Environmental Issues

Because of the fact that resources are 'non-renewable', organizations remain in constant state of struggle both with the environment and with other organizations. Survival is assumed to be the main, all-important organization goal. This ignores the fact that certain organizations, such as ASH or the Red Cross, would in fact like to die if they were able to. Thus under this theory the environment is the '… critical indicator in determining which organizations succeed and which fail, selecting the most robust competitors through elimination of the weaker ones. Because of the critical assumption that the environment is determining, population ecology has been described at too deterministic, one sided, and not applicable to certain organizations.' (Harrington 47)

However, it still is an important theory in organization theory that demonstrates how organizations are in conflict and struggle with the environment. Population ecology compares the evolutionary trends of whole populations. This is because when the environment changes or new species makes inroads on resource niche of another, the change is reflected in the population structure. This is because species tend to share similar strengths and weaknesses, meaning it is the whole species, and not the individual that will survive or fail. Thus, although individuals may be stronger than others, in the long run they will tend to share the fate of their population in the long run. A good example of this is typewriter repairers. Because of the typewriter becoming obsolete from the personal computer, all the population suffered and were at the mercy of the environment. It mattered little about the quality of managers or the strategy they employed; the environment was simply too strong. It is clear that population ecology places high emphasis on organizations struggle with the environment.

Contingency theory emphasizes that no best, universal structure exists. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment with which one is dealing. Contingency approach emphasizes the need for flexibility in dealing with the large numbers of variables in the environment. Because there is no best way of organizing, the environment is crucial in determining an appropriate form. Also, different types or 'species' of organizations are needed in different types of environments. (Argyris 28) Thus, under this theory organizations remain in struggles with the environment as they try to maintain an appropriate form. Contingency recognizes the inevitability of change in the environment. It sees that there are five main species of organization: machine bureaucracy, divisionalized form, professional bureaucracy, simple structure, and adhocracy. This theory recognises that adhocracy and the simple structure are better equipped to deal with change and act fast.

Due to low levels of complexity and high decentralization, this theory places these organizations as better equipped to cope with the struggles of the environment. Thus, in many industries the key to survival is adaptability and the realization that innovation is essential. Jobs must be allowed to shape themselves, people encouraged to find their role, and define their contribution to the organization. Although in relatively stable environments, conventional bureaucratic organizations with defined hierarchy and rules worked well, contingency theory states that in modern times change has become too rapid for these organizations to keep up. This is evidenced by the move by many large organizations such as Xerox to create small companies and independent work group to quickly adapt to the changing environment.

As the organizational environment has become more complex and turbulent, even more different types of organizations have emerged. Handy identifies 'shamrock' and 'federal' organizations, Quinn talks about 'cluster' organizations, and there is the well known 'matrix' organization. Systems theory builds on the principle that organizations, like organisms, are open to the environment, and must seek to build an appropriate relationship with the environment if they are to survive. Early systems theory developed as a biological metaphor in disguise. The open-systems approach places emphasis on environment in which organizations exist. It suggests organizations should plan and organize with the environment firmly in mind. Environment and system are to be understood to be in a state of interaction and mutual dependence.

Principles such as Homeostasis, entropy and negative entropy, equifinality, requisite variety and other commonly used biological principles can be used in analysis of organizations as systems. (Argyris 29) Thus open-systems stress importance of being able to scan and sense changes in task and contextual environments, firmly placing them in struggles with the environment. System theory also seeks to analyze an organization in terms of its internal subsystems. Individuals belong to small departments that belong to larger organizational divisions. The final aspect seeks to focus on alignments between subsystems and solve possible dysfunctions. Collectively, these aspects of systems theory allow organizations to organize in ways that meet the requirements of the environment. The view that "Organizations are always in a struggle with their environment" seems aptly suited to these three theories. Systems theory, population ecology, and contingency theory all place considerable emphasis on the environment, and clearly demonstrate that organizations will never be able to master the environment. Thus, they will be in a constant struggle with the environment as they are forced to adapt, change, and manage critical areas in organizations. As we have entered the 21st century, we see that more and more companies are trying to observe the rules of ethics of management.

Ethics is defined as a systematic study of moral conduct, duty, and judgment. Certainly, ethical behavior has always been important for organizations and individuals; however, today more and more attention is being paid to ethical concerns. Why? There are two basic answers to that question. One, is due to the coverage given to business through television, radio, and newspapers, we are more aware of unethical practices. For example, if an airline has a crash that kills hundreds of people and the cause is faulty equipment due to improper maintenance by the airlines, the public knows it quickly due to extensive media coverage. If a food company puts a product on the market with a food additive that may cause illness or even death, the public is informed through television, radio, and newspapers.