Running Head: Conceptual Synthesis

Conceptual Synthesis of Three Frameworks of Organizational Theory
Ahmet Kilic
Rutgers University Dr. Melinda Mangin June 1, 2014

An organization is a system where groups of people are channeled into achieving certain goals. Organizations are social units and exist in every aspect of the modern world for a variety of purposes. Each organization is unique and differs from one another in many ways; however, environment, strategy and goals, formal organization, informal organization, work technology, and people are essential ingredients of all organizations. These elements work with each other depending on the purpose of organization. Organizations have been under significant analysis for years (Morgan, 2006). It is important to look at them from various perspectives in order to gain more insight into their strengths and weaknesses. Scott and Davis (2007) recommend organizations to be analyzed from rational-technical, natural-social, and open system perspectives. Each perspective has its own advantages and the characteristics of one do not invalidate those of the others. The rational-technical system is a traditional approach in which organizations are mainly characterized by goal specificity and formalization. Organizations, when explored from this perspective, appear to be highly formalized systems designed to achieve specific goals. The advantage of viewing an organization through this lens is that it allows the organization to easily accomplish specific goals by following written rules and assigning specific roles to individuals within each department. However, rational-technical systems often times underestimate the ideas of people and their ongoing needs. Rational-technical system envisions organizations as machines, so more emphasis is placed on goal specificity. The organization structure is well-defined and affected by bureaucracy, authority, and standardization. The entire process in the organization is oriented to achieve specific goals. Scott and Davis (2007) argue that even technically impossible goals can be accomplished with this system as long as rational methods are followed. Having specific goals in place enables an organization to take a structured and sequential approach in decision-making process and helps the leaders to develop precise solutions to well-defined problems. Thus, it guides the organization in using resources and determining how to hire and assign individuals for specific roles. Goal specificity allows these decisions to be made based on scientifically obtained data and reduces the chance of error and subjectivity. In addition to goal specificity, formalization plays an important role in rational-technical model, as it allows decision makers to predict the behavior of the individuals by regulating it. Moreover, if formal processes are utilized in regulating the relationships among individuals, uncertainty or confusion would not emerge down the road while assigning different roles to individuals. For example, from the standpoint of the rational-technical perspective my school district appears to be an organization that has a strong emphasis on teacher accountability. The performance of each teacher is to be monitored by another professional to determine whether he or she fulfills his or her specified responsibility. Principles and supervisors have the authority to make decisions about teachers based on formal observations, student growth objectives, and state-wide exam results. If a teacher cannot meet the expectations as outlined in the job description, the district may fire him or her, and hire another one who is more qualified and capable for that particular job. Also, every department has its own short term and long term goals that are congruent with the mission statement of the district, so everybody knows what they are supposed to finish up at certain points during the course of the year without experiencing any uncertainty. Similarly, if there is an opening in the district, no confusion or competition is expected to occur in regard to what process to follow for hiring, because it is delineated on the staff handbook. The posting is simply put on the district’s website and qualified candidates are called for interview. The district also follows a rational-technical path on its daily operations. Elementary and secondary schools follow their respective bell schedules to coordinate instructional periods and lunch times for each grade level. The second system that Scott and Davis (2007) recommend in examining organizations is natural-social system. An organization in this system is viewed as “collectives whose participants are pursuing multiple interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize the value of perpetuating the organization as an important resource” (p. 30). While rational-technical system envisions organizations as machines, natural-social system envisions organizations as living entities. According to this system, since organizations consist of people, their ideas, values, and abilities cannot be excluded from the equation while setting up norms. Behaviors are not only controlled by formal and written rules that have already been defined by the organization, but also by the interests and expectations of people involved. Having formal goals in place is also a hallmark for an organization in this model. However, informal social structures are more important than written rules and regulations in determining the direction of organization; therefore, it is crucial for an organization to revise its goals based on the needs of people not just based on the interests of the system. Although expectations from each staff are documented, the actual work product is shaped through personal relationships. Formalization here is not as much needed as it was in rational-technical model, because it might limit the intelligence, self-esteem, and enthusiasm of those who are responsible for the