|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesson#16
|
Organization as Open Systems
|
|
|
|
Organization as Open Systems
Systems can vary in how open they are to their outside
environments. Open systems, such as organizations
and people, exchange information and resources with their
environments. They cannot completely control
their own behavior and are influenced in part by external
forces. Organizations, for example, are affected
by such environmental conditions as the availability of raw
material, customer demands, and government
regulations. Understanding how these external forces affect the
organization can help explain some of its
internal behavior.
Open systems display a hierarchical ordering. Each higher level
of system comprises lower-level systems:
systems at the level of society comprise organizations;
organizations comprise groups (departments); and
groups comprise individuals. Although systems at different
levels vary in many ways—in size and
complexity, for example—they have a number of common
characteristics by virtue of being open systems,
and those properties can be applied to systems at any level. The
following key properties of open systems
are described below: inputs, transformations, and outputs;
boundaries; feedback; equifinality; and
alignment.
Inputs, Transformations, and Outputs:
Any organizational system is composed of three related parts:
inputs, transformations, and outputs, as
shown in Figure 21. Inputs consist of human or other resources,
such as information, energy, and materials,
coming into the system. Inputs are acquired from the system’s
external environment. For example, a
manufacturer in organization acquires raw materials from an
outside supplier. Similarly, a hospital nursing
unit acquires information concerning a patient’s condition from
the attending physician. In each case, the
system (organization or nursing unit) obtains resources (raw
materials or information) from its external
environment.
Transformations are the processes of converting inputs into
outputs. In organizations, a production or
operations function composed of both social and technological
components generally carries out
transformations. The social component consists of people and
their work relationships, whereas the
technological component involves tools, techniques, and methods
of production or service delivery.
Organizations have developed elaborate mechanisms for
transforming incoming resources into goods and
services. Banks, for example, transform deposits into mortgage
loans and interest income. Schools attempt
to transform students into more educated people. Transformation
processes also can take place at the
group and individual levels. For example, research and
development departments can transform the latest
scientific advances into new product ideas.
Outputs are the results of what is transformed by the system and
sent to the environment. Thus, inputs
that have been transformed represent outputs ready to leave the
system. Group health insurance companies
receive premiums, healthy and unhealthy individuals, and medical
bills, transform them through physician
visits and record keeping, and export treated patients and
payments to hospitals and physicians.
Fig 21: The Organization as an Open System
Boundaries:
The idea of boundaries helps to distinguish between systems and
environments. Closed systems have
relatively rigid and impenetrable boundaries, whereas open
systems have far more permeable borders.
Boundaries—the borders, or limits, of the system—are easily seen
in many biological and mechanical
systems. Defining the boundaries of social systems is more
difficult because there is a continuous inflow
and outflow through them. For example, where are the
organizational boundaries in this case? When a fire
alarm sounds in Malmo, Sweden, a firefighter puts the address of
the fire into a computer terminal. A
moment later, the terminal gives out a description of potential
hazards at the address. The computer storing
the information is in Cleveland, Ohio. The emergence of the
information superhighway and worldwide
information networks will continue to challenge the notion of
boundaries in open systems.
The definition of a boundary is somewhat arbitrary because a
social system has multiple subsystems and the
boundary line for one subsystem may not be the same as that for
a different subsystem. As with the system
itself, arbitrary boundaries may have to be assigned to any
social organization, depending on the variable to
be stressed. The boundaries used for studying or analyzing
leadership, for instance, may be quite different
from those used to study intergroup dynamics.
Just as systems can be considered relatively open or closed, the
permeability of boundaries also varies from
fixed to diffuse. The boundaries of a community’s police force
are probably far more rigid and sharply
defined than those of the community’s political parties.
Conflict over boundaries is always a potential
problem within an organization, just as it is in the world
outside the organization.
