The document discusses open systems theory in management, emphasizing the importance of interdependence and interaction between organizations and their environments. It outlines how this perspective evolved from earlier theories, highlighting the influence of key figures like Ludwig von Bertalanffy and concepts from cybernetics. The text emphasizes the need for organizations to adapt to environmental changes to achieve their goals effectively.

1. THE OPEN SYSTEMS
PERSPECTIVE
PRESENTED TO:
DR. ASHI ZEESHAN
PRESENTED BY:
HOORIA SARDAR MP/2017-S-34
WAJIHA GUL MP/2017-S-28

2. MANAGEMENT THEORIES
MANAGEMENT IS THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND MAINTAINING AN
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS, WORKING TOGETHER IN GROUPS,
EFFICIENTLY ACCOMPLISH SELECTED AIMS (KOONTZ AND WEIHRICH 1990, P. 4).
MANAGEMENT THEORIES ARE THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT MANAGING
CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS IN A WAY TO ACCOMPLISH ORGANIZATIONAL
AIMS/GOALS EFFECTIVELY.
DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT THEORIES ARE PROPOSED OVER TIME HERE OUR
CONTENT IS CONCERNED WITH THE OPEN SYSTEMS THEORY.

3. SYSTEMS THEORY
• SYSTEMS THEORY STATES THAT ORGANIZATIONAL SUCCESS RELIES ON
SYNERGY, INTERRELATIONS AND INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT
SUBSYSTEMS.
• EMPHASIZES UNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ORGANIZATION
• FOCUS ON THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ITS COMPONENT PARTS AND WITH THE
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT.
• STRESS UNITY AND COHERENCE OF THE ORGANIZATION.
• DEPARTMENTS, WORK GROUPS, BUSINESS UNITS, FACULITIES AND INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES CAN ALL BE CONSIDERED COMPONENT SYSTEMS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS.

4. • SYSTEMS APPROACH
EMPHASIZE THE CONCEPT OF A SYSTEM BOUNDARY. THE BOUNDARY IS AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE DEFINITION OF THE SYSTEM, DISTINGUISHING THE
ORGANIZATION AND ITS MEMBERS FROM THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT.
ENVIRONMENT IS TYPICALLY SEEN AS EVERYTHING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES
OF AN ORGANISATION, EVEN THOUGH THE BOUNDARIES ARE OFTEN NEBULOUS
AND POORLY DRAWN.
IT IS THE ENVIRONMENT THAT PROVIDES RAW MATERIALS TO AN
ORGANISATION AND RECEIVES THE ORGANISATION’S OUTPUTS

5. SYSTEMS APPROACH IN EDUCATIONAL
CONTEXT
• SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE INTEGRITY AS PRIME
INSTITUTIONS.
• MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION, AND THOSE EXTERNAL TO IT, RECOGNIZE
THE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE AS A MEANINGFUL ENTITY.
• STAFF AND STUDENTS MAY FEEL THAT THEY ‘BELONG’ TO THE PLACE WHERE
THEY TEACH OR LEARN.
• SCHOOLS RECEIVE STUDENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND LATER RETURN
GRADUATES TO THE COMMUNITY. (BOLMAN AND DEAL, 1989, P. 24)

6. AN OPEN SYSTEM
• ASSUMES PERMEABLE BOUNDARIES AND AN INTERACTIVE TWO-WAY
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS. OPEN-
SYSTEM CONCEPT HIGHLIGHTS THE VULNERABILITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE OF
ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS. (HOY AND MISKEL, 1987, P. 29)

7. THE OPEN SYSTEMS THEORY
• BY1950s THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE BEGAN TO REPLACE THE NATURAL
SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE AS THE DOMINANT APPROACH TO ORGANIZATIONAL
ANALYSIS.
• BOTH OF THESE PERSPECTIVES VIEW ORGANIZATIONS AS ORGANIC WHOLES
THAT MUST CONTINUALLY IMPORT RESOURCES FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENTS TO
REMAIN VIABLE
• BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES SHAPE THE STRUCTURE
AND BEHAVIOR OF ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS.
• BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN SUBTLE RATHER IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES AMONG
BOTH PERSPECTIVES

8. NATURAL SYSTEMS
• THEORISTS INTERESTED IN
MICROLEVEL ANALYSIS (HOW TO
MAINTAIN INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM)
• PASSIVE EFFORTS BY THE
ORGANIZATION TO ADAPT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES
OPEN SYSTEMS
• MORE LIKELY TO FOCUS ON
EXCHANGES WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
AND HOW TO MAINTAIN EXTERNAL
EQUILIBRIUM
• MORE LIKELY TO DESCRIBE
AGGRESSIVE EFFORTS TO ADJUST THE
ENVIRONMENT TO THE
ORGANIZATION'S NEEDS

9. THE INFLUENCE OF THEORIES ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
• THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS TO THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONS
EXPERIENCED A REBIRTH IN THE 1950S UNDER THE NAME OPEN SYSTEMS
THEORY.
• THIS REBIRTH WAS DUE IN PART TO THE INFLUENCE OF LUDWIG VON
BERTALANFFY'S GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY.
• A BIOLOGIST BY PROFESSION, VON BERTALANFFY URGED
THE STUDY OF LIVING THINGS AS ORGANIC WHOLES IN THE 1920S,
 INTRODUCED THE THEORY OF THE ORGANISM AS AN OPEN SYSTEM IN 1940
ESTABLISHED THE FIELD OF GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY IN 1945.

