Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Management and Organizational Behavior

As living organisms modern day organizations have increasingly proven to be very dynamic. This state of affairs can be attributed to the dynamic nature of the corporate environment. Seemingly, the complexity and occurrence of the challenges that the organizations are forced to grapple with has increased significantly. These have made the corporate environment to be not only volatile but also turbulent and unpredictable. The challenges that are experiences both in the external and internal environment are wide and varied. They impact on the functioning of the organizations and greatly influence the decisions that are made at different levels. Living organizations have thus been compelled to align their functional systems to the expectations of the flexible and dynamically interactive nature of the environments within which they operate. The unpredictable nature of the work environments has transformed organizations form being mechanistic to being flexible as well as interactive. It is against this background that this paper compares the military unit and symphony organizations.

Seemingly, both organizations are complex and operate in a systemic nature. In this regard, they comprise of different parts that constantly work together for the common good of the whole. According to Quenk and Kummerow (n.d), the overall performance of such organizations can be adversely affected whenever one part is affected or is missing. The subsystems of the two organizations share intricate and augmenting relationships that can not be easily broken. In particular, the military unit is a part of the economic system of the armed forces. According to Roelofs (nd), orchestra systems on the other hand comprise of innumerous subsystems that closely depend on each other for optimal functioning.

As living organisms, both organizations benefit significantly from the resources that are found in the external environment. In the symphony organization, the resources include human labor and information. Basically, this organization depends heavily on the environment for its growth, sustenance and survival. The military unit on the other depends heavily on the civilian personnel sourced from the society to cater for its needs (Fedorox, 2001). Just like a living organisms, the organizations process the resources that they get from the environment in a bid to filter from these the beneficial aspects. The negative aspects are released to the environment while the beneficial positive aspects are employed for enhancing the growth and sustainability of the respective organizations.

Also both organizations produce end products after processing the resources that they consume from the environment. They make efforts to ensure that the end products also benefit the environment in order to enhance sustainable co existence. In this regard, it is worth appreciating that the resources that the environment provides for them need to be replenished. This can only be attained if the respective organizations give back to the environment. Essentially, the relationship that they share needs to be mutually beneficial. Failure to give back to the environment can have adverse effect on its productivity and make it difficult for the organizations to sustain their livelihoods.

Seemingly, the military system seldom releases the negative aspects in the environment. This is because of its closed nature. In this regard, it absorbs personnel, trains them and uses them for its own benefit. In contrast, the orchestra organization absorbs personnel, financial resources and other forms of resources, processes them and provides products to the environment. This implies that it is more complex and interrelates closely with different facets of the environment. Although the military unit also interacts with the environment within which it is situated, its closed nature does not allow for direct feedback form the environment. The end products of its processes benefit the army which is closely related to it as opposed to the entire complex environment which it relates with too.

Compared to the military unit, the resources that the symphony organization depends on are diverse in nature. This can be attributed to the various subsystems that these organization has. Seemingly, the subsystems require different products and operate differently when contributing to the common good. Notably, this makes them to be more complex and to have more internal as well as external relationships in order to enhance its performance and general wellbeing. Since the operations of the military unit are limited, the resources that it depends on for its survival are limited. Furthermore, it does not need to establish various relationships with its environment or it to perform optimally. This is because the respective organization is highly specialized and would not require the contributions of diverse elements found in the environment within which it is located (Capra n.d).

Because of the innumerable internal and external relationships that the symphony organization has, it is in most instances compounded by incidences of bureaucracy. This is unlike the military unit that has fewer relationships. Although they are intricate and augmenting, its system of accountability is clearer than that of the complex symphony organization. In his research, Black (2003) posits that in dynamic environments, bureaucratic organizations are unlikely to perform well. In this consideration therefore, it can be argued that the military unit is more efficient than the symphony organization. To a great extent, the operations of the military unit are predictable and defined. This is because of the fact that it bases decision making on established values, codes and policies. The operations in the symphony organization are not predetermined because of the dynamic nature of the relative interrelationships. The military unit can therefore be considered to be more of a machine than a living organism.

Unlike the unit military, the symphony organization is more likely to produce another organization. This is because it is dynamic and constantly growing and developing. Apparently, its diverse nature allows it to grow and develop accordingly. This is unlike the military unit whose operations are determined and its possibility of integrating new ways of operations is limited. In addition, the fact that the internal relationships of the symphony organization are collaborative increases their ability to be productive.

In sum, living organizations are able to adapt and co exist in a harmonic manner with the environment because of their flexibility. As identified in the study, both organizations rely on their external environments for growth, sustenance and survival. For this reason, they make unprecedented efforts to relate peacefully with their external environment. They are comprised of internal interrelationships that basically deal with processing the resources they source from the environment. However, the symphony organization is open ended and more complex than the unit military. Seemingly, is has more life than the later whose processes and operations are pre-determined. Nonetheless, the unit military is more efficient in its operations than the symphony organization.

References

Black , L. (2003). Adult and Distance Education Management: An Application of the Metaphor ‘Organizations as Organisms’, Retrieved May 18, 2009, from HYPERLINK “http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter64/black64.htm” t “_blank” http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter64/black64.htm

Capra, F. (N.D.) Living Systems. The Light Party. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from HYPERLINK “http://www.lightparty.com/Visionary/LivingSystems.html” t “_blank” http://www.lightparty.com/Visionary/LivingSystems.html

Fedorov, G.S. (2001). The Military Unit as Part of the Armed Forces’ Economic System . Military Thought . July. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from HYPERLINK “http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/400163” t “_blank” http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/400163

Roelofs, L. (N.D.) Organizational Change: Open System Concepts. SymphonyOrchestra Institute. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from HYPERLINK “http://www.soi.org/reading/change/concepts.shtml” t “_blank” http://www.soi.org/reading/change/concepts.shtml

Quenk L. & Kummerow, J. (N.D.) Interpretive Report. CPP Inc. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from HYPERLINK “http://www.psychometrics.com/docs/mbti_st2_ir.pdf” t “_blank” http://www.psychometrics.com/docs/mbti_st2_ir.pdf