External and Internal Organizational Environments

External Environments and Industries

• Identify contemporary external forces pressuring organizations.

The two dimensions of this figure represent "environmental complexity" (i.e., the number of elements in the environment, such a competitors, suppliers, and customers), which is characterized as either simple or complex, and "environmental change," described as stable or unstable. How available monetary and financial resources are to support an organization's growth is also an important element in this framework. Certain industries - soft drink bottlers, beer distributors, food processors, and container manufacturers - would, hypothetically, fit and align more effectively in a stable (i.e., relative unchanging), simple, and low-uncertainty (i.e., has mostly similar elements) external environment - cell 1 in Exhibit 15.4. This is referred to when organizations are in a simple-stable environment. Of course unpredicted conditions, such as global and international turmoil, economic downturns, and so on, could affect these industries, but generally, these alignments have served as an ideal type and starting point for understanding the "fit" between environment and industries. In a stable but complex, low- to moderate-uncertainty environment, cell 2 in Exhibit 15.4, universities, appliance manufacturers, chemical companies, and insurances companies would generally prosper. This is referred to when organizations are in a complex-stable environment. When the external environment has simple but high to moderate uncertainty, cell 3 of Exhibit 15.4, e-commerce, music, and fashion clothing industries would operate effectively. This is referred to when organizations are in a simple-unstable environment. Whereas in cell 4 of Exhibit 15.4, an environment characterized by a high degree of uncertainty with complex and unstable elements, industries and firms such as computer, aerospace, airlines, and telecommunications firms would operate more effectively. This is referred to when organizations are in a complex-unstable environment.

Exhibit 15.4 is a starting point for diagnosing the "fit" between types of external environments and industries. As conditions change, industries and organizations must adapt or face consequences. For example, educational institutions that traditionally have been seen to operate best in low- to moderate-uncertainty environments, cell 2 of Exhibit 15.4, have during this past decade experienced more high to moderate uncertainty (cell 3) - and even high uncertainty (cell 4). For example, for-profit educational institutions such the University of Phoenix and others - as compared to not-for-profit universities and colleges, such as public state institutions, community colleges, and private nonprofit ones - have undergone more unstable and complex forces in the external environment over the past decade. Under the Obama administration, for-profit universities faced greater scrutiny regarding questionable advertising, graduation rates, and accreditation issues; lawsuits and claims against several of these institutions went forward, and a few of the colleges had to close. The Trump administration has shown signs of alleviating aggressive governmental control and monitoring in this sector. Still, higher educational institutions in general currently face increasingly complex and unstable environments given higher tuition rates, increased competition from less-expensive and online programs, fewer student enrollments, and an overabundance of such institutions. Several private, not-for-profit higher educational institutions have merged and also ceased to exist. Adapting to increasingly rapid external change has become a rallying call for most industries and organizations as the 21st century evolves.

Source: OpenStax, https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/15-2-external-environments-and-industries
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Organizational Complexity

It is important to point out here that external (and internal) organizational complexity is not often as simple as it may seem. It has been defined as "…the amount of complexity derived from the environment where the organisation operates, such as the country, the markets, suppliers, customers and stakeholders; while internal complexity is the amount of complexity that is internal to the organisation itself, i.e. products, technologies, human resources, processes and organisational structure. Therefore, different aspects compose internal and external complexities".

The dilemma that organizational leaders and managers sometimes face is how to deal with external, and internal, complexity? Do you grow and nurture it or reduce it? Some strategies call for reducing and managing it at the local level while nurturing it at the global level - depending on the organization's size, business model, and the nature of the environment. Without going into complicated detail, it is fair to say at the beginning of the chapter that you may want to read through the chapter first, then return here afterward.

In the meantime, here are some simple rules from organizational practitioners De Toni and De Zan to keep in mind for managing high levels of complexity from the external environment, internally, after you have diagnosed the nature of the external complexity - as we discuss throughout in this chapter: first, assemble "…a set of self-managing teams or autonomous business units,[known as modularized units] with an entrepreneurial responsibility to the larger organization". These focused self-organizing teams use creative methods to deal with the diversity to the advantage of the organization. A second method when facing high external environmental complexity when you want to gain value from it is to find and develop "…simple rules to drive out creativity and innovation … to keep the infrastructure and processes simple, while permitting complex outputs and behaviours". An example offered is found in the rules of the Legos company: "(1) does the proposed product have the Lego look? (2) Will children learn while having fun? (3) Will parents approve? (4) Does the product maintain high quality standards? (5) Does it stimulate creativity?"