10. VON BERTALANFFY INSISTED
• THAT ORGANIC WHOLES, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONS, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD
AS OPEN SYSTEMS.
• OPEN SYSTEMS, IN CONTRAST TO CLOSED SYSTEMS, EXCHANGE MATERIALS,
ENERGY, AND INFORMATION WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN
RENEW THEMSELVES AND CONTINUE TO GROW.
IN HIS WORDS:
• "THE CHARACTERISTIC STATE OF THE LIVING ORGANISM IS THAT OF AN OPEN
SYSTEM. WE CALL A SYSTEM CLOSED IF NO MATERIALS ENTER OR LEAVE IT. IT IS
OPEN IF THERE IS INFLOW AND OUTFLOW AND THEREFORE CHANGE OF THE
COMPONENT MATERIALS.“
• ONE OF THE DEFINING FEATURES OF OPEN SYSTEMS IS THAT THEY ARE
CHARACTERIZED BY NEGATIVE ENTROPY.

11. • OPEN SYSTEMS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIFINALITY.
• THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIFINALITY INTRODUCES AN IMPORTANT THEME IN
ORGANIZATION THEORY: FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
• TWO ORGANIZATIONS MAY SHARE THE SAME GOALS BUT REACH THEM
THROUGH DIFFERENT MEANS. NOT ONLY ARE OUTCOMES NOT
PREDETERMINED, BUT THERE IS NO ONE BEST WAY OF ACHIEVING SUCCESS. .
• GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY NOT ONLY PROVIDED THE LANGUAGE AND
CONCEPTS USED BY OPEN SYSTEMS THEORISTS IN STUDYING ORGANIZATIONS,
IT ALSO INFLUENCED THE DIRECTION THEIR RESEARCH WOULD TAKE AND THE
CONCLUSIONS THEY WOULD DRAW

12. • THE FIELD OF CYBERNETICS, ESTABLISHED BY A MATHEMATICIAN NORBERT
WIENER IN THE 1940S, ALSO HAD A PROFOUND INFLUENCE ON OPEN SYSTEMS
THEORY IN ITS FORMATIVE YEARS.
• CYBERNETICS IS THE STUDY OF SELF-REGULATING SYSTEMS, SUCH AS SELF-
GUIDED MISSILES OR FURNACE SYSTEMS REGULATED BY THERMOSTATS.
• THESE SYSTEMS RELY ON CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENTS
SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, THEREBY MAINTAINING SYSTEM
EQUILIBRIUM.
• CYBERNETICS CONCEIVED OF SYSTEMS IN TERMS OF THE CONTINUOUS
TRANSFORMATION OF INPUTS INTO OUTPUTS THROUGH PROCESSES KNOWN AS
THROUGHPUTS.
• ORGANIZATION THEORISTS RECOGNIZED IMMEDIATELY THAT THIS APPLIED TO
ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL AS MECHANICAL SYSTEMS.
• ORGANIZATIONS TAKE IN RESOURCES (IN- PUTS) AND TRANSFORM THEM INTO
PRODUCTS OR SERVICES (OUTPUTS).

13. UNIVERSITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, RECEIVE INPUTS IN THE FORM OF MATERIALS,
INFORMATION, STAFF, AND STUDENTS, UTILIZE VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNIQUES TO EDUCATE STUDENTS, AND PRODUCE OUTPUTS IN THE FORM OF
GRADUATES.
THEY ALSO OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM GRADUATES, PARENTS, AND EMPLOYERS
ABOUT HOW WELL THEY ARE DOING AND FROM THE ENVIRONMENT ABOUT
IMPENDING EXTERNAL CHANGES.
THIS FEEDBACK BECOMES AN INPUT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CORRECTIVE
ACTION IS REQUIRED TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONING OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
• AS A RESULT OF THE INFLUENCE OF CYBERNETICS, MANY OPEN SYSTEMS
THEORISTS CAME TO VIEW ORGANIZATIONS AS SELF-REGULATING SYSTEMS
THAT MONITOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTS, IDENTIFY DEVIATIONS FROM THEIR
GOALS OR DESIRED STATES, AND ADJUST THEIR INTERNAL STRUCTURES, GOALS,
OR ENVIRONMENTS TO MAINTAIN SYSTEM EQUILIBRIUM.

