An organization may adopt a closed-system or open-system model. Answer the following:1. Discuss the pro's and con's of each model.A system is commonly defined as a group of interacting units or elements that have a common purpose. The units or elements of a system can be cogs, wires, people, computers, and so on. Systems are generally classified as open systems and closed systems and they can take the form of mechanical, biological, or social systems. Open systems refer to systems that interact with other systems or the outside environment, whereas closed systems refer to systems having relatively little interaction with other systems or the outside environment. For example, living organisms are considered open systems because they take in substances from their environment such as food and air and return other substances to their environment. Humans, for example, inhale oxygen out of the environment and exhale carbon dioxide into the environment. Similarly, some organizations consume raw materials in the production of products and emit finished goods and pollution as a result. In contrast, a watch is an example of a closed system in that it is a relatively self-contained, self-maintaining unit that has little interacts or exchange with its environment.
All systems have boundaries, a fact that is immediately apparent in mechanical systems such as the watch, but much less apparent in social systems such as organizations. The boundaries of open systems, because they interact with other systems or environments, are more flexible than those of closed systems, which are rigid and largely impenetrable. A closed-system perspective views organizations as relatively independent of environmental influences. The closed-system approach conceives of the organization as a system of management, technology, personnel, equipment, and materials, but tends to exclude competitors, suppliers, distributors, and governmental regulators. This approach allows managers and organizational theorists to analyze problems by examining the internal structure of a business with little consideration of the external environment. The closed-system perspective basically views an organization much as a thermostat; limited environmental input outside of changes in temperature is required for effective operation. Once set, thermostats require little maintenance in their ongoing, self-reinforcing function. While the closed-system perspective was dominant through the 1960s, organization scholarship and research subsequently emphasized the role of the environment. Up through the 1960s, it was not that managers ignored the outside environment such as other organizations, markets, government regulations and the like, but that their strategies and other decision-making processes gave relatively little consideration to the impact these external forces might have on the internal operations of the organization.
Open-systems theory originated in the natural sciences and subsequently spread to fields as diverse as computer science, ecology, engineering, management, and psychotherapy. In contrast to closed-systems, the open-system perspective views an organization as an entity that takes inputs from the environment, transforms them, and releases them as outputs in tandem with reciprocal effects on the organization itself along with the environment in which the organization operates. That is, the organization becomes part and parcel of the environment in which it is situated. Returning for a moment to the example of biological systems as open-systems, billions of individual cells in the human body, themselves composed of thousands of individual parts and processes, are essential for the viability of the larger body in which they are a part. In turn, "macro-level" processes such as eating and breathing make the survival of individual cells contingent on these larger processes. In much the same way, open-systems of organizations accept that organizations are contingent on their environments and these environments are also contingent on organizations.
As an open-systems approach spread among organizational theorists, managers began incorporating these views into practice. Two early pioneers in this effort, Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, began viewing organizations as open social systems with specialized and interdependent subsystems and processes of communication, feedback, and management linking the subsystems. Katz and Kahn argued that the closed-system approach fails to take into account how organizations are reciprocally dependent on external environments. For example, environmental forces such as customers and competitors exert considerable influence on corporations, highlighting the essential relationship between an organization and its environment as well as the importance of maintaining external inputs to achieve a stable organization.
Furthermore, the open-system approach serves as a model of business activity; that is, business as a process of transforming inputs to outputs while realizing that inputs are taken from the external environment and outputs are placed into this same environment. Companies use inputs such as labor, funds, equipment, and materials to produce goods or to provide services and they design their subsystems to attain these goals. These subsystems are thus analogous to cells in the body, the organization itself is analogous to the body, and external market and regulatory conditions are analogous to environmental factors such as the quality of housing, drinking water, air and availability of nourishment.
2. Cite a company that uses any of this model. Describe briefly how this chosen model affect the entire company.NADLER AND TUSHMAN'S CONGRUENCE MODEL.
Nadler and Tushman's model presents the dynamics of what occurs in an organization when we try to change it. The foundation of this model is that of the organization as an open system, in which organizational subsystems are influence by the external environment. The organizational system draws inputs from internal and external sources—such as the organization's own strategy, its resources, and its environment—and transforms them into outputs, such as behavior and performance. This transformation from inputs to outputs occurs through four organizational elements: the work, the people, and the formal and informal organization. The work involves the daily activities carried out by individuals in the organization. The skills and capabilities of the people involved in the organization are critical. The formal organization is characterized by its structure, its standard procedures, and its policies. The informal organization encompasses things such as norms, values, and political behavior.
