Compare and contrast the rational, natural, and open systems of organizations

Using the below information: write 1650 words not including the 8 peer reviewed articles from (2017-2021) please use APA 7 and include the DOI in reference area:
Compare and contrast the rational, natural, and open systems of organizations. The following should be addressed at a minimum:

Defining characteristics
Relationship between the three
Theoretical viewpoints
Personal perspectives

The paper must also include 1 biblical principal and have a reference as well

ANSWER

Compare and Contrast Rational, Natural and Open Systems of Organizations

The three theoretical perspectives of organizations are rational natural and open systems. One must understand each of these perspectives as they are key in organizations. The three are also an important part of the science of organizations. In layman’s tears, organizations can be described as entities with a collective of participants. However, the purpose of an organization and the relationship between the motivations of the participants in the organization to achieve goals brings in different perspectives. In the rational perspective, emphasis is placed on the organizational structure (Lindebaum et al., 2020). The belief of the organization and the participants is they have joined the organization because they are committed to helping them reach their goals. The naturalist perspective is critical of the rationalist perspective as it believes that the rationalist omits two essential components of the organization: human behaviour and motivation. The open system believes that the rational and the natural perspectives do not consider the environmental influences around the organization. These three different perspectives are relevant and seek to expound on the nature of organizations.

The Rational system

The rational system views organizations as collectives. This means in this system, the sole interest of all participants in the organization is to reach common goals. The rational system of organization is organized in a way that one would say is formal or rather rational. The limited view of rationality in the organization does not consider the ethical or moral position of the organization. The rational system focuses on the structure of the organization and its purpose. The rational system draws its participants through its purpose and the well-defined structure. In the rational system, the decisions made by the individuals are determined by their formal hierarchy. For example, in a car dealership shop, if the manager asks the salespeople to sell the less popular car, they will concentrate on selling the less popular model despite paying the same commission (Lindebaum et al., 2020). In reality, people work harder to make more and not to make the same amount.

Rational systems can be the strongest as long as the operating characteristics, and the components surrounding the system of the organization are controllable. One of the essential parts of the rational system model is goal specificity. In the rational system, the participants aim for the same goals to benefit the organization. This means that the goals need to be specific for the organization to be designed. The specificity of goals helps to clearly define their purpose and how they will achieve the purpose. Goals can, however, have a different function in a rational system depending on the hierarchy. For example, the top manager can stress motivational goals to help build commitment, but the middle manager could transform these goals to be more specific. In this system of organization, management is an important factor as it helps shape the direction of the organization.

The Natural System

As earlier stated, the natural system critics the rational system for not considering important factors such as motivation. The rational system is based on the formality and shared goals of the participants. The natural system has issues with the rational system because it does consider the social interests of the participants in the organization. The rational system is more goal-oriented and barely pays attention to the people in the organization or their needs. The first problem that the natural system has with the rational system is the assumption that all the participants join the organization to achieve common goals (Thompson et al., 2017). According to the naturalists, this is a problem because there are differences in goals when it comes to individuals (Argyris, 2017). The natural system perspective insists that informal ad interpersonal structures are more essential in any organization than formal structures. This is because people in organizations have different ideas, some that tend to conflict. These ideas and conflict are the drivers of any organization. The natural system of organization is one of the most common as it is applied in many areas. The natural system is applied in schools. In a university, there are formal curriculums that need to be followed, but the instructors’ ideas and their perspectives play a role in forming the curriculum. The instructors are also not controlled or guided on their own they should teach them to apply their own teaching methods.

The natural system model in any organization can be initiated through teams. This model believes in interpersonal relationships, and this involves people interacting, sharing their ideas and putting them together. Any organization that embraces the natural system is thus required to have teams working towards the organization’s goals through the different interpretations of those goals. From my point of view, the natural system is more effective than the rational system. Human interaction and sharing of ideas can help organizations move forward and further compared to the formality that is involved in the rational system (Lant, 2017). The formality in the rational system also prevents the participants from expressing their ideas compared to the interpersonal relationships cultivated in the natural system.

