Technology and Organizational Boundaries
Introduction
Every organization must develop some technicalogical structure to inform its processes. A business can only be viable by accounting for its technologically-related operations, infrastructure, and functionalities. The technological structures of companies encompass data and knowledge collection, storage of information, and the use of the same as the company needs arise. Most organizations designate specific personnel or teams to lead and maintain an IT (information technology) department with the primary purpose of handling all technical aspects within the business. Organizational boundaries are the demarcations that businesses put up to separate them from the external environment. According to Crespo et al. (2017), these enable organizations to develop effective strategies to achieve a defensible competitive advantage. Boundaries should, however, be permeable to environmental exchange while also allowing protection of external factors intrusion into the business. Organizations should adopt efficient technological structures that advance the enforcement of any boundary preference, whether it be closed or open to the external environment in the rational, natural, or open systems of organization.
Application of technological structures and organizational boundaries to the three perspectives
The rational system
The rational perspective promotes a focus on formality and functionality within the business setting. It factors in particular consideration of everyone’s tasks and their contribution towards the achievement of set goals. Scott & Davis (2015) establish the organization’s view as a tool whose purpose is to attain specific objectives. One of the theories under this perspective is Max Weber’s bureaucratization. This instance involves the use and upholding of particular standards, including division of labor, hierarchies for decision-making, and adherence to specific written rules and laws. Such a system maintains and promotes active organizational structures to facilitate competency and specialization. Mori (2017) elaborates that one of the critical characteristics of Weber’s theory is technical competence that promotes specialization. These include the use of technology for various aspects of the organization, including marketing and promotion. The rational system emphasizes formalized structures where everyone has different expertise levels contributing to the organizational goals. The use of technology allows specialization in various complementary areas. These ensure diversity and a mixture of different components towards the development of the organization. The perspective adopts a closed system meaning that bounds most of its functionalities within the organization. The boundaries in the rational order emerge through such processes as recruitment, where the selection procedure is free from influence through the use of open contracts and technical qualifications. This instance also shields the organization from social and environmental factors when the new staff focus and attribute all their attention to fulfilling their job descriptions. Romans 4:4 (NIV) recognizes employees’ work and that their compensation should not come as a gift but as what the company owes them for the tasks. The social boundaries within the rational system uphold the business’s separation from the external environment through the focus on individual duties as the driver for the organization’s successes.
The natural system
Natural theorists emerged in response to the rational perspective in a bid to introduce a more human factor while embracing other social structures. It insisted on removing formalities giving the employees more room for expression while also carrying out their duties. One leading theory under the natural system is the human relations school of thought. This approach emerged from the Hawthorne experiments under Mayo to prove the need for human factors in the workplace. The theory propounds that the rational perspective, through such schools as the scientific management system, viewed workers as machines that only got motivation from financial incentives. The perspective considers technology along the borders of such aspects as social, cultural, and political factors shaping technology. The natural system recognizes technology as a product of human invention to foster the needs of the workforce. Scott & Davies (2015) outline several studies over the centuries to understand the place of technology and its influence on the broader social context. The natural perspective is also closed like the rational, although it gives employees more leeway. As a result, the boundaries within the natural system close off from the external environment while opening the shields within the organization. According to Seebrooke & Sending (2015), the natural system upholds excellent relationships among the workers by recognizing the significance of dysfunction. It gets rid of internal boundaries by allowing employees more freedom, such as interactions within the organization while also taking care of their personal needs. In Colossians 1: 16-17, the Bible states that for it is by God’s grace that he created everything on earth and in heaven to promote his glory. The natural perspective, therefore, recognizes the crucial significance of allowing the incorporation of technical structures and also opening up organizational boundaries within the business setting.
The open system
The open approach differs from closed (rational and natural) in almost all instances. It allows for the interaction of the business with the external environment by recognizing that no organization can survive in a bubble. In 1 Corinthians 1:10, Paul appeals to the Christians to agree and interact with one another in peace and harmony in the advancements of Jesus’s teachings. The system allows companies to have a network and free inputs and outputs within the business. It becomes more aware of its external environment, including such aspects as competition, supply, and socio-political surrounding. Such organizations are open and allow the free flow of new ideas, including technological developments. Lawrence & Lorsch (2015) outline the contingency theory developed by suggesting the need to view all organizations as open. Open organizations are at the forefront when it comes to adopting technological changes that aim at improving aspects of production, workflow, reaching customers, meeting demands, and ensuring customer satisfaction. According to Gustafsson & Lidskog (2018), organizational boundaries are crucial for mutual understandings and promoting interactions by offering interpretative flexibility. In an open perspective, there are fewer boundaries between the organization and the external environment. Scott & Davies (2015) state that the boundary that exists in such an approach should act as sieves allowing the flow in of desirable aspects while letting unwanted ones. Such an open system can prove problematic in changing such technical boundaries, particularly when determining what to accept and the times and locations. Open organizations are also porous and can allow such environmental factors as stockholders and clients to penetrate them. The definition of such specific boundaries for open organizations can become problematic in some instances as they are already allowing most of the environmental factors through its borders. As a result, while open organizations can facilitate the quick adoption of technological structures to improve performance, it becomes a challenge delineating boundaries because of their permeability.