14. ECONOMIST KENNETH BOULDING PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "GENERAL
SYSTEMS THEORY—THE SKELETON OF SCIENCE" IN 1956
MERGED WIENER'S CONCEPT OF CYBERNETICS WITH VON BERTALANFFY'S
CONCEPT OF GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY.
 IDENTIFIED SEVERAL DIFFERENT KINDS OF SYSTEMS AND ARRANGED THEM
INTO A HIERARCHICAL FRAMEWORK COMPRISING NINE LEVELS, EACH
REPRESENTING AN INCREASINGLY HIGHER LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY.
THIS FRAMEWORK PLACED SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AT LEVEL EIGHT, THE NEXT
TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN TERMS OF COMPLEXITY.
 EMPHASIZED THAT WE HAVE VERY LITTLE THEORETICAL OR EMPIRICAL
KNOWLEDGE OF SYSTEMS AT THIS LEVEL AND, CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE A VERY
LONG WAY FROM BEING ABLE TO CONSTRUCT MODELS THAT MIGHT ALLOW US
TO DIRECT AND CONTROL COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS.

15. • STAFFORD BEER EXPLORE THE IMPLICATIONS OF CYBERNETICS FOR
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE.
• DEVELOPED A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME COMPRISING SIX CLASSES OF SYSTEMS
RANGING FROM "SIMPLE DETERMINISTIC" TO "EXCEEDINGLY COMPLEX
PROBABILISTIC" SYSTEMS.
• PLACED ORGANIZATIONS INTO THE LATTER CATEGORY, REPRESENTING THE
HIGHEST DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY AND LOWEST DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY.
• HE WROTE,THE TASK OF CYBERNETICS, IS TO DETERMINE HOW TO EXERCISE
CONTROL OVER SYSTEMS OF THIS KIND. SO THE PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE TRANSFORMATION
PROCESS.
 IN THIS INSTANCE CONTROL DOES NOT REFER TO COERCIVE ACTS DESIGNED
TO CONTROL HUMAN BEHAVIOR BUT TO MECHANISMS DESIGNED TO ENSURE
THAT PERFORMANCE CONFORMS TO ESTABLISHED STANDARDS.

16. ACCORDING TO BEER
THE MODEL THAT MANAGEMENT PLANNERS CONSTRUCT TO DEPICT THE
TRANSFORMATION OF INPUTS TO OUTPUTS MUST CONTAIN A "BLACK BOX" AT ITS
CENTER BECAUSE THE WAY INPUTS ARE TRANSFORMED INTO OUTPUTS IS NOT
VISIBLE.
WE CAN NEITHER IDENTIFY ALL SYSTEM VARIABLES NOR DETERMINE HOW A
CHANGE IN ONE VARIABLE WILL AFFECT ALL OTHERS. MANAGEMENT MUST
EXPERIMENT WITH VARIOUS INTERVENTIONS, SEEK TO DISCERN BASIC PATTERNS,
AND ADJUST ITS MODEL ACCORDINGLY.

17. ROBERT SWINTH ALSO PIONEERED IN THE APPLICATION OF CYBERNETICS TO THE
DESIGN OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS.
CHARACTERIZED THE VARIOUS MECHANISMS BY WHICH INPUTS ARE CONVERTED
TO GOODS OR SERVICES AS THE ORGANIZATION'S SERVO-MECHANISM (OSM).THIS
REFERS TO THREE LINKED FUNCTIONS:
• THE OPERATIONS FUNCTION, BY WHICH RAW MATERIALS ARE CONVERTED INTO
OUTPUTS
• THE POLICY FUNCTION, BY WHICH FEEDBACK ABOUT HOW WELL THE PROCESS IS
ACHIEVING ITS GOALS IS TRANSLATED INTO SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
• THE CONTROL FUNCTION, BY WHICH OPERATIONS ARE DIRECTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THESE OBJECTIVES.

18. IN SWINTH'S CYBERNETICS MODEL,
• DEMANDS ARE RECEIVED BY THE POLICY CENTER AND TRANSLATED INTO A SET OF
OBJECTIVES.
• THE POLICY CENTER THEN GIVES A CONTROL CENTER A PERFORMANCE STANDARD
TO MEET.
• THE CONTROL CENTER COMPARES DESIRED PERFORMANCE WITH ACTUAL
PERFORMANCE AND TAKES STEPS TO KEEP OPERATIONS AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO
DESIRED LEVELS.
ACCORDING TO SWINTH, IT IS THROUGH THE OPERATION OF SERVOMECHANISMS
THAT ORGANIZATIONS ACHIEVE EQUILIBRIUM OR HOMEOSTASIS.
IN HIS VIEW CYBERNETIC MODELS CAN ASSIST MANAGERS IN MAKING
ORGANIZATIONS MORE SELF-REGULATING AND MORE PREDICTABLE IN THEIR
OUTCOMES.

19. • BY THE CLOSE OF THE 1960S THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE HAD BECOME
THE DOMI NANT APPROACH TO ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS DUE TO THE
PUBLICATION OF SUCH HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL WORKS AS
 DANIEL KATZ AND ROBERT L. KAHN'S THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF
ORGANIZATIONS IN 1966
JAMES D.THOMPSON'S ORGANIZATIONS IN ACTION IN 1967.

20. THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS
• KATZ AND KAHN USED THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE TO INTEGRATE WHAT
WAS THEN KNOWN ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS.
• LIKE BARNARD, KATZ AND KAHN FOCUSED ON INTERNAL PROCESSES AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF MORALE AND MOTIVATION TO SYSTEM SURVIVAL.
• IN CONTRAST TO BARNARD, THEY ALSO PLACED A MUCH GREATER EMPHASIS
ON THE ROLE PLAYED BY ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES IN SHAPING
ORGANIZATIONAL NORMS, INTERNAL STRUCTURES, AND THE ORGANIZATION'S
ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN COMMITTED EMPLOYEES.

21. ACCORDING TO KATZ AND KAHN,
CLASSICAL THEORISTS TENDED TO TREAT INTERNAL PROCESSES AS IF THEY WERE
UNAFFECTED BY CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND AS IF THEY COULD BE
MADE PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE AND CONTROLLED. WORKING FROM
MISCONCEPTIONS OF THIS KIND, CLASSICAL THEORISTS ENCOURAGED MANAGERS
TO BUILD RIGIDITIES INTO THE SYSTEM, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE
ORGANIZATION'S ABILITY TO RESPOND QUICKLY AND SUCCESSFULLY TO
CHANGING EXTERNAL CONDITIONS.
URGED THEORISTS AND PRACTITIONERS ALIKE TO VIEW ORGANIZATIONS AS OPEN
SYSTEMS AND TO INVESTIGATE THE EXTERNAL CAUSES OF INTERNAL STRESSES
AND STRAINS.

22. ORGANIZATIONS IN ACTION
• EVEN THE UNIVERSAL ASPECTS OF COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIFFERENTIATION, VARY FROM ONE ORGANIZATION
TO THE NEXT, THOMPSON DEVELOPED A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
INVESTIGATING THE CONDITIONS THAT EXPLAIN SYSTEM VARIATIONS.
• AS A SOCIOLOGIST, HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN EXPLAINING THE BEHAVIOR OF
ORGANIZATIONS AS A WHOLE THAN THE BEHAVIORS THAT OCCUR WITHIN
ORGANIZATIONS.
HOW ORGANIZATIONS AS OPEN SYSTEMS MUST ENGAGE IN EXCHANGE
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO OBTAIN NEEDED RESOURCES OR
OUTLETS
HOW THE RESULTING DEPENDENCIES CAUSE ORGANIZATIONS TO DEVELOP
STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING THEIR DEPENDENCE, SUCH AS EXERTING CONTROL
OVER OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, EXPANDING THEIR BOUNDARIES, ALTERING THEIR
INTERNAL STRUCTURES, OR REDEFINING THEIR GOALS

23. ACCORDING TO THOMPSON
• IF SIMILAR PROBLEMS RESULT IN SIMILAR ADAPTIVE RESPONSES, IT SHOULD BE
POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY BASIC PATTERNS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR.
ORGANIZATIONS IN ACTION OFFERED NINETY-THREE PROPOSITIONS FOR
INVESTIGATING THESE BASIC PATTERNS.
• THOMPSON WADED INTO THE DEBATE OVER THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF
ORGANIZATIONS.
ARE THEY, AS THE CLASSICAL THEORISTS IMPLY, RATIONAL, GOAL-ORIENTED
INSTRUMENTS THAT ARE DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO BE AS EFFICIENT AND
PREDICTABLE AS POSSIBLE, OR ARE THEY, AS SOME NATURAL SYSTEMS
THEORISTS IMPLIED, LIVING ORGANISMS STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE IN THE FACE
OF UNCERTAINTY AND INCAPABLE OF BEHAVING IN PLANNED AND PREDICTABLE
WAYS? CONCLUDING THAT NEITHER MODEL ALONE PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE
UNDERSTANDING OF COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS

24. • HE PROPOSED A SYNTHESIS OF THE TWO PERSPECTIVES: ORGANIZATIONS ARE
SIMULTANEOUSLY PROBLEM-FACING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING ENTITIES.
• THIS SYNTHESIS CREATED A THIRD PERSPECTIVE TOWARD ORGANIZATIONAL
ANALYSIS THAT THOMPSON REFERRED TO GENERALLY AS THE OPEN SYSTEMS
PERSPECTIVE:
"FOR PURPOSES OF THIS VOLUME, THEN, WE WILL CONCEIVE OF COMPLEX
ORGANIZATIONS AS OPEN SYSTEMS, HENCE INDETERMINATE AND FACED WITH
UNCERTAINTY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME AS SUBJECT TO CRITERIA OF RATIONALITY
AND HENCE NEEDING DETERMINATENESS AND CERTAINTY."

