Introduction
In light of the distinctive systems of organizations and the nuances that characterize these different development models, businesses can be viewed in the context of multiple criteria that affect growth rates, communication approaches, and other factors. As a relevant topic for analysis, technology structures, and social boundaries are essential to view as the concept that largely determines the nature and successful market activities of organizations, as well as their ability to adapt to specific conditions. In addition, some structural principles typical of business systems have distinctive implications for different actors, which adds to the relevance of this discussion and explains the value of assessing potential issues and how to avoid them. Technology structure and social boundaries form the concept of organizational functioning and are important aspects to consider when planning activities in companies operating on the principles of rational, natural, and open systems.
Technology Structures
Any organization that uses technological innovations in its activities interacts with the external environment. According to Scott and Davis (2007), the materials used to produce needed goods and services are a combination of people’s skills, work methods, and equipment. The authors also apply rational system approaches to explain the relevant impacts on organizational performance; coordinating, restructuring, buffering, and some other interventions address the principles of applying technology in the process of achieving the set business objectives while combining the resources of the external and internal environment (Scott & Davis, 2007). As a result, technological structures are formed in the context of resource base management approaches and distribution mechanisms for the involved components.
From the perspective of organizational structures, companies conduct their business activities in accordance with formal and informal approaches. According to Mahmood and Mubarik (2020), in the modern business sphere, not only innovation but also intellectual capital plays a significant role as a criterion that determines the effectiveness of the application of available technologies and labor productivity. From the standpoint of sustainability, formal structures are in-demand since, having a clear workflow and management strategy, this is easier to control the accomplishment of the set objectives than follow the informal methods of organizing the work process, for instance, through assessing the personal qualities of employees and adapting operational steps to them. Scott and Davis (2007) point out such differences between formal structures as the size of the organization, the nature of the interaction between departments, the type of authority distribution, and some other criteria. The analysis of these nuances makes it possible to realize the business potential as efficiently and adequately as possible without resorting to third-party measures of assistance.
Social Boundaries
Organizational boundaries can be called relevant characteristics that narrow the range of operational and structural features of a particular firm in the context of specific factors. Scott and Davis (2007) conclude that this is critical to consider any boundaries from the perspective of the actors involved. The researchers have also noted differences between the realist and nominalist approaches regarding the definition of deterrents and strategic paths, but the actors involved are still important criteria for determining these differences (Scott & Davis, 2007). Ntale et al. (2020), for instance, draw attention to cultural factors as parameters that define specific boundaries and mention the distinctive approaches of organizations in developed and undeveloped countries regarding the establishment of work processes. This difference can be considered an example of what limits businesses adhere to in their activities.
The aforementioned technology structures are considered along with social boundaries because cultural factors largely influence the strategic mechanisms of organizational development. Scott and Davis (2007) cite Hofstede’s findings on cross-cultural differences and note that dominant principles of thought and behavior are important to consider when evaluating appropriate workflow practices in the entrepreneurial environment. Merida (2015), in turn, notes the similarities in the views of different actors: “We’re all susceptible to popular sins of the culture like greed, racism, and laziness” (p. 96). Sometimes, employees, both managers and subordinates cannot overcome such cultural obstacles, which hinders the normal workflow. As a result, given these nuances, one can define technology structures and social boundaries as a general concept in which both common and distinctive features of doing business by different firms are manifested on the basis of socio-cultural positions and approaches to the strategic control of material and intellectual capital.
Application of Technology Structures and Social Boundaries to Organizational Systems
Rational Systems
The nature of rational systems is based on strict adherence to the tasks set in the context of the declared strategic development plan. As a result, as Őnday (2018) argues, organizations operating within such models adhere to formal technology structures. Such businesses are limited by interaction with the external environment and do not involve following innovative approaches. In addition, from a social perspective, there are no contacts with other participants in the target market, which makes development algorithms closed from borrowing. While taking into account the concept of actors that Scott and Davis (2007) cite, the stakeholders engaged do not rely on an informal structure and all members of the same teamwork within a single system. Therefore, in terms of technology structures, open models are underdeveloped, while from the standpoint of social boundaries, many constraints exist.
