An organizational structure is an approach that identifies the coordination of operations directed towards the achievement of the objectives of an organization. The operations may include rules, duties, and responsibilities. The management structure also defines how knowledge flows within an entity. For example, in a centralized system, decisions flow from high to a low level while in a decentralized system decision-making powers are uniform across different levels of the entity. An effective organizational structure makes it possible for institutions to focus on their goals. Social boundaries in an organization refer to a concept used in enterprises and the legal profession to differentiate a corporation from a different but similar company. The essay evaluates the principle of technology systems and social boundaries for institutions.
Natural , Rational , and Open Viewpoints
Organizational structure correlates to the concept of rational, natural, and open systems. An insight into the different perspectives is vital because each of them provides key points about organizations ( Scott & Davis, 2015) . In addition, the three perspectives are part of the cultural formation of the organizations. The cultural development shows why the three perspectives focus on specific issues within the management. Modern organizational theory is a combination of the three key perspectives. Due to the increased rationality of modern life, studies concentrate on the legal-rational laws and regulations that govern organizations. From a rational system viewpoint, organizations are communities that aim to achieve specific objectives and exhibit formalized social structures. Rational systems theoreticians focus on standardization and target specificity of institutions because they are essential components of the rationality of groups ( Scott & Davis, 2015) . Effective rational system principles include conventional methods, managerial theory, bureaucratic theory, and decision-making theory.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Whereas the rational structure overview focuses on the formal aspects of a company, the natural system overview discusses its informal elements. In the 1930s, the viewpoints of natural systems arose in response to rational structure approaches to institutions ( Scott & Davis, 2015) . Although the standardized structure of modern institutions is significant, people in organizations do not abide by formal rules. From the viewpoint of the natural system, entities are groups where members follow various interests, both diverse and popular, but who understand the importance of perpetuation of an organization as an essential resource ( Scott & Davis, 2015) . The informal framework of relationships that exists between the participants is more effective in the guidance of the actions of the individuals than the formal system. The biblical principle of productivity, a ransom for many, is noticeable in the works of Jesus ( New American Standard Bible , 1977/2011, John 8:31, 32). Jesus devoted His life to evangelism, and His message liberated mankind from the bondage of sin ( Merida, 2015) . The life and leadership of Jesus is an illustration of the fact that leadership produces valuable results for the Father with whom he led.
Both logical and natural systems perceptive prefer to concentrate on variables inside the organization and to keep the atmosphere constant, which means that they adopt a closed system approach. Institutions, however, do not function in a bubble because they are dependent on their external climate. Open systems approaches originated in the 1960s to describe the inter-relationships among companies and their external world ( Scott & Davis, 2015) . From an open system standpoint, entities are a mixture of interconnected flows and processes that connect unbalanced coalitions of participants involved in larger material-resource and organizational environments. Recent management insights blend open structure models with logical and natural standpoints ( Scott & Davis, 2015) . For example, the open system rational concept includes theories such as limited rationality, contingency assumption, and trade-off theory. In contrast, open system natural frameworks include theories like corporate population ecology, resource dependency, and institutional rule.
Technological Issues for Participants
Participants in the company face technical obstacles. The issues include flexibility needs, distance education, and influence without control ( Johnston & Marshall, 2016). Technology generates exponential levels of disruption across a variety of sectors, which forces leaders to navigate various challenges as they manage change and enhance innovation. Effective leaders are not always individuals with the most knowledge or experience but those who practice and improve the core skills of agile leadership. Flexible leaders understand their groups and know how to motivate, influence, and promote cooperation. The ability to consider variable situations and to make swift proper changes is a key feature of agile leaders ( Johnston & Marshall, 2016) . Flexible organizers understand how to produce consistent outcomes through investment in the right growth and creation of high-performance teams. When technology transforms the workplace and encourages entities to reassess how they achieve their objectives, adaptable leaders can navigate the competitive environments. Responsive managers make decisions without a simple action plan, often in response to market developments or progressive consumer demands. From a biblical perspective, the use of technology in leadership organization is present ( Merida, 2015) . For instance, Paul uses letters to communicate with his team members ( New American Standard Bible , 1977/2011). Organizations that invest in evaluation and growth programs to recognize and cultivate their high-potential, adaptive leaders would have an immense advantage over their rivals.
Technology compels companies to utilize global resources to connect talented workers, regardless of distance boundaries. As the majority of people in the globe work from remote places, virtual teams are a crucial component of many organizations ( Johnston & Marshall, 2016) . However, the demands to oversee the virtual teams present immense challenges to managers who prefer management of face-to-face groups. Effectual virtual leaders can utilize a set of best practices to ensure sustainable success such as trust development, high-touch setting, and team member empowerment. Organizations that adopt virtual teams cannot undervalue the value of managers who establish trust and increase engagement from an angle ( Johnston & Marshall, 2016) . Simple treatment of virtual teams in the same manner as placed teams only leads to dissatisfaction, reduced performance, and, overall, turnover. Great leaders understand how to utilize software tools to build a team culture that promotes cooperation and accountability. Investment in an ideal virtual initiative program prepares frontrunners to recognize the benefits of the virtual teams.