25. • THOMPSON PROVIDED CONCRETENESS TO HIS SYNTHESIS OF RATIONAL AND
NATURAL SYSTEMS THEORY BY DRAWING UPON TALCOTT PARSON'S DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THREE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL.
DECISIONS.
• THE TECHNICAL LEVEL, WHERE THE PRODUCTIVE WORK IS CARRIED OUT, ARE
GOVERNED BY THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCTIVE TASK. THIS LEVEL IS THE MOST
CLOSED OFF FROM EXTERNAL INFLUENCES AND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF
CERTAINTY AND CONTROL IS POSSIBLE.
• THE MANAGERIAL LEVEL REPRESENTS AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL AT WHICH MANAGERS
ADDRESS INPUT AND OUTPUT IRREGULARITIES SO THAT THE TECHNICAL CORE CAN
OPERATE AS EFFICIENTLY AND PREDICTABLY AS POSSIBLE.
• THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL IS THAT LEVEL WHERE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE IS HIGHEST AND THE POSSIBILITIES FOR CERTAINTY
AND CONTROL ARE THE LOWEST. AT THIS LEVEL EXECUTIVES PERFORM A
BOUNDARY-SPANNING ROLE IN WHICH THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING
RESOURCES, BUILDING ALLIANCES, AND DEALING WITH OUTPUT DISPOSAL PROBLEMS
BY ADJUSTING, OR ADAPTING TO, EXTERNAL FORCES.
• HE EMPHASIZED THAT, WHEREAS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO EMPLOY CLOSED SYSTEM
THINKING AT THE TECHNICAL LEVEL, IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPLOY OPEN SYSTEM
THINKING AT HIGHER LEVELS.

26. SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY
• DEVELOPED IN THE 1950S OUT OF THE WORK OF FRED EMERY, ERICTRIST, AND THEIR
COLLEAGUES AT THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RELATIONS IN LONDON
• IN 1949 THE RECENTLY NATIONALIZED COAL INDUSTRY ASKED THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE TO
INVESTIGATE SOCIAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES
IN THE MINES.
• A SERIES OF STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS, RESULTING IN
TWENTY-FOUR PAPERS AND REPORTS, AND CULMINATING WITH THE PUBLICATION OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CHOICE BYTRIST AND HIS COLLEAGUES IN 1963.
• ALONG WITH RICE'S PARALLEL STUDY OF TEXTILE MILLS IN INDIA, THE COAL-MINING STUDIES
PRODUCED A METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING AND ADDRESSING ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS
THAT CAME TO BE KNOWN AS SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY.
• IN A CONFERENCE PAPER DELIVERED IN 1959, EMERY AND TRIST PLACED THEIR RESEARCH
FINDINGS IN THE CON- TEXT OF OPEN SYSTEMS THEORY AND URGED FURTHER STUDY OF
ORGANIZATIONS AS "OPEN SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS.“
• THE LATTER, THEY SUGGESTED, CONSTITUTED A NEW FIELD OF STUDY FOCUSING ON THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL AND HUMAN ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN THE
ORGANIZATION OF WORK ACTIVITIES.

27. SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY FOCUSES
• THAT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS MUST BE VIEWED NOT AS TECHNICAL SYSTEMS,
NOR AS SOCIAL SYSTEMS, BUT AS BOTH AT ONCE.
• EACH PRODUCTION SYSTEM IS DEFINED BY THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
TWO SUBSYSTEMS, THE TECHNICAL ORGANIZATION, WHICH INCLUDES
MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SPECIFIC WORK PROCESSES, AND THE WORK
ORGANIZATION, WHICH STRUCTURES HOW WORKERS RELATE TO EACH OTHER
SOCIALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY.
• THE DEGREE OF FIT BETWEEN THE WORK TECHNOLOGY AND THE
SOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS BUILT INTO THE WORK ORGANIZATION.
• HIGH LEVELS OF PRODUCTIVITY CAN BE OBTAINED FROM A TECHNOLOGICAL
SYSTEM ONLY IF THE WORK ORGANIZATION IS DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT
PROVIDES COMPATIBLE SOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL INCENTIVES AND
SATISFACTIONS.

28. SOCIOTECHNICAL THEORY
• EMPHASIS ON THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF TECHNICAL SYSTEMS (THE
SUBJECT OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT THEORY) AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS (THE
SUBJECT OF HUMAN RELATIONS THEORY).
• RELYING AS IT DOES ON THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE, IT EMPHASIZES THAT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REQUIRES AN OPTIMAL FIT BETWEEN THESE
TWO IMPORTANT SUBSYSTEMS.
• ALSO BROUGHT RENEWED ATTENTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF WORK DESIGN IN
GENERAL AND TO THE VALUE OF AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS IN PARTICULAR.
• CONCLUDED, FOR MANAGEMENT TO JOINTLY OPTIMIZE THE ORGANIZATION'S
HUMAN AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS THROUGH THE CAREFUL DESIGN OF WORK
PROCESSES; MANAGEMENT MUST ALSO DO SO IN A WAY THAT POSITIONS THE
ORGANIZATION FOR CONTINUED SUCCESS IN ITS EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT.

29. STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY
• UNDERLYING PREMISE OF STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY IS THAT CHOICES ABOUT
STRUCTURE ARE CONTINGENT UPON IDENTIFIABLE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FACTORS.
• GOAL IS TO DETERMINE HOW TO STRUCTURE AN ORGANIZATION, GIVEN
CONTINGENCIES SUCH AS SIZE, TECHNOLOGY, STRATEGY FOR SUCCESS, AND DEGREE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL STABILITY.
• INVOLVES A SEARCH FOR THE OPTIMAL FIT BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE OF THE
ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CONTINGENCY FACTORS, AND
THE GOALS OF THE ORGANI- ZATION.
• HOLDS OUT HOPE THAT SOMEDAY IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO PRESCRIBE A SPECIFIC
STRUCTURAL FORM FOR AN ORGANIZATION FROM ORGA-NIZATION-SPECIFIC
KNOWLEDGE OF ITS CONTINGENCY FACTORS.
• STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY, WHICH HAS BECOME NEARLY SYNONYMOUS WITH
THE TERM MODERN ORGANIZATION THEORY, NOW COMPRISES AN ENORMOUS BODY OF
RESEARCH.

30. DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURAL
CONTINGENCY THEORY
• TOM BURNS: MECHANISTIC AND ORGANIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
• TOM BURNS, A RESEARCHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, STUDIED TWENTY ENGLISH
AND SCOTTISH FIRMS DURING THE 1950S, SEVERAL OF THEM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH G. M.
STALKER. MOST OF THESE WERE WELL-ESTABLISHED MANUFACTURING FIRMS ENTERING THE
FIELD OF ELECTRONICS FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE TASK BEFORE THEM WAS TO CONVERT THE
TECHNOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES OF THE WAR YEARS, SUCH AS RADAR, INTO ENTIRELY NEW
PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THERE WERE AS YET NO MARKETS OR CUSTOMERS.
• THIS UNIQUE SITUATION PROVIDED BURNS AND STALKER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY
WHAT HAPPENS TO ORGANIZATIONS WHEN THEY MOVE FROM AN ENVIRONMENT
CHARACTERIZED BY RELATIVE STABILITY TO ONE CHARACTERIZED BY CONSTANT
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND UNCERTAINTY.
• THEIR FINDINGS WERE PUBLISHED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION IN 1961.
• THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE IN THEIR STUDY IS THE ORGANIZATION'S MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
WHEREAS THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE, OR CONTINGENCY FACTOR, IS THE DEGREE OF
STABILITY IN THE ORGANIZATION'S EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

31. BURNS AND STALKER
• IDENTIFIED WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS A CONTINUUM OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH TWO
"IDEAL TYPES" AT EITHER END: MECHANISTIC AND ORGANIC.
• NO FIRM CONFORMED COMPLETELY TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EITHER OF THESE TYPES,
BUT THEY TENDED TOWARD ONE OR THE OTHER DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THEIR
ENVIRONMENTS WERE RELATIVELY STABLE OR CONSTANTLY CHANGING
• CONCLUDED THAT THE MECHANISTIC SYSTEM IS APPROPRIATE TO STABLE CONDITIONS, BEING
BOTH EFFICIENT IN ITS USE OF INDIVIDUAL EFFORT AND EFFECTIVE IN SECURING DESIRED
LEVELS OF PRODUCTIVITY. IT DOES NOT WORK WELL, HOWEVER, WHERE CONDITIONS ARE
CONSTANTLY CHANGING.
• CONCLUDED THAT ORGANIC SYSTEMS ARE APPROPRIATE WHERE DECISIONS CANNOT BE
PROGRAMMED BY THOSE AT THE TOP BECAUSE OF THE RAPID PACE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE. IT IS A SYSTEM FOR HANDLING NONPROGRAMMED DECISION MAKING IN WHICH
COORDINATION IS ACHIEVED THROUGH SHARED BELIEFS AND A SENSE OF COLLECTIVE
RESPONSIBILITY. BECAUSE WORKERS CLOSEST TO THE PROBLEM CAN RESPOND TO CHANGING
CONDITIONS QUICKLY AND FLEXIBLY, THE ORGANIC SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF MUCH GREATER
ADAPTATION TO CHANGE THAN THE MECHANISTIC SYSTEM.
• INSISTED THAT EACH ORGANIZATION MUST FIND A PLACE ON THE CONTINUUM BETWEEN THE
TWO EXTREMES THAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE TO ITS SITUATION

32. JOAN WOODWARD: TECHNOLOGY'S INFLUENCE ON
STRUCTURE
• IN 1953 JOAN WOODWARD, AN INDUSTRIAL SOCIOLOGIST AT SOUTH EAST ESSEX
COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLAND, RECEIVED A FOUR-YEAR GRANT FROM
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RELATIONS IN INDUSTRY TO INVESTIGATE THE
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF NEW
TECHNOLOGIES.
• THE RESEARCH PROJECT TOOK THE FORM OF A BROAD SURVEY OF THE
STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE HUNDRED FIRMS IN SOUTH ESSEX.
• A REPORT OF THE INITIAL FINDINGS, PUBLISHED IN 1958, CREATED QUITE A STIR.
• INDICATED THAT FIRMS ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
CLASSICAL MANAGEMENT THEORY WERE NOT ALWAYS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
AND THAT ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGNERS WHO FOLLOWED CLASSICAL PRINCIPLES
OFTEN DID MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