In this model, effective change occurs when all four components (work, people, formal, and informal organization) are managed, because they are all interrelated. A change in the work procedures themselves may not be effective if the people do not have the capabilities to engage in the new practices. A change to the formal organization may not be effective if the beliefs and values of people (i.e., the informal organization) do not support it. If there is a lack of congruence among these four elements, then there is resistance to change. Furthermore, there may be control issues in which there is confusion over who regulates the new structures and processes. Finally, power problems may occur as managers and employees feel threatened that their current power may be removed by the change.
3. Evaluate how an environment affects the organization and its management. Discuss the pro's and con's of not responding to the demands of the environment.
Computers and communications equipment are proving a great benefit to the environment, but the disposal of obsolete hardware is causing an ecological headache.
THE SILICON VALLEY Toxics Coalition (SVTC) is a grassroots organization in California that monitors the pollution generated by computer production. In 1999, the group discovered a new way to use computers themselves to uncover some of the toxic consequences of computer manufacturing. The organization commissioned experts in geographic information system (GIS) software to create computer-based maps showing pollution from semi-conductor manufacturing in northern California.here are three broad areas in which information technologies intersect with efforts to build an environmentally sustainable society. The first is the ecological impact of the production, use, and disposal of information technologies. The toxic chemicals used to make semiconductors, circuit boards, and electronic monitors can cause pollution, as SVTC's maps attest. The disposal of information technologies also creates environmental hazards. Obsolete computers burden landfills, just as old satellites add to the celestial junkyard.
Yet, the net environmental effect of the use of information technologies is far from clear. On the downside, computers require electricity and use paper, while radio, television, and the Internet broadcast advertising and programs that may drive people to buy resource-intensive products. On the other hand, there are myriad ways the use of information tools may benefit the environment--for example, by substituting data for materials and energy, or communication for transportation.
The second area is monitoring and modeling the environment. The computer-generated maps with pollution data on SVTC's website are just one instance of information technology helping people monitor the environment. Satellite sensors are providing clearer pictures of environmental change than ever before, such as spreading fires in the tropical forests of Southeast Asia, ozone loss above the Antarctic, and the shrinking of the Aral Sea. Researchers are using computers to study various environmental scenarios, from urban transportation alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels.
Networking for sustainable development is the third area of overlap. By placing the maps of toxic sites on the Internet, SVTC gives anyone with a computer and a modern access to the data. Communications systems, such as the Internet and cellular telephones, are speeding the exchange of all types of information, including environmental data. By linking far-flung people, the network helps researchers and activists work together to solve environmental problems. The expanding communications network transmits information to remote areas, where it can be used to boost human development--helping teachers to extend educational programs, doctors to provide information and emergency aid, and rural farmers and entrepreneurs to reach urban markets.
Throughout their lives, computers, satellites, televisions, and other telecommunications instruments take a toll on Earth's resources. Their effects on the environment at birth and death--production and disposal--are fairly easy to estimate, but the net environmental effect during their useful lives is much harder to gauge.
Making computers requires energy and water. The production of the silicon semiconductors that form computer chips is particularly energy- and water-intensive. A single large semiconductor manufacturing plant, producing 5,000 eight-inch wafers a week, could use as much electrical power and water as a small city.
Manufacturing computers and television sets generates waste, much of it hazardous. Toxic solvents, acids, and heavy metals are used in the manufacture of semiconductors, printed wiring boards, and cathode ray tubes for computer monitors and TV screens.Computers and mobile phones present a tremendous disposal problem--in part because they become obsolete so quickly. A 1999 study by the U.S. National Safety Council estimated that 20,600,000 personal computers became obsolete in America in 1998 alone. Of these, just 11% were recycled and three percent were resold or donated. Because computers become outdated rapidly, repair is costly compared to the price of new goods. When computers are trashed, the lead in monitors, the mercury and chromium in central processing units, and the arsenic and halogenated organic substances inside the devices all become health hazards.
Cite your reference.
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Ob-Or/Open-and-Closed-Systems.html
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Pr-Sa/Reactive-vs-Proactive-Change.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2660_128/ai_62590576/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11
