Discussion on Technology Structures and Social Boundaries
Using the below information: write at least 1975 words not including the 8 peer reviewed articles from (2017-2021) please use APA 7 and include the DOI in reference area, and The paper must also include 1 biblical principal and have a reference for that as well:
the concept of technology structures and social boundaries for organizations. Provide an overview of the technical and social terminology for organizations today. Within your discussion be sure to address the following areas:
How do each of these apply to the three perspectives (natural, rational, and open)?
What areas of technology are an issue for participants?
What are the issues with organizational boundaries for participants?
How this can affect the United States military as well.
Include any theoretical viewpoints for each of these areas.
ANSWER
Technology Structures and Social Boundaries
Overview of the Technical and Social Terminology for Organizations Today
Over the years, organizations have played a significant role in social life due to increased interactions. Organizations are controlled using structures that are outlined and lay down certain activities and processes within an organization to enable the organization to achieve and attain its set goals (Scott and Davis, 2015). Organization structures can also be considered workflows and processes that allow groups to operate together within their functions. Social boundaries and technology systems have greatly influenced the operations and facilities of an organization. The social boundaries and technical structures present the uniqueness of an organization. The technical terminology pays attention to how inputs are combined to generate outputs. The social terminology emphasizes the existence of social relations and boundaries among the organizational members. The performance and design of an organization are dependent on the social boundaries and technical structures within an organization.
Organizations apply different technology structures and social boundaries that influence their working structure. These structures are technical since they enable the organization to connect and accomplish its activities. On the other hand, social relations play an essential role in building the structure of an organization. The social boundaries are considered more strategic perspectives that address competence and power relations (Ellis and Hopkinson, 2020). Therefore, the socio-technical systems are effective in organizational development since they focus on the interrelatedness of technical and social aspects of an organization.
Many large organizations have relied on technology to boost their operations and goal achievement. The technology structures focus on grouping a company’s operations and functions to form an organizational structure (Cascio and Montealegre, 2016). Information technology has been one of the most influential aspects central to how a company operates. Information technology has transformed how businesses handle their operations, process and store information, and day-to-day operations. The nature of technology dramatically affects the structure of an organization, the way employees engage, and internal communication. On the other hand, the social boundaries focus on the hardware of human association. These durable influences govern individuals’ ways of relating to achieving the common goals in a coordinated means. Ideally, organizations tend to develop socially built boundaries to create distinctions that foster specific behaviour patterns among a group or set of individuals. Creating social limits play an essential role in the operation of an organization since social relations help individuals focus and deepen their activities and knowledge (Ellis and Hopkinson, 2020). Social boundaries permit the persistence of organizations over time since they describe the relations among differentiated hierarchies within an organization.
Technology Structure-Natural, Rational and Open system
The organizational theories understand technology as knowledge, people and technical systems used in conducting operations (Bonomi, 2021). The dimensions of diversity, complexity, uncertainty, interdependence and unpredictability of technology structure to the natural, rational and open system vary. The technology structure of an organization should fit the operating contingency, such as the scale of operation. Contingency theory states that the most suitable design of an organization fits the operational contingency, environment or technology (Csaszar and Ostler, 2020). This strand of theory and research underpins our understanding of the connections between the nature of tasks and technological settings, performance and structure. The differences in technical structure vary in terms of complexity and change, thus affecting the organizational structures. Organizations are organized into rational, natural and open systems depending on how they implement the technology structures and adapt to rapid technological change and innovation conditions. The rational, open, and natural systems show the organizational differentiation and varying integration and how they adapt to different technical needs.
The rational system emphasizes an organization as a group of individuals bound together and predetermined to achieve specific goals (Scott and Davis, 2015). The rational system relies on formal structures designed to deal with complexity, reduce uncertainty and coordinate tasks. Ideally, rational systems require goal formalization and specificity to align with technical elements to gain output with fewer resources. For this case, the organization tries to separate the external disturbances from the technical core.
Ideally, an organizational structure is dictated by complexity, uncertainty, interdependence and other significant aspects that affect departmentalization, schedules and policies. For instance, rational systems have primary organizational forms such as bureaucracy, simple structure and functional structure. The bureaucratic structure entails formalized set of roles and expectations that specify what each member is expected to do (Scott and Davis, 2015). The simple structure is designed with low departmentalization and low work specialization. The functional structure allows organizations to be organized into departments based on expertise.
The rational system shows that the greater the technical complexity, the more the structural complexity. The rational system is more inhibited in its innovative capabilities thus fails to cope with change and novelty. Considerably, technology is more uncertain and complex, and tasks activities are more unpredictable and heterogeneous. Rational organizations can only adopt innovation and technology structures after moving away from bureaucracy to organic forms of organizing, thus being more flexible and adaptive.
In the natural systems, the organizations are guided by informal structure, functional analysis and goal complexity. Organizations focus on various common or disparate interests to the organization (Scott and Davis, 2015). Their behaviours and interests guide those that utilize this system. The natural system relies on power differences, employees’ technical specialization and goal complexity. These aspects impact the productivity levels of the employees within an organization.
Another way the natural system impacts the technical aspects of an organization is through the informal structure. At this point, the organization regards the technical structure as a medium that enables the employees in attaining their objectives and goals. The technical structure of the organization should complement the employees to improve their performance. In the natural system, as compared to the rational system, employees can deal with uncertainties that may impact operations. The technology structure of the natural systems adjusts depending on the problem-solving team. Therefore, it can change and radical innovation in a volatile setting.
