the best example is that of a governmental agency. The agency has well-defined policies and procedures that inform a team member working for it and describe what they must do depending on the situation or challenge they face. Governmental agencies are also very output-focused. They focus on producing a certain amount of the applicable product or service. They are also very slow-moving. They are slow-moving because of the multiple layers in the hierarchy and the multiple controls included in the process. There’s not a lot (or if any) of latitude allowed for deviation from the policies or procedures.
Natural systems are “organizations are collectivities whose participants are pursuing multiple interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize the value of perpetuating the organization as an important resource” (Scott, 2007, p. 30). Another definition is that “natural systems are typified by an interest in maintaining the well-being of its members and the organization itself” (Winiecki, 2010, p. 36). The natural system is also concerned with surviving (Hardy, 1983). All living breathing organisms are committed to their survival, so why would an organization act differently? Organizations are made up of many living, breathing people who are also focused on their survival, so the organization shares that concern.
Open systems are “organizations are congeries of interdependent flows and activities linking shifting coalitions of participants embedded in wider material-resource and institutional environments” (Scott, 2007, p. 32). Open systems are externally focused, whereas natural and rational systems are not. An open system focuses on activities, whereas rational and natural systems are structure-driven (Scott, 2007). An open system can be very dynamic and adaptable versus the other systems. There are nine different types of open systems: frameworks, clockworks, cybernet systems, open systems, blueprinted-growth systems, internal-image systems, symbol-processing systems, social systems, and transcendental systems (Winiecki, 2010). Each of these nine systems is introduced to us by Boulding, and he argues that we have not evolved past the cybernetic level (Winiecki, 2010). The reasoning is that we lack the ability “to identify, account for, and adapt to all environmental and internal factors that affect a system’s functioning” (Winiecki, 2010, p. 38).
Scott (2007) does a fantastic job explaining the relationship between the rational, natural, and open systems. All are very different, but they are related in “perspectives or paradigms” (Scott, 2007, p. 32). Winiecki (2010) writes about all three perspectives and asks us not to conclude that one view is better than the rest. Each stand is unique in its way, with its pros and cons. Organizations will have to weigh each pro and con carefully as they attempt to model their chosen system. They have a system in place, though better than no alternative. Systems bring clarity to those that are a part of the organization. The option of not having a system in place can hurt the organization. The primary reason is a lack of clarity to those in the organization regarding the goals and objectives and how to get their best.
There are a variety of theoretical viewpoints associated with these three paradigms. It is essential to discuss and reference the importance of leadership and the organizational system. Rational, natural, and open organizational systems are powerful engines that can help organizations achieve their purpose and mission, but leadership is the gas that keeps these engines running. The type of leader required will depend on the kind of system implemented. A leader would need to be more of a manager in a natural system. The process is more rigid and involves managing one or more processes. A natural system would be somewhere in between management and leadership. The natural system is strict, but there are some opportunities for input from the people involved in the process. The open system would require more of a leadership approach as the system is more fluid and has less structure and, therefore, more latitude for those involved in the process.
An Open system can be a powerful option. One inherent benefit is its ability to adapt. According to Uhl-Bien et al. (2018), leading in this situation is different than the typical top-down approach; it is about positioning “organizations and the people within them to be adaptive in the face of complex challenges” (p. 89). Leaders must constantly adapt to change, and if they want to position their organizations for success, they need to anticipate future changes. Like chess players, they must think and expect the future steps of the market and their competition and know the counter move they will make. According to Weber & Waeger (2017), “Connections with “external” elements can be more critical than those among “internal” components” (p. 888). That said, team members and especially the leaders in open systems must be attuned to the external environment in which they are operating.
According to Martz (2013), some of the strengths are; “incorporates means and ends; processes, outputs, and outcomes, Focuses on balance of resources and sustainability; growth and survival of the organization, considers the performance of subsystems that contribute to the organizational performance, and Can be applied to networked and loosely coupled organizations” (p. 394). Organizations provide meaningful structure to teams or groups of people. Many businesses start as one person that is pursuing their dream. They can be relatively unstructured as a result; however, the structure is less important at this stage of the business’s development because they lack complexity. But as the company grows and develops and adds different products and services with varying clientele in various geographic areas, they will start to grow in complexity. To manage this complexity, they will need to add and delegate the responsibility of this management to other sites and people. The structure is meaningful and incredibly important because it ensures that communication is flowing and work is being done that is consistent with the organization’s overall strategic objectives.