In the current world, organizations need to see themselves as technology companies. If the entities use technology to make goods more effective on the market or to offer efficient customer service, firms cannot continue to stick to soloed mindsets ( Senge & Kania, 2015) . One consequence of the change in mindset is the spread of multidisciplinary teams that involve participants from various divisions across the entity. Achievement of consensus on the teams may be a challenge since leaders have a frequent lack of clear control over other participants. To succeed in the management of cross-functional teams, leaders ought to understand the secrets of unauthorized influence through the discovery of common grounds ( Johnston & Marshall, 2016) . Groups cannot reach a consensus when their participants share diverse values and objectives. When frontrunners set a common goal, they establish an environment in which every member works towards the same result, which is easier to use influence strategies.
Organizational Boundaries Issues for Participants
Organizational boundaries influence the nature of interactions between various parties within an entity. Destructive interactive forms arise because of prescriptive or blurred boundaries (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018). Therefore, the role of boundaries in organizational interactions is valuable. As an administrator, border management is a helpful skill, but few leaders and organizational specialists seem to have mastered the skill. The perception of a leader about boundaries is subjective. For instance, an employee may portray the actions and behaviors of a manager as invasive no matter how well-intentioned and reasonable the actions may seem. One issue that participants encounter when they deal with the boundaries of an organization is the abuse of job descriptions (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018) . Some institutions still use job descriptions to categorize and strengthen the boundaries between staff members. The method is no longer functional, due to the rapid change of desirable skill sets that is fast than organizations can maintain the pace. Institutions find it difficult to update job descriptions at a constant rate. The Bible viewpoint on organization boundaries is evident when Jethro takes up as an assistant to Moses ( New American Standard Bible , 1977/2011). He is the first documented history management specialist. Jethro helps Moses see that organization and framework are critical to an effective operation ( Merida, 2015). In addition, people get better service and endorsement in their work. Even though, clear and prescriptive job descriptions do not provide a clear picture of work standards in an unstructured environment.
The issue with the maintenance of unclear boundaries is that the work description is less professional. The informality makes it difficult to align expectations and raise uncertainty. It is crucial to place a lot of emphasis on adaptability and teamwork in the creation of job descriptions by identification of the resources required to achieve the particular job mission (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018) . In essence, the write-up helps to describe the collaboration between individuals who engage in the performance of the work function. The description also makes it easy to link the team creation process to job evaluation ( Senge & Kania, 2015) . Leaders should link the job function to the team role and to anyone that performs that function at the same time.
Another issue with organizational boundaries is the absence of a synergy bubble. Institutions have different cultures and worldviews (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018) . Different subcultures may exist within organizations, departments, branches, or units. The cultures act as differentiators to competition. Customs enact a significant role in the success of the institution. Therefore, it is crucial to protect the uniqueness. At present, changes are frequent and quick, and cultures have a possible collapse. As a team leader, change management remains a crucial skill. Management of an organization is about the introduction of a new culture and preservation of the culture that defines the success and pride of the entity since its inception (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018) . Culture is a real thing or a bubble in and of itself. Individual perception of customs is subjective. An organization comprises of diverse parties that should embrace the same reality. However, the shared reality is susceptible to external factors, which could cause the bubble to collapse.
Personal Perspectives on Technological Structure and Social Boundaries
The theory of boundaries within organizations takes on different aspects and forms. Much of the concept relates to social and knowledge confinements. The explosion in technical and communication innovations has simplified the framework of cross-border work (Rosenbach, 2018). Given the fact that institutions still face challenges in collaboration and information exchange, in such regard, people seem liberated from the advancement of social media. The outdated concept of organizational design was the formation of silos or units where operations, duties, and responsibilities would have a clear definition in the sense of a hierarchical structure ( Senge & Kania, 2015) . For instance, sales, accounting, production would be independent divisions within the enterprise with defined lines of delineation within the company. The heads of the divisions would be top executives and expected to work with each other, and not to break into other categories. The holistic strategic plan relied on each unit to fulfill its function in the overall growth objectives. As groups involved in scale and complexity, the model presented serious weaknesses and new thought processes were a necessity. As a result, organizations required enhanced leadership thought processes and more cross-border collaboration. Cross-border work forms a vital part of public sector interactions and poses great challenges to company activities, but creates unique value sets and enhanced organizational relations goals (Rosenbach, W. E. (2018). Individual issues are essential in performance across borders, as they require a defined but flexible task force that is capable of collaboration. In the public sector, personnel needs to develop cross-border skills to facilitate coordination and cooperation. However, the collaboration depends on both the policy and the agenda of the entity.
The early church order in the Bible includes a clear narrative of leadership and a set of pastoral guidelines to avoid disorder and misunderstanding in the meetings of believers and to promote a greater involvement. No wonder the apostle Paul advises his team members Timothy and Titus to worship, steer, organize and administer the churches, and to educate them on how to handle various teams within the gatherings ( New American Standard Bible , 1977/2011). The absence of decent leadership skills in organizations makes it impossible for senior managers to work across borders and manage complex agency transformation programs. The deficiency leads to inefficient use of resources between various groups. Effective frontrunners are crucial determinants, as they are useful in resource leverage, people motivation and to ensure completion of work. As such, weak management is a serious barrier to operate across borders. The shortcoming results to silo leadership style, incapacity to proceed beyond a defined domain.
Reference
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review , 28 (4), 347-360.
Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2016). Sales force management: Leadership, innovation, technology . Routledge.
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 kings . B&H Publishing Group.
New American Standard Bible. (2011). The Lockman Foundation. (Original work published 1977)
Rosenbach, W. E. (2018). Contemporary issues in leadership (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives . Routledge.
Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The dawn of system leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review , 13 (1), 27-33.