The open system takes the organization and its external setting as symbiotic influence and leads to continuous adaptation and change (Scott and Davis, 2015). The environment influences the organization through offering materials, inputs, information, and people, while the organization impacts the environment through its outputs. The open system has a low technical complexity since each member belongs to an effective workgroup that contributes to the organizational goals. An open system allows organizations to efficiently cope with revolutionary and revolutionary technological changes. The open system is classified with a high capacity for adaptation and innovation.
Social Boundaries
Organizational boundaries were distinct lines that separate an organization from its external environment (Langley et al., 2019). However, the understanding of administrative boundaries has changed significantly, including those within organizations. For instance, those within an organization can develop less defined boundaries or subunits. Therefore, boundaries are an essential part and core function of an organization. Social boundaries are used to limit the impact of the organization’s external environment. This means that employees have to follow and adhere to the regulations and rules accompanying the organizational structure (Schotter et al., 2017). The aspects of rational and natural systems are present when viewing organizational boundaries compared to the open system.
Rational systems have strong social boundaries since they attempt to reduce the impacts of the external environment. They develop and maintain their boundaries and manage their interactions. Rational organizations have to be logical and ensure that the external environment does not impact the organization’s operations. One of the significant challenges with the rational system is that it becomes a problem during the recruitment process since the external identities tend to influence the organization. The rational perspective emphasizes employees solely focusing on organizational goals (Scott and Davis, 2015). From such a mechanical point of view, this perspective creates a hierarchy that maximizes profit but fails to ignore the social and human systems.
The natural system focuses on dynamic inclusion, making it difficult to ignore the external impacts. The natural perspective acknowledges external social identities, which enable organizations to bring ideas and better perspectives. Therefore, organizations with natural systems have to focus on external threats to the organization’s equilibrium, including activities and events that can potentially impact the organizational balance. In such cases, there are more deviations from the organizational goals and plans, which are seen as a result of restrictions brought about by the social structure of an organization. This is because the natural systems focus on balancing the organization’s needs and external stakeholders.
Flexibility, speed, integration and innovation are becoming the major drivers of organizational success. Institutionalization of these new factors requires changes in the technology structure and reduced boundaries between the functional areas, hierarchy, departments, and between customers and suppliers (Horton, 2020). In an open system, it’s difficult to view boundaries between the environment and the organization. This is because the environment and organization are dependent on each other, and the boundaries are blurred. The environment offers the inputs such as information, materials and energy while the organization provides output.
Areas of Technology that are an Issue for Participants
Technology is linked to change that may cause issues with the participants due to its effect on technical uncertainty. For instance, the level of complexity presents challenges to participants. People find it easier to operate essential technologies that do not need advanced expertise. Therefore, in the case of high technical complexity, participants may find it challenging to effectively use and implement technology. Complex technology also demoralizes the workforce who lack high technical expertise. Technology also leads to the alienation of employees, which leads to less productivity.
Alienation may be categorized into four distinct forms, alienation of the worker from the act of production, from their product, human nature and self. The idea of alienation stems from Karl Marx, who attempts to prove the harmful effects of an organization on its people (Øversveen, 2021). For instance, high technical complexity may lead to workers feeling alienated from themselves and others at work due to low technological skills. Karl Marx illustrates the interaction between nature and human beings. Technology leads to alienation due to isolation, powerlessness, meaninglessness, self-estrangement and normlessness. People become alienated from production and products since they invariably have no control over what needs to be made.
The Issues with Organizational Boundaries for Participants
The main issues with organizational boundaries are insecurity and inequality within the organization. Inequality is experienced in the criteria of paying, promoting and hiring workers. Despite the improvements in human relations, there are still disparities between racial ethnicities and gender. Organization expulsion has been coined as a term of purposeful inequality created by the management by excluding various employees from the organization. Organizations tend to produce inequality when they actively lower access to economic and social opportunities through their organizational boundaries. Insecurity has been another major issue within organizations due to outsourcing, vertical integration, downsizing, and networked companies. Considerably, when an organization fails to offer job security, employees have a low organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
Effect of Technology Structure and Social Boundaries on the United States Military
The advancement of technology structures has contributed to an increased array of strategic capabilities in the military. Ideally, new information technologies can offer high-resolution data about the tactical, environmental and terrain conditions that can be communicated to the troops simultaneously. The influences of technological advances on warfare conduct can be linked to several dominant trends that may lead to technical complexity. Social boundaries increasingly affect the operation of the military. The social boundaries tend to influence the military organization and civil society. The core issues of the civic-military relationships include exchanging information, access to victims, support and assistance. Hebrews 10:24-25 says that there is a need to consider one another to stir up good works and love. Stirring up one another means not giving up meeting together but considering encouraging one another. Therefore, organizations should focus on technology structures and social boundaries that motivate the employees and bring them together to achieve the organizational goals.
References
Bonomi, A. (2021). Organization–Modern Innovative Organizational Structures. Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 1: Main Themes, 251-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119832492.ch30
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 349-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352
Csaszar, F. A., & Ostler, J. (2020). A contingency theory of representational complexity in organizations. Organization Science, 31(5), 1198-1219. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1346
Ellis, N., & Hopkinson, G. (2020). Positioning the Self and Others Across Organizational and Network Boundaries. The Oxford Handbook of Identities in Organizations, 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726721993910
Horton, K. E. (2020). Collaborating across workplace boundaries: Recommendations based on identity research. In International security management (pp. 401–413). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42523-4_27
Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B. E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E., & Walter, L. (2019). Boundary work among groups, occupations, and organizations: From cartography to process. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 704-736. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0089
Øversveen, E. (2021). Capitalism and alienation: Towards a Marxist theory of alienation for the 21st century. European Journal of Social Theory, 13684310211021579. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F13684310211021579
Schotter, A. J., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A. (2017). Boundary spanning in global organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12256
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663371