Areas of technology that are an issue for participants
The technological aspects that organizations adopt primarily emanates from the environment around them, thus influencing such factors as the inputs and outputs that come from such businesses. It also comprises one leading factor that affects the organizational structure (García, García & Martín, 2018). The introduction of technological knowhow in companies has facilitated the rate of processes, improving quality by enabling faster and more secure storage of data. However, one of the problems that arise for participants is that while such new opportunities arise, it creates new positions while taking away others. Technology takes up all the work, therefore reducing the number of human actors involved in any task. Many businesses have adopted ICT (Information and communication technology) sectors that have fastened and improved the formation and transmission of information over distant areas. However, the same does not account for human or improve the participant’s interpretation or shared meaning in the data. The design of such technical systems is another point that constitutes an issue for the participants. Scott & Davies (2015) explain that the complexity of the systems meant to conduct various business can influence the complexity and uncertainty of work. Several scholars have also ventured into the analysis of how structure and design affect technology within the workplace. One study that Barley did reveal that participants felt constrained by the technological parameters around them. These resulted from such cases as decentralization and the diversity of interests informing their environment. Technology can also become an issue to the participants when they fail to embrace or face difficulties in understanding its conceptual framework. Joshua 1:9 reminds Christians to turn to the Lord in whatever situation and remember God’s promise of being with his people all the time. Technology can, therefore, facilitate and offer an excellent turning point for participants in their jobs but also become an obstacle in their achievements.
The issues with organizational boundaries for participants
Rational and natural perspectives of organizations are both closed systems meaning that they are stricter on their boundaries between the internal and external environment. The open system, on the other hand, permits the free flow of inputs into the organization and output to leave. Both methods can affect participants in various ways. In the rational approach, Weber put forward the view that such boundaries come to play in the recruitment process and subsequent expectations that such businesses may have for the people that they hire. The approach suggests that such workers’ sole purpose is to the organization. However, this presents an issue for the participants as it does not account for their personal needs, including familial ties and commitments. Other scholars such as Knopoff and Martin outline that Weber’s supposition was gender-neutral and failed to account for such people as women with family responsibilities (Yusof et al. 2019). The conflict theory also brings out another issue that participants might have with the organizational boundaries. These emerge within the natural systems perspective when participants enter organizations with conflicting interests and preferences. Some of the employees within an organization may prefer the realization of short-term goals to further their agenda, while others may look at all undertakings as aimed towards specific long-term objectives. In the closed system, particularly the rational approach, boundaries may limit the employees’power such that they cannot go beyond a given point. The same could also arise from the natural when the boundaries allow the penetration of qualities that the organization may deem undesirable. Boundaries become a challenge because of their cyclic tendencies, in some instances, making the members aspire for more control (Brix, 2019). In this case of uncertainty, the Bible encourages focus and hope in Zephaniah 3:17 when it reminds Christians that the Lord will always be amidst them, and his love will prevail beyond any challenges.
Personal perspective
The twenty-first century has seen organizations’ advancement and the change from a rational to the inclusion of a natural, and finally, the emergence of an open system. All these arose due to the inefficiencies in various instances from each of the existing approaches. Organizations must incorporate technological factors into their processes to have a competitive edge. Production industries must adopt technologies to implement faster and more efficient production rates as the scientific management theory intended. However, the inclusion of such technological knowledge may have their advantages while also affecting the workers in some ways. Boundaries within organizations may also arise from the facet of the actors, that is, the people involved in various processes, their relations, or even activities. Organizations, such as open systems, must be able to point out what is wanted and what is not precisely. In Merida (2015), some of the leaders in the book of Kings maintained a lukewarm position by claiming to know God and his desires while also allowing for idol worship. Others, such as King Solomon, ventured into undesirable marriages, including bringing in foreign women contrary to the teachings of God in Deuteronomy 17:17. Boundaries ensure that organizations control inputs and outputs. It recognizes that businesses cannot shut off the external environment completely. In the case of closed organizations, fewer boundaries in the natural system ensure the free flow of information and knowledge within the various departments. As a result, while barriers offer protection against harmful external influences, there should still be a leeway for the passage of some desirable qualities.
Conclusion
Scott & Davies (2015) shed light on the significance of technical structures and boundary aspects within an organization. These enforce the image of an organization while also allowing the interaction with factors beyond the internal environment. Technology facilitates organizational processes as it influences aspects of the situation, tasks, and the technical systems in place. It affects both the physical and knowledge-based information allowing diversity and complexity within the workplace. Organizational boundaries also facilitate the achievement of goals, especially with the emergence of the phenomenon, of working across such borders. These ensure that organizations do not stay confined in one specific environment when they can move boundaries or even cross them. The realist approach gives such boundary meaning based on how its members define and see them. As a result, while both the technical and social boundary terminologies expound on various aspects for a business, they are crucial for its survival and the achievement of intended purposes.
References
Brix, J. (2019). Ambidexterity and organizational learning: revisiting and reconnecting the literature. The Learning Organization.
Crespo Garrido, M. J., Grimaldi, M., Maione, G., & Vesci, M. (2017). Inside Out: Organizations as service systems equipped with relational boundaries. Systems, 5(2), 36.
García-Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V. J., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2018). Influence of technological assets on organizational performance through absorptive capacity, organizational innovation, and internal labor flexibility. Sustainability, 10(3), 770.
Gustafsson, K. M., & Lidskog, R. (2018). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management, 19, 1-11.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (2015). Contingency Theory of Organizations—Differentiation and Integration. In Organizational Behavior 2 (pp. 244-270). Routledge.
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. B&H Publishing Group.
Mori, G. T. (2017). Examining the Hindrance of Bureaucracy on Management Innovation for Organizations. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), 601-607.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
Seabrooke, L., & Sending, O. J. (2015). Open systems of the international organizations. GR: EEN Working Paper No, 51.
Yusof, M. M., Ho, J. A., Imm, S. N. S., & Zawawi, D. (2019). Weeding out Deviant Workplace Behaviour in Downsized Organizations: The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Job Embeddedness. Asian Journal of Business Research, 9(3), 115.