UNDERSTANDING

ORGANIZATIONS
Arguments for Combining the 3 Perspectives

Overview
The various perspectives
Arguments for combining those perspectives
Thompsons Levels Model
Scotts Layered Model

Organizations
Are ubiquitous
According to Parson (1960), the development of

organizations is the principal mechanism by which, in a

highly differentiated society, it is possible to get things
done, to achieve goals beyond the reach of the
individual.
Organizations as an area of study emerged within
sociology from the time of Max Webers seminal work on
bureaucracy translated to English in 1946-47

The Perspectives
Rational Systems perspectives
Natural Systems perspectives
Open Systems perspectives

Rational Systems Perspective

The rational systems perspective defines organizations as

collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific

goals and exhibiting relatively highly formalized social
structures (Scott & Davis, 2007).
In other words, the rational systems perspectives view
organizations as collections or groups that are formal and
are built to pursue specific goals.

Rational Systems (cont)

Key Classical Theorists
Max Weber Bureaucracy
Frederick Winslow Taylor Scientific Management
Henry Fayol Administrative theory
Heavily criticized for completely ignoring the huge impact of
the environment on the organization.

Natural Systems Perspective

The natural systems perspective defines organizations as

collectivities whose participants are pursuing multiple

interests, both disparate and common, but who recognize
the value of perpetuating the organization as an important
resource (Scott & Davis, 2007).
In other words, organizations are social systems that seek
to survive.

Natural Systems (cont)

Key Classical theorists
Durkheim, Parsons, Barnard, and Mayo social
consensus
Marx, Coser, Gouldner, Bendix, and Collins Social
conflict
Disagrees with the Rational systems theory on the
relevance of goals and the importance of a formal structure
in organizations

Open Systems Perspective

Open systems perspective defines organizations as

collectivities of interdependent flows and activities linking

shifting coalitions of participants embedded in wider
material-resource and institutional environments (Scott &
Davis, 2007).
In other words, organizations are activities that involve
groups of individuals with varying interests working
together in an environment.

Open Systems (cont)

Key theorists
Boundling level of complexity
Lawrence and Lorsch Contingency theory
Weick personal uncertainty
Recognizes that the organization exists in an environment
that continuously shapes and supports it.

Combining Perspectives
Thompsons Level Model
Scotts Layered Model

Thompsons Levels Model

Differentiates among three levels within organizations
The technical level

Rational system perspective

The managerial level

Natural system perspective

The Institutional level

Open system perspective

Thompson: Organizations strive to be rational although

they are natural and open systems.

The technical level

that part of the organization carrying on the production

functions that transform inputs into outputs.

Rational notions of effectiveness and efficiency presume a
closed system.
Organizations attempt to seal off their technical cores
from external uncertainties as much as possible.

The managerial level

that part of the organization responsible for designing and

controlling the production system, for procuring inputs and

disposing of outputs, and for securing and allocating
personnel to units and functions.
managers mediate between the open institutional level
and closed technical level and need the flexibility of
informal structures prevalent in the natural systems
perspective to ensure organizational survival.

The institutional level

that part of the organization that relates the organization

to its wider environment, determines its domain,

establishes its boundaries, and secures its legitimacy.
the organization is open to the environment and must
adapt to its changes.

Scotts Layered Model

The systems perspective is not a simple linear

progression
He observed that as open system models invaded
organizational studies, instead of replacing the rational
and natural system models, they were rather rapidly
combined with both rational or natural system
assumptions and arguments.

Scotts Layered Model (cont)

i.e. the open system models that developed in the 1960s

did not supplant either the rational or the natural systems

arguments but strongly challenged and eventually
displaced the closed system assumptions underlying
earlier formulations.
as the transition from closed to open system models was
happening, a second trend became obvious - there was
the shift from rational to natural system models of
analysis.

Layer classification
He classified the layers into four periods:
closed rational
closed natural
open-rational
open natural

Levels of Analysis
Social Psychological deals with individual level of

analysis of characteristics like creativity, performance,

ethics, cooperative behaviour and productive.
Structural deals with analysis at the group level
comprising detailed appraisal of inter-group
disagreements, composition of hierarchy, interpersonal
communication, etc
Ecological comprises detailed analysis of an
organizations culture, inter-organizational conflicts and
environmental variables.

Closed-rational models
Key theorists Taylor, Simon, Weber and Fayol
Taylor and Simon focused on the social psychological
level using the rationalization of mechanical work
Weber and Fayol focused on the structural level.

Closed-natural models
Key theorist White, Barnard, Mayo, Gouldner
The social psychological level of analysis was focused on
human relations such as details of work groups and
worker-manager relations
On the structural level, emphasis was given to both the
internal structure and the wider environment.

Open-rational model (social psychological level)

Simon and March are the major proponents of this level.

In working together, they propound a bounded

rationality.
Decision makers and organizations are seen to be more
open to the environment.
Performance programs - make critical decisions in the
occurrence of adversities since organizations often face
such dynamic environments and must therefore initiate
innovation and formulate metaprograms to meet the
dynamics of the performance programs as well.

Open-natural model (social psychological level)

Weick maintains the cognitive steps of organizational

participants as operating in an evolutionary mode other

than rationality.
This includes trial and error, change, superstitious
learning and retrospective sense making yet he does not
see it as a means to improvement, he is of the conviction
that success in organizations can occur without any
necessary increase in the productivity or viability of the
system

Structural level
Key theorists Udy, Pugh, Hickson, and Blau
At this level, the formal structure is viewed in terms of
size, technology and uncertainty but mostly on the
characteristics of the environment of the organization.
Simultaneously, they identified that organizations are
aiming at developing effective and efficient structures into
a rational system perspective.

Ecological level
This level evolved as more light was thrown on the

environment of the organization.

Organizations are assumed to devise structures that
better enable them to adapt to the specific environments
in which they operate
Attention is concentrated on a given organization and the
characteristics of its environment
And it has consequently paved way for theories like
contingency, transaction cost, resource dependence,
population ecology, institutional and network theories.

THANK YOU!!!
Any Questions??