Feedback:
As shown in Figure 21, feedback is information regarding the
actual performance or the results of the
system. Not all such information is feedback, however. Only
information used to control the future
functioning of the system is considered feedback. Feedback can
be used to maintain the system in a steady
state (for example, keeping an assembly line running at a
certain speed) or to help the organization adapt to
changing circumstances. McDonald’s, for example, has strict
feedback processes to ensure that a meal in
one outlet is as similar as possible to a meal in any other
outlet. On the other hand, a salesperson in the
field may report that sales are not going well and may insist on
some organizational change to improve
sales. A market research study may lead the marketing department
to recommend a change to the
organization’s advertising campaign.
Equifinality
:
In closed systems, a direct cause-and-effect relationship exists
between the initial condition and the final
state of the system: when a computer’s “on” switch is pushed,
the system powers up. Biological and social
systems, however, operate quite differently. The idea of
equifinality suggests that similar results may be
achieved with different initial conditions and in many different
ways. This concept suggests that a manager
can use varying degrees of inputs into the organization and can
transform them in a variety of ways to
obtain satisfactory outputs. Thus, the function of management is
not to seek a single rigid solution but
rather to develop a variety of satisfactory options. Systems and
contingency theories suggest that there is no
universal best way to design an organization. Organizations and
departments providing routine services,
such as AT&T’s and MCIWorldCom’s long distance phone services
could be designed quite differently and
still achieve the same result. Similarly, customer service
functions at major retailers, software manufacturers,
or airlines could be designed according to similar principles.
Alignment:
A system’s overall effectiveness is determined by the extent to
which the different parts are aligned with
each other. This alignment or fit concerns the relationships
between inputs and transformations, between
transformations and outputs, and among the subsystems of the
transformation process. Diagnosticians
who view the relationships among the various parts of a system
as a whole are taking what is referred to as
a systemic perspective.
Alignment refers to a characteristic of the relationship between
two or more parts. It represents the extent
to which the features, operations, and characteristics of one
system support the effectiveness of another
system. Just as the teeth in two ‘wheels of a watch must mesh
perfectly for the watch to keep time, so do
the parts of an organization need to mesh for it to be
effective. For example, General Electric attempts to
achieve its goals through a strategy of diversification, and a
divisional structure is used to support that
strategy. A functional structure would not be a good fit with
the strategy because it is more efficient for one
division to focus on one product line than for one manufacturing
department to try to make many different
products. The systemic perspective suggests that diagnosis is
the search for misfits among the various parts
and subsystems of an organization.
Diagnosing Organizational Systems:
When viewed as open systems, organizations can be diagnosed at
three levels. The highest level is the
overall organization and includes the design of the company’s
strategy, structure, and processes. Large
organization units, such as divisions, subsidiaries, or
strategic business units, also can be diagnosed at that
level. The next lowest level is the group or department, which
includes group design and such devices for
structuring interactions among members as norms and work
schedules. The lowest level is the individual
position or job. This includes ways in which jobs are designed
to elicit required task behaviors.
Diagnosis can occur at all three organizational levels, or it
may be limited to issues occurring at a particular
level. The key to effective diagnosis is to know what to look
for at each level as well as how the levels affect
each other. For example, diagnosing a work group requires
knowledge of the variables important for group
functioning and how the larger organization design affects the
group. In fact, a basic understanding of
organization-level issues is important in almost any diagnosis
because they serve as critical inputs to
understanding groups and individuals.
Figure 22 presents a comprehensive model for diagnosing these
different organizational systems. For each
level, it shows: (1) the inputs that the system has to work
with, (2) the key design components of the
transformation subsystem, and (3) the system’s outputs.
Comprehensive Model for Diagnosing Organizational
Systems
The relationships shown in Figure 22 illustrate how each
organization level affects the lower levels. The
larger environment is an input to organization design.
Organization design is an input to group design,
which in turn serves as an input to job design. These
cross-level relationships emphasize that organizational
levels must fit with each other if the organization is to
operate effectively. For example, organization
structure must fit with and support group task design, which in
turn must fit with individual job design.
