2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
2.3 THE OPEN SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
The open systems theoretical perspective is conceptualized also from within the systems thinking perspective. There are, however, some notable differences between the open systems perspective and the other two theories discussed above. Central to these are differences relating to the view that organizations as systems not only comprise of interconnected and interrelated subsystems, but are also inextricably intertwined with their external environments. For instance, on this issue Stacey (2003: 130) points out that organizations are systems because they consist of a number of component subsystems that are interrelated and interdependent and are open to their environments because they are connected to those environments.
Based on this viewpoint, it is reasonable to argue that organizations are as much influenced by what is happening internally as they are by that which takes place externally. This open systems viewpoint is captured succinctly in the citation that:
A slow conversion began to take place in the region around Porto with the manufacture of mixed textiles of cotton and silk. In the mid-nineteeth century, hand loom weaving of cotton texti les for the labouring classes was fairly widespread in Porto. In 1881 The huge growth of the domestic and workshop industry producing printed cotins and stripped cotton materials was particularly striking in this city: more than a quarter of its total population was engaged in this activity.
This citation is important in two respects. Firstly, it shows the interconnectedness and interface not only of the internal "subsystems" within a system but how the system relates to other systems external to it. Secondly, it exposes the limitations of the strategic choice approach arguing that strategy making is deliberate and predetermined. Like the learning organization theory, the open systems approach takes the view that strategy making cannot wholly be determined in advance since it is extremely difficult if not impossible to anticipate and be precise about all external variables in advance. In actual fact, the citation above, demonstrates the gradual and emergence nature of strategy. This view is grounded on the premise that it is improbable that one or a group of strategists would have planned in advance developments related in the citation.
Operating from within the open-systems conceptual framework, many strategy theorists have, for instance, emphasized the need for organizations to consider their external environments in strategy deliberations. In their endeavour to highlight the importance of the external environment, De Wit and Meyer (2005: 52) maintain that only understanding only the current state of affairs is generally insufficient. It is necessary to analyze the direction in which external circumstances are developing and the trends that can be discerned, including factors that drive industry and market dynamics.
In the same vein, David, Collis and Montgomery (in Zack, 1999: 35) highlight the point in their argument that, at the same time, investing in core competencies without examining the competitive dynamics that determine industry attractiveness is dangerous.
It is clear therefore, in the context of David et ai, that ignoring the external environment of the organization and its accompanying demands and challenges could, in time, prove detrimental and counter-productive to the organization as managers risk investing heavily in resources that potentially will yield insignificant value or low returns.
The fundamental contribution of the open systems theory to the study and understand ing of strategy as a discipline is its emphasis on the linkages and interdependence of the organization with factors in its external environment, over and above the integration and interconnectedness of various components believed to constitute the organization. Such heavy emphasis on linkages, interdependence, integration and interconnectedness at various levels, both within the organization itself and external to it, raises awareness and recognition of the fact that tampering with one element, either within the organization or within the external environment, is likely to have repercussions in either of the environments.
Stacey (2003: 130) reflects on this in his assertion that changing one component in an open system will clearly have knock-on effects in many other components because of the prevalence of interconnection. Such knock-on effects are confined not only to the subsystems within a system, but are also applicab'le in the interconnected relationship between the system and its environment This, by implication, suggests that changes in
the environment are more likely to impact on changes in the organizational system and its subsystems.
In raising the critical ity of the need to consider the relationship between the external and internal environments, the open systems theory draws an operational line between the organization and its external environment. As Stacey (2003: 130) puts it, each subsystem within a system, and each system within its environment, has a boundary separating it from other subsystems and other systems.
It makes sense, therefore, from an open systems viewpoint, that any strategic consideration must necessarily take into account the possible impact the external environment is likely to have on the organization and the effect organizational actions are likely to have on the environment. It is probably in this spirit that Hooley, Saunders and Piercy (2004: 93) commented that, of central importance in developing and implementing a robust marketing strategy, is awareness of how the environment in which marketing takes place is changing.
Critically surveying and understanding the external environment is probably vital on two fronts. Firstly, it is important in that it alerts the organization of the changes taking place outside the organization, impacting on the organization itself. Such understanding undoubtedly develops and enhances the organization's capacity to respond and adapt to the changes taking place. But, most importantly, it alerts organizational members to the fact that the change currently sweeping through the organization is not static but is itself in a perpetual state of change, putting pressure on the organization to develop a perpetual capacity to change.
Lawrence and Lorsch 10 1967 (in Stacey, 2003: 131) point out that open systems are thought of as having maintenance subsystems to sustain orderly relationships between the parts of the system. These systems are thought to be incompatible with change taking place within the organization, given what is regarded as their fundamental role; that is, to maintain stability and order within the organization. This view further finds expression in
the statement by De Wit and Meyer (2005: 88) that proponents of this perspective point out that people and organizations exhibit a natural reluctance to change, arguing that humans have a strong preference for stability and, once general policy has been determined, most firms are inclined to settle into a fixed way of working.
This study contends that consequent upon this propensity to stability, employees develop the preference to operate within structures that are solid and rigidly defined, with clearly scoped and formal processes, accompanied by standard operating procedures. This formality further calls for clearly identified competence areas and the distribution of power and authority which is regulated through formalized layers and a bureaucratized hierarchy in which there is no blurring of lines of demarcation. This organizational stability will tend to sustain itself both in intensity and duration if all these elements form a consistent and cohesive configuration.
CHAPTER THREE 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE
The organization which is the subject of this study is the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism. The KwaZulu-Natal Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism was established in June 2004 by the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal in terms of the Executive authority and powers provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996).
In its formation, the KZN Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism took over part of the functions which were under the jurisdiction of the KZN Department of Education and Culture. With regard specifically to these functions, the Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism replaced and assumed the rights and obligations of the Department of Education and Culture which had been in existence since the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994. This is clearly stated in a departmental forensic report document stipulating that
"the MEC of the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism ("DACT") is the successor in title of the former KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education and Culture (DEC)".
In this chapter, an outline is provided of the methods employed for the purposes of data gathering. Concurrent with this outline is an attempt to sketch a procedure followed in data gathering. It is on the basis of this that it will be shown why it was necessary to employ a case study method as an instrument for executing this exercise.