maintenance and development of the organization. Overall, the beauty of this system is that besides the needs of the organization, the needs of individuals are taken into account while making decisions. The pitfall of this system is that it may create nepotism, competition, and conflict among people for new opportunities. If I look at my school district from natural-social perspective, I can simply give an example from the teacher evaluation system. One of the teachers received a lower score on his formal observation; however, his lack of ability in his job did not result into getting him fired, because the parent-teacher organization along with the teacher union were in favor of that teacher. Negotiations between the school administration and other parties continued for several weeks until the teacher was given another chance of observation to make up his lower score. In another incident, a senior secretary decided to retire in the middle of the year. Administrators strived to give this opportunity to someone that they know. Because it is a common practice in the district to consider internal recommendations, one of the relatives of an administrator has been hired for the position without giving any notice on the district website for people outside. The third approach that Scott and Davis (2007) recommend in examining organizations is open system. The open system approach began to emerge during 1960s, as the other two systems failed to help organizations succeed in environments that experienced rapid changes in technologies and cultural norms. According to this system, an organization should be able to self-maintain because it has to interact with its environment. External factors seem to be more important than internal factors, because the survival of an organization is dependent largely upon its ability to adapt to match with its surroundings. Whereas the previous systems are designed to keep an organization as a close entity, this system attempts to break down the barriers between the organization and its environment by allowing bargains and exchanges with stakeholders. In addition, open system approach offers loose and tight coupling mechanisms to organizations. This model assumes that organizations are comprised of subsystems that interact with one another. These subsystems can operate autonomously inside their boundaries without any outside interventions. An organization may choose to loosen one connection while tightening another one between its subsystems in order to respond the needs of its surroundings. But, if a subsystem fails to accomplish its goal, this is not to mean that the whole system will be thwarted. Open system is especially favorable in that it allows an organization to grow up over time while achieving its goals and responding the demands of its environment. Open system model also offers organizations to employ Contingency Theory, so that they could experience a smooth transition from one environment to another. This theory indicates that there is no single way to satisfy the needs of an organization. For example, if an organization is functioning in a stable, mechanistic environment, it can set up short term horizons and clear goals, establish formal structures, and negotiate with the stakeholders as needed. However, if an organization is going through a turbulent environment, it may prefer to set up long term horizons and ambiguous goals to keep the entire unit going. Open system perspective has significantly altered our perception of schools as organizations. Traditionally we used to consider our schools as organizations that were independent of their environments. This mindset unfortunately did not allow us to see the driving factors within the environment. My previous school district was a charter school. We used an open system lens to diagnose and fix our problems. Our students’ success on NJASK was critical for our survival. However, often times our students received lower scores on NJASK in the area of Language Arts compared to Math. The district hired an outside agency to provide us with academic consulting. Each year the E.L.A department tried different curricula as well as numerous computer-based instructional methods to figure out ways to close the achievement gap. The district sent E.L.A teachers to numerous workshops outside of the school, while the consulting agency delivered monthly presentations to parents about possible home-based reading interventions for their kids. In addition, teachers were paid to make home visits to foster the collaboration between the school and home. I remember that we voluntarily made more than 20 visits to my students’ houses in a year. Although this may be construed as unconventional, home visits allowed us to successfully reach out to parents and gain their trust and ongoing support. At the bottom line, our students’ success rate was increased by 35 % in the following year. The failure of E.L.A department and its make-up efforts did not interfere with what other departments were supposed to do to achieve their specific goals. The district successfully met state expectations by loosening some mechanisms and tightening the others during this time of turbulence. In conclusion, the rational-technical, natural-social, and open system approaches are three different ways to study organizations. Each one has its own advantages and potential pitfalls, so it is best to study an organization by taking all of them into account. The rational-technical approach highlights formal rules and specific goals whereas the natural-social system pays more attention to participants’ expectations, goals, and values so as to form the roles and structures. The open system views organizations as groups of people with various interests and needs that are influenced by the environment.

References
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Scott, R.W. and Davis, G.F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.