The following discussion on organization-level diagnosis and the
future discussion on group- and job-level
diagnosis provide a general overview of the dimensions (and
their relationships) that needs to be
understood at each level. It is beyond the scope at this stage
to describe in detail the many variables and
relationships reported in the extensive literature on
organizations. However, specific diagnostic questions
are identified and concrete examples are included as an
introduction to this phase of the planned change
process.
Organization-Level Diagnosis:
The organization level of analysis is the broadest systems
perspective typically taken in diagnostic activities.
The model shown in Figure 22(A) is similar to other popular
organization-level diagnostic models. These
include Weisbord’s six-box model, Nadler and Tushman’s
congruency model, Gaibraith’s star model, and
Kotter’s organization dynamics model. Figure 22(A) proposes that
an organization’s transformation
processes, or design components, represent the way the
organization positions and organizes itself within
an environment (inputs) to achieve specific outputs. The
combination of design component elements is
called a strategic orientation.
Inputs:
To understand how a total organization functions, it is
necessary to examine particular inputs, design
components, and the alignment of the two sets of dimensions.
Figure 22 shows that two key inputs affect
the way an organization designs its strategic orientation: the
general environment and industry structure.
The general environment represents the external elements and
forces that can affect the attainment of
organization objectives. It can be described in terms of the
amount of uncertainty present in social,
technological, economic, ecological, and political forces. The
more uncertainty there is in how the
environment will affect the organization, the more difficult it
is to design an effective strategic orientation.
For example, the technological environment in the watch industry
has been highly uncertain over time. The
Swiss, who build precision watches with highly skilled
craftspeople, were caught off guard by the mass
production and distribution technology of Timex in the 1960s.
Similarly, many watch manufacturers were
surprised by and failed to take advantage of digital technology.
Similarly, the increased incidence of AIDS
in the workplace (social environment) and the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (political
environment) have forced changes in the strategic orientations
of organizations.
An organization’s industry structure or task environment is
another important input into strategic
orientation. As defined by Michael Porter, an organization’s
task environment consists of five forces:
supplier power, buyer power, threats of substitutes, threats of
entry, and rivalry among competitors. First,
strategic orientations must be sensitive to powerful suppliers
who can increase prices (and therefore lower
profits) or force the organization to pay more attention to the
supplier’s needs than to the organization’s
needs. For example, unions represent powerful suppliers of labor
that can affect the costs of any
organization within an industry. Second, strategic orientations
must be sensitive to powerful buyers.
Airplane purchasers, such as American Airlines or country
governments, can force Airbus Industries or
Boeing to lower prices or appoint the planes in particular ways.
Third, strategic orientations must be
sensitive to the threat of new firms entering into competition.
Profits in the restaurant business tend to be
low because of the ease of starting a new restaurant. Fourth,
strategic orientations must be sensitive to the
threat of new products or services that can replace existing
offerings. Ice cream producers must carefully
monitor their costs and prices because it is easy for a consumer
to purchase frozen yogurt or other types of
desserts instead. Finally, strategic orientations must be
sensitive to rivalry among existing competitors. If
many organizations are competing for the same customers, for
example, then the strategic orientation must
monitor product offerings, costs, and structures carefully if
the organization is to survive and prosper.
Together, these forces play an important role in determining the
success of an organization, whether it is a
manufacturing or service firm, a nonprofit organization, or a
government agency.
General environments and industry structures describe the input
content. In addition to understanding
what inputs are available, the inputs must be understood for
their rate of change and complexity. An
organization’s general environment or industry structure can be
characterized along a dynamic—static
continuum. Dynamic environments change rapidly and unpredictably
and suggest that the organization
adopt a flexible strategic orientation. Dynamic environments are
relatively high in uncertainty. The
complexity of the environment refers to the number of important
elements in the general environment and
industry structure. For example, software development
organizations face dynamic and complex
environments. Not only do technologies, regulations, customers,
and suppliers change rapidly, but all of
them are important to the firm’s survival. On the other hand,
manufacturers of glass jars face more stable
and less complex environments.
|
|
|
|
|