The Open System

The open system theoretical perspective argues that organizations are intertwined with the environment and that one cannot look at an organization individually. The organization’s environment affects what happens inside the organization, and this is realized in the open systems perspective (Chick, 2020). The open system perspective further states there are no distinct boundaries between the organization and environment. The environment consists of other organizations, the people in the communities, customers and suppliers. The open organization system can be utilized by all modern organizations. The open system perspective involves considering the environment of the organization before formulating the goals and purpose (Schneider et al., 2017). An organization is directly affected by its surrounding environment. Organizations are, therefore, supposed to find ways in which they best fit within the changing environments.

An example of an open systems perspective is the changing markets due to technology. Organizations should be ready to change with the changing times. Due to the changing environment, marketing strategies have changed over time, and organizations have had to change their marketing strategies. Organizations now have to hire a social media manager to ensure that they are up to date with the changing patterns and consumer patterns to keep up (Weber & Waeger, 2017). Organizations that do not embrace the open system perspective and change with the environment are more likely to fail because the organization and environment are intertwined. Organizations today are supposed to embrace environmentally friendly products because they are intertwined with the needs of the environment, and failure to adapt accordingly is likely to lead to their failure. According to the Bible in Ezekiel 34:18, people should take care of the environment given to them by God. “Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture, and to drink of clear water, that you must muddy the water with your feet?”

Relationship between the Three Systems

The rational systems perspective is concerned with goals and the formality of the organization. The rational system thus views organizations as a collective with participants who are aiming at the same goals. The natural systems theory refutes this theory and insists on the importance of interpersonal relationships and motivations. The perspective focuses more on the interests of the people involved in the organization, what they have to gain from it, and what they have to give. It critics the rational theory for overlooking this side of the organization. The open systems perspective is more interested in the factor that the first two perspectives have overlooked the relationship between the environment and the environment. It focuses on the importance of the environment to any organization and how organizations have to change with their environments (Jung & Vakharia, 2019). These three perspectives are all important as they all discuss different parts of organizations that are essential. The three are most productive if they are applied together. This means that organizations can focus on a similar goal while still paying attention to the needs of the participants. The same organizations should also be aware of their impact on the environment and the impact of the environment on them.

Personal Perspective

The three systems of organizations are interesting to study, especially when one has had any experience with at least one of the three perspectives. However, I believe that these three perspectives have a way of complimenting each other and working best together. The Bible in Ecclesiastes 4:9 says that when individuals work together, they can double their strength and get much more done as a team. Therefore, these three theories are better working in unison than working alone. The rational theory on its own does not form an efficient organization as there are no relationships and motivations in the company. The natural theory on kits own is inefficient as it lacks informality and in the realization of the impact of the environment on the organization. The open system perspective is also not efficient alone as it lacks the first two characteristics. Therefore, the three systems are more efficient if managers and leaders can use them simultaneously, applying each in its appropriate position.

In conclusion, the three systems of organizations vary in perspective. Each is efficient in its own way, depending on the purpose and goals of the organization. They are, however, best suited and work best together. A college, for example, will only work best if there is a formal curriculum, the instructors are allowed to use the modes of instruction that favour them while also making suggestions on the changes that need to be made. The college also needs to understand that it impacts the surrounding environment, and therefore changes should be made depending on the environment. This, therefore, means despite the three systems being different, they can work well together.

References

Argyris, C. (2017). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788417

Chick, V. (2020). On open systems. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 24, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572004-1638

Jung, Y., & Vakharia, N. (2019). Open systems theory for arts and cultural organizations: Linking structure and performance. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 49(4), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2019.1617813

Lindebaum, D., Vesa, M., & Den Hond, F. (2020). Insights from “the machine stops” to better understand rational assumptions in algorithmic decision making and its implications for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0181

Schneider, A., Wickert, C., & Marti, E. (2017). Reducing complexity by creating complexity: A systems theory perspective on how organizations respond to their environments. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 182-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12206

Thompson, J. D., Zald, M. N., & Scott, W. R. (2017). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315125930

Weber, K., & Waeger, D. (2017). Organizations as polities: An open systems perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 886-918. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0152

Lant, T. K. (2017). Organizational cognition and interpretation. The Blackwell companion to organizations, 344-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164061.ch15

Bible, K. J. (1996). King James Bible. Proquest LLC.