Natural Systems
For natural systems, informal technology structures are used much more often, which, in fact, is one of the keys to the success of organizations working within such frameworks. According to Őnday (2018), these systems are more flexible in terms of attracting external resources, and the collectivist nature of their activities enhances the ability to adapt to specific market conditions. Organizations of this type are largely built on the formation of an appropriate behavioral structure, and from the standpoint of social boundaries, actors’ individual skills and attitudes are significantly more important than in rational systems. Following the ideas of Scott and Davis (2007), in natural models, boundaries may concern behavioral aspects, but in the context of social structure, such organizations are much more developed. Thus, the differences between natural and rational systems are obvious.
Open Systems
Adapting to more flexible and dynamic business principles in the context of market competition has led to the emergence of open systems characterized by a close relationship with the environment in which they operate. Őnday (2018) emphasizes the development of technological structures in these models and defines them as those that adapt to certain working conditions through an innovative approach to the formation of a resource base, which means actively attracting advanced equipment and tools for work. Social boundaries in these systems are the broadest of all three types, which is explained by the need for constant interaction with different actors, and both cultural and other aspects of the working conditions are flexible. The notion of social relations, which Scott and Davis (2007) mention, is applied to these models. As a result, when summing up the assessment of all three types of organizational systems, one can note that the formalization of activities from a technological perspective and flexibility in interaction with the external environment are the main determinants that distinguish them from each other.
Problematic Areas of Technology
Despite the flexibility of technology structures and the variable nature of the operating activities that they offer, some difficulties can arise in the process of their application. For instance, Abeele et al. (2018) draw attention to the fact that many technological solutions involve social structures that are integral components of such solutions. In other words, the modernization and optimization of individual processes are possible only if the relevant principles of the labor organization are followed. According to Abeele et al. (2018), this situation is explained by the adaptive structuration theory, which defines structures as templates that influence the behavior and significance of the participants involved. While applying this concept to the systems of organizations, one can note that in the open model, the scope of technology is much more flexible and variable than, for example, in the rational one, due to the lower chances of dynamic solutions in the latter system. As a result, the social nature can be a deterrent to the implementation of specific technological solutions.
On the way to attracting the technological base, individual companies and other stakeholders may face the problem of not being able to use the full potential of their respective innovative proposals. Mahmood and Mubarik (2020) explain this by such a barrier as weak technology absorptive capacity, which is the unpreparedness of the organization to implement the desired optimization tools and work algorithms for certain reasons. Weak staff training, insufficient capital to acquire all the required technology elements, inefficient analytical processes to adequately interpret data, and other barriers may be the causes of the inability to tailor technology solutions to individual operational activities. In addition, as Scott and Davis (2007) argue, the formality of organizational structures is a direct factor influencing adaptability to technology. If there is no opportunity for dynamic shifts in operating models and the use of different external resources, innovation will not bring the desired benefits. These factors are critical to take into account to identify potential issues and the difficult nature of introducing technologies into the operational process to simplify the work of the involved participants.
Issues with Organizational Boundaries
Organizational boundaries, related to both cultural aspects and other factors, can influence participants, regardless of the perspective from which these constraints are viewed, be it a realist or a nominalist approach. Milch and Laumann (2018) focus on safety challenges and note that the complexity of organizational processes is fraught with failure to build employee involvement. For instance, due to the large size of the company and the expanded staff, managers cannot effectively control the performance of subordinates. This, in turn, entails weak productivity and, consequently, a drop in profits. Unable to change the strategic model, for example, from rational to open, operational stagnation caused by the lack of changes in the personnel management policy entails disagreements in the team. As a result, even moving away from the cultural principles of communication, the lack of coordination of actions in human resource management is a safety challenge in the context of assessing organizational boundaries.