33. • IN 1965 WOODWARD PUBLISHED INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE,
WHICH PRESENTED THE FINDINGS OF THE ORIGINAL STUDY ALONG WITH FOLLOW-UP
STUDIES COMPLETED AFTER SHE MOVED TO THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY IN 1958.
• THE NOW WELL-KNOWN CONCLUSION DERIVED FROM WOODWARD'S STUDY IS THAT THERE
IS NO ONE BEST WAY TO ORGANIZE.
• COMMERCIAL SUCCESS DEPENDS NOT ON ANY ONE TYPE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
BUT ON THE DEGREE OF FIT BETWEEN A FIRM'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND
TECHNICAL MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
• HER FINDINGS SUGGESTED THAT, IF THERE IS NO ONE BEST ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE,
THERE IS ONE THAT IS BEST SUITED TO EACH TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY.
• WOODWARD CONCLUDED THAT "DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES IMPOSED DIFFERENT KINDS OF
DEMANDS ON INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS, AND THESE DEMANDS HAD TO BE MET
THROUGH AN APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE.“
• WOODWARD NOTED THAT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE HAS TWO FUNCTIONS: TO
DISTRIBUTE AUTHORITY AND COORDINATE WORK, AND TO CREATE A NETWORK OF SOCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS. HER RESEARCH INDICATED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO
FUNCTIONS VARIES WITH TECHNOLOGY.

34. STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY FACTORS
• A CONTINGENCY FACTOR IS A VARIABLE THAT SPECIFIES WHAT STRUCTURAL
ARRANGEMENTS ARE BEST SUITED TO AN ORGANIZATION, GIVEN THE
SITUATION IN WHICH IT FINDS ITSELF.
• THIS MEANS THAT FOR ANY LEVEL OF A CONTINGENCY FACTOR, HIGH OR LOW,
THERE IS A CORRESPONDING LEVEL OF SOME STRUCTURAL DIMENSION THAT IS
MOST APPROPRIATE.
CONTINGENCY FACTORS
• ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY
• TECHNOLOGY
• SIZE
• STRATEGY
• RESOURCE DEPENDENCE
• PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

35. STRUCTURAL DIMENSIONS
• MANAGEMENT LEVELS
• SPAN OF CONTROL
• CENTRALIZATION
• FORMALIZATION
• STANDARDIZATION
• SPECIALIZATION (ROLE AND FUNCTION)
• WORK DESIGN
• CONFLICT RESOLUTION METHODS
• REWARD AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
• INFORMATION PROCESSING METHODS
• MANAGEMENT STYLE
• APEX STRUCTURE (EG, DIVISIONALIZATION)

36. • CONTINGENCY THEORY ALSO REINFORCED THE VIEW THAT ORGANIZATIONS ARE
• BOTH RATIONAL, PURPOSEFUL SYSTEMS SEEKING TO ACHIEVE ESTABLISHED
OBJECTIVES AND OPEN SYSTEMS ADAPTING THEIR GOALS AND STRUCTURES AS
NEEDED TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY IN AN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENT.
ALTHOUGH ORGANIZATION THEORY MOVED IN NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE 1970S AND
1980S, MANY THEORISTS CONTINUE TO VIEW STRUCTURAL CONTINGENCY THEORY AS
THE CENTRAL, OVERARCHING PARADIGM IN ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
CONTINGENCY THEORY BROUGHT AN END TO THE DOMINANCE OF CLASSICAL
MANAGEMENT THEORY, AND ALSO RENEWED INTEREST IN THE FIELD OF
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN.
THE CENTRAL PREMISE OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN SCHOOL IS THAT MANAGERS
CAN AND SHOULD DESIGN THEIR OR- GANIZATIONS SO AS TO MAINTAIN AN
APPROPRIATE FIT BETWEEN TASK ENVIRONMENT, STRATEGY, AND STRUCTURE, THEREBY
ASSURING CONTINUED ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.

37. OPEN SYSTEM THEORY
• A MODERN SYSTEMS-BASED CHANGED MANAGEMENT THEORY
• DESIGNED TO CREATE A HEALTHY, INNOVATIVE AND RESILIENT ORGANIZATIONS
AND COMMUNITIES IN TODAY’S FAST CHANGING AND UNPREDICTABLE
ENVIRONMENT
• ORGANIZATIONS CONDUCT THEIR TASK AND INFLUENCE OR CHANGE THEIR
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ALSO BEING INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL CHANGES IN
LOCAL OR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
• TWO WAY INFLUENTIAL CHANGE CALLED ACTIVE ADAPTIVE CHANGE.
• AN OPEN SYSTEM MUST HAVE AN OPEN AND ADAPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT TO ENSURE VIABILITY.