My direct experience is working in organizations that follow the rational organizational system. For example, we have designed and created the structure to accomplish particular objectives with my current employer. My primary areas of responsibility are the Accounting and Finance and Compliance and Audit functions. There are very specific regulations that drive various processes in both areas. Much of what is done in those areas is tied to and contributes to a particular work product presented to either our board of directors or our senior leadership team regularly. These work products are relatively rigid and do not change that often. The reported information can vary, but the process for creating and reviewing these products does not change. Onday (2016) writes that “two basic assumptions thus aid viewing organizations as rational systems namely: goal specification and structure formalization” (p. 41). This is a great way to describe my organization’s structure. Each position is tied explicitly to defined goals and objectives. These goals and objectives are smaller parts of a series of larger goals and objectives. There is little to no ambiguity. That said, we also exhibit characteristics of both open and natural systems. The team members in natural systems are motivated and are concerned with survival. Many on our team are motivated to see our organization succeed. We were created to provide discounted products and services to our customers. We serve our customers and the communities where most of our customers live and work. This is done by providing various financial and non-financial donations to large entities in need. Our team members want to work for us because they see the impact their time and effort have on others, our member-owners, and the communities we serve. We are in a very highly regulated industry, so monitoring and reacting to external changes is something we do regularly. We also have a board of directors that we present to monthly, any regulatory changes, the financial health of the organization, and how we are progressing in our strategic plan.
An open system could work in an organization that exchanges ideas fluidly between departments and those outside the organization. An example would be an IT organization primarily focused on open-source software. They are transparent in how their product and service work, and they express and communicate freely between other departments and organizations. They do not have specific boundaries established where the flow of information would stop and not be sent to someone else. The open system reminds me of my college basketball team’s philosophy and game plan. We had a very extensive playbook, and our offense was modeled so that everyone who had or did not have the ball responded to what the defense gave us. If a defender was over-playing the left, the offensive player went right. Meanwhile, other players watched what their defenders gave them, and their teammates were doing and communicating. It was a very fluid offense that succeeded through communication and played in a way where you let the game come to you and took what the defense gave you.
This week’s assignment focused on comparing and contrasting the rational, natural, and open systems of organizations. Through this post, I discuss the characteristics of each of the three systems, explain how each is interrelated, talk through the theoretical viewpoints, and give my perspectives and experiences on each. One perspective I find very interesting is the open system. It is the more dynamic of the three perspectives. For this system to work, all team members must be united on what their purpose is and be constantly communicating. One verse that speaks to this is “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought” (New International Version, 2011, 1 Corinthians 1:10). As Christians, we are all stronger if we keep our sights focused on the Lord. As a group, we can model the attributes of an open system, but we must all be on the same page and constantly be communicating for everything to work. I am interested and excited to read the perspectives of others in the class related to this subject. This should be an excellent conversation.
ANSWER
Organizational Systems- Post Replies
Reply 1
I agree with the post that different perspectives of organizational structure are based on individual experiences. Those who have worked in Fortune 500 or 100 companies may have a different perception of organizational systems than those who have worked in small cooperative environments. However, there is a similarity in social norms, culture, organizational hierarchy, and governing policies (Filatotchev, Ireland and Stahl, 2021). I also concur with the post that consumers tend to view organizations depending on their reputation and brand images and the marketing strategies used in building the loyalty of an organization. The post has clearly shown the differences and similarities of organization perspectives in terms of natural systems, rational systems, and open systems of organizational theory. The natural and rational systems perspectives form the foundation of an organization’s type, while the open system is an extension of both natural and rational systems (Surkova, Klonitskaya, and Ermolaeva, 2020). These organizational systems have been used to define how organizations operate. I agree that an open system is effective since it increases efficiency and facilitates open communication within an organization.
Reply 2
The post focused on comparing and contrasting the natural, rational, and open systems of organizations by defining each system’s characteristics and explaining how they were interrelated. I agree that the organization systems vary depending on the organization and best fit based on the organizational objectives (Scott and Davis, 2015). The rational systems have well-defined procedures and policies that inform the team members. Natural systems focus on interpersonal and informal structures rather than formal structures within an organization. Open systems have interdependent activities and flow linking shifting coalitions of participants embedded in a broader institutional environment and material resources (Chick, 2020). I agree with the post that an open system is a more powerful alternative due to its ability to adapt since leaders must adapt to change for organizational success.
References
Chick, V. (2020). On open systems. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 24, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572004-1638
Filatotchev, I., Ireland, R. D., & Stahl, G. K. (2021). Contextualizing management research: An open systems perspective. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12754
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663371
Surkova, E., Klonitskaya, A., & Ermolaeva, E. (2020). Modeling business processes of complex organizational systems. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 164, p. 10040). EDP Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016410040