The distinctive experience of employees involved in the workflow and responsible for specific tasks to implement is also an issue. According to Milch and Laumann (2018), this problem is directly related to operational challenges since this is difficult to plan and anticipate specific results in the conditions of distinctive professional backgrounds and skills of the staff. The human factor, in this case, is an essential aspect to take into account. If managers are confident that employees have advanced knowledge-sharing skills, this is a significant driver of successful work within almost any structure. However, in practice, this perspective is challenging to realize due to various perceptions of work tasks and goals to achieve by different employees. Workers’ career ambitions, interpersonal conflicts, differences in anticipated and actual performance, and other issues entail associated problems that are difficult to address without effective root causes resolution. Thus, organizational boundaries can be associated with labor productivity and work efficiency.
Personal Perspectives
While taking into account the aforementioned factors related to technology structures and social boundaries, I can note that the process of building an effective and profitable operational strategy directly depends on a number of criteria, and not only the organizational system is important to consider but also other aspects. Behavioral indicators, which Scott and Davis (2007) mention, are meaningful incentives to evaluate to ensure that necessary work patterns and innovative solutions are implemented smoothly. At the same time, in my understanding, any deterrents are real obstacles only if the management does not make sufficient efforts to overcome them. Given the potential available, including both human resources and budgetary assets, companies can successfully address the challenges associated with technological optimization by timely analyzing the prospects for utilizing desired innovations. With regard to cultural aspects, the topic of interpersonal interaction is still relevant today, but many organizational theories and models make it possible to establish a sustainable workflow even in diverse teams. Therefore, I can say with confidence that limitations and restraints are possible in an environment where there are no proper mitigation and control frameworks.
To avoid the difficulties and disagreements associated with either innovative practices or social nuances, building an effective and engaged team seems to be an essential goal to accomplish. This is important to ensure that the staff is ready to make the necessary concessions, show commitment, and listen to company leaders. In this regard, the following biblical principle is relevant: “Let all that you do be done in love” (“1 Corinthians 16:14,” n.d.). Labor efficiency and motivation for employees are significant drivers of successful optimization solutions and desired transformations, regardless of the types of organizational systems.
Conclusion
Organizational functioning largely depends on how the concept of technology structure and social boundaries manifests itself. The analysis of the relevant principles and aspects of the workflow in the context of rational, natural, and open models reveals the relevant applications and limitations while taking into account the formality of operational activities, realist vs. nominalist approaches, and other criteria. Based on the assessment of potential difficulties, cultural, strategic, and other problems are considered. The role of timely management interventions and building a strong team is assessed as an important factor in overcoming the analyzed issues.
References
1 Corinthians 16:14. (n.d.). English Standard Version Bible. Web.
Abeele, M. V., De Wolf, R., & Ling, R. (2018). Mobile media and social space: How anytime, anyplace connectivity structures everyday life. Media and Communication, 6(2), 5-14. Web.
Mahmood, T., & Mubarik, M. S. (2020). Balancing innovation and exploitation in the fourth industrial revolution: Role of intellectual capital and technology absorptive capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120248. Web.
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.
Milch, V., & Laumann, K. (2018). Sustaining safety across organizational boundaries: A qualitative study exploring how interorganizational complexity is managed on a petroleum-producing installation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 20(2), 179-204. Web.
Ntale, P., Ssempebwa, J., Musisi, B., Ngoma, M., Genza, G. M., Kimoga, J., Mugimu, C. B., Ntayi, G. M., & Balunywa, W. (2020). Interagency collaboration for graduate employment opportunities in Uganda: Gaps in the structure of organizations. Education+ Training, 62(3), 271-291. Web.
Őnday, Ő. (2018). The relationship between concepts of rational, natural and open systems: Managing organizations today. Business and Management, 10(1), 232-245.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Pearson Education.