38. • A DIRECT CORRELATION WITH RESPECT TO CHANGING VALUES AND
EXPECTATIONS OVER TIME WITH ITS EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT.
• THIS SYSTEM IS BEING UTILIZED BY MANY SUCCESSFUL ORGANISATIONS,
INCLUDING CORPORATE GIANTS SUCH AS MICROSOFT AND HEWLETT PACKARD.
• PEOPLE TOO ARE OPEN SYSTEMS THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS THEY INFLUENCE OR
CHANGE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT AND ALSO CONSTANTLY BEING INFLUENCED
BY THE ENVIRONMENT
• FROM AN EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE, THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF IS THERE
IMMEDIATE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
• AGGREGATED EFFECT OF THIS INFLUENTIAL CHANGE BETWEEN PEOPLE, THEIR
ORGANIZATION AND THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT IS CALLED SOCIO-
ECOLOGICAL CHANGE.
• SOCIO ECOLOGICAL CHANGE IS RELENTLESS AND INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY
IN TODAY’S GLOBALIZED AND NETWORKED WORLD.

39. RELEVANCE TO THE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
• THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE RECOGNIZES THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF
ALL FOUR MODELS OF EFFECTIVENESS IN QUINN'S COMPETING VALUES
FRAMEWORK.
• FROM THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE THE EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION IS ONE
THAT SATISFIES ALL OF PARSONS' FUNCTIONAL IMPERATIVES IN A BALANCED
FASHION, DEPENDING ON THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FORCES THAT IT
FACES.

40. MECHANISMS FOR COORDINATING
AND CONTROLLING WORK ACTIVITIES
• NO PARTICULAR MECHANISM FOR COORDINATING AND CONTROLLING WORK
ACTIVITIES IS HIGH- LIGHTED BECAUSE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ASSUMES THAT ALL
SUCH MECHANISMS OR SOME COMBINATION OF THEM MUST BE EMPLOYED TO
ACHIEVE AN OPTIMAL FIT AMONG THE ORGANIZATION'S SUBSYSTEMS AND
BETWEEN THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT.
SIX MECHANISMS FOR COORDINATING AND CONTROLLING WORK ACTIVITIES

41. MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIES
• NO PARTICULAR MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGY IS HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE OPEN
SYSTEMS THEORY HOLDS THAT IT IS MANAGEMENT'S TASK TO IDENTIFY THE
COMBINATION OF STRATEGIES THAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE
ORGANIZATION'S INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL REALITIES.

42. IMPLICATIONS
• CONTINGENCY THINKING.
• PUBLIC MANAGERS SHOULD THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THE CONTINGENCIES
AFFECTING HOW THEY ORGANIZE FOR SUCCESS. THEY SHOULD, FOR EXAMPLE,
THINK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THEIR AGENCY'S CORE TECHNOLOGY.
• THEY SHOULD THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THEIR BOUNDARY-SPANNING
• IT REMINDS PUBLIC MANAGERS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING COALITIONS
OF POLITICAL SUPPORT AND SUCCESSFULLY MANAGING THE MANY
DEPENDENCIES THAT ARE A NATURAL AND NECESSARY COMPONENT OF
OPERATING IN HIGHLY POLITICIZED ENVIRONMENTS.

43. STRATEGIC PLANNING.
• PUBLIC MANAGERS NEED TO LEARN TO THINK AND PLAN STRATEGICALLY.
• THROUGH DELIBERATE AND THOUGHTFUL STRATEGIC PLANNING, PUBLIC
MANAGERS CAN ENGAGE MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY IN FINDING AND
SUSTAINING A GOOD FIT BETWEEN ITS MISSION AND STRATEGIES, ITS INTERNAL
SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES, AND THE FORCES IN ITS EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
THAT CREATE BOTH OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS.

44. • THE EDUCATIONAL REFORMS OF THE 1980S AND 1990S, IN BRITAIN AND
ELSEWHERE, HAVE INCREASED THE SALIENCE OF THE OPEN SYSTEMS MODEL.
• SCHOOLS HAVE TO COMPETE FOR PUPILS AND THEIR INCOME IS TIED CLOSELY
TO THEIR LEVELS OF RECRUITMENT.
• TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO POTENTIAL PARENTS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
• THIS CAN LEAD TO PERMEABLE BOUNDARIES WITH PARENTS AND OTHERS
INFLUENCING SCHOOL POLICIES AND PRIORITIES.

45. CONCLUSION
• ALTHOUGH SYSTEMS RESEARCH HAS INCREASED OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE
RELATION- SHIPS AMONG ENVIRONMENT, STRUCTURE, AND PERFORMANCE, IT
HAS ALSO INCREASED OUR APPRECIATION OF THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN
SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS HOLISTICALLY.
• BUT IF OPEN SYSTEMS THEORY HAS FAILED THUS FAR TO PRODUCE A GENERAL
SYSTEMS MODEL CAPABLE OF PREDICTING AND CONTROLLING
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, IT NONETHELESS PROVIDES PUBLIC MANAGERS
WITH AN IMPLICIT THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVE- NESS. THE
SUCCESSFUL AGENCY IS ONE THAT FINDS AN "OPTIMAL FIT" BETWEEN ITS
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, ITS ENVIRONMENT, AND WHAT IT SEEKS TO
ACHIEVE.

46. ANY QUERY????

47. THANK YOU