A third strategy for dealing with external complexity involves companies' building on their own capabilities. If companies attempt to manage too much complexity it would lead to chaos. Some strategies to combat external complexity and improve a company's capabilities include: (1) creating open networks internal and outside the organization to promote cooperation and integration, and (2) to develop and advance their brand and reputation. Some of those strategies include creating open networks internal and outside the organization to promote cooperation and integration and to develop brand and reputation. Also, sharing "…values, vision, strategy, organizational processes and knowledge, through the development of trust and incorporation and promotion of leaders at all levels" can help internal teams exploit external complexity to the organization's advantage. Keep these ideas in mind as you read through the chapter and think about how leaders, managers, employees, and you can learn to read external environmental clues that organizations can use to creatively and proactively use organizational resources to be more competitive, effective, and successful.

 Concept Check

1. What factors within the economic environment affect businesses?
2. Why do change and shifts and technological developments create both challenges and new opportunities for business?

The Internal Organization and External Environments

• Explain how organizations organize to meet external market threats and opportunities.
  

At a basic level of understanding how internal organizations respond to environments, consider the theory of Open Systems, which the organizational theorists Katz and Kahn36 and Bertalanffy introduced.

Exhibit 15.15 illustrates this theory's view of organizations as open systems that take in resources and raw materials at the "input" phase from the environment in a number of forms, depending on the nature of the organization, industry, and its business. Whatever the input resources are - information, raw materials, students entering a university - to be transformed by the internal processes of the organization. The internal organizational systems then process and transform the input material, which is called "through-put" phase, and move the changed material (resources) to the "outputs" and back into the environment as products, services, graduates, etc.

The open systems model serves as a feedback loop continually taking in resources from the environment, processing and transforming them into outputs that are returned to the environment. This model explains organizational survival that emphasizes long-term goals.

Organizations according to this theory are considered as either Open or Closed systems, (or relatively opened or closed) depending on the organization's sensitivity to the environment. Closed systems are less sensitive to environmental resources and possibilities, and open systems are more responsive and adaptive to environmental changes. For example, during the 1980's the then Big 3 U.S. auto manufacturers (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) were pressured by Japanese auto manufacturers' successful 4-cylinder car sales that hit the U.S. like a shock wave. The Detroit producers experienced slumping sales, plant closures, and employee lay-offs in response to the Japanese wave of competition. It seemed that the U.S. auto makers had become closed or at least insensitive to changing trends in cars during that time and were unwilling to change manufacturing processes. Similarly, Amazon's business model, discussed earlier, has and continues to pressure retailers to innovate and change processes and practices to compete in this digital era.

Organizations respond to external environments not only through their structures, but also by the domains they choose and the internal dimensions and capabilities they select. An organization defines itself and its niche in an environment by the choice of its domain, i.e., what sector or field of the environment it will use its technology, products, and services to compete in and serve. Some of the major sectors of a task environment include marketing, technology, government, financial resources, and human resources.

Presently, several environmental domains that once were considered stable have become more complex and unstable - e.g., toys, public utilities, the U.S. Postal Service, and higher education. And even domains are changing. For example, as referred to earlier, the traditionally stable and somewhat unchanging domain of higher education has become more complex with the entry of for-profit educational institutions, MOOCs (massive open online courses), internal company "universities," and other certification and degree programs outside traditional private institutions. Sharing-economy companies such as Uber and Airbnb have redefined the transportation domain in which taxis operate and the hospitality domain in which hotels and bed and breakfasts serve. New business models that use mobile phones, ICTs (information communication technologies), and apps remove middle management layers in traditional organizations and structures.

With a chosen domain in which to operate, owners and leaders must organize internal dimensions to compete in and serve their markets. For example, hierarchies of authority and chain of command are used by owners and top-level leaders to develop and implement strategic and enterprise decisions; managers are required to provide technologies, training, accounting, legal, and other infrastructure resources; and cultures still count to establish and maintain norms, relationships, legal and ethical practices, and the reputation of organizations.

Exhibit 15.16 shows internal organizational dimensions. These dimensions and systems include leadership, strategy, culture, management, goals, marketing, operations, and structure. Relationships, norms, and politics are also included in the informal organization. There are other internal functions not listed here, such as research and development, accounting and finance, production, and human resources. Another popular depiction of internal organizational dimensions is the McKinsey 7-S model, shown in Exhibit 15.17. Similarly, strategy, structure, systems, skills, staff, and style all revolve around and are interconnected with shared values (or culture) in an organization.

A unifying framework shown in Exhibit 15.18, developed by Arie Lewin and Carroll Stephens, illustrates the integration of internal organizational dimensions and how these work in practice to align with the external environment. Note that it is the CEO and other top-level leaders who scan the external environment to identify uncertainties and resources before using a SWOT analysis (identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to confirm and update the domain of an organization and then to define the vision, mission, goals, and strategies. Once the enterprise goals and strategies are developed, the organizational culture, structure, and other systems and policies can be established (human resources, technologies, accounting and finance, and so on).

As Exhibit 15.18 shows, after a CEO and the top-level team identify opportunities and threats in the environment, they then determine the domain and purpose of the organization from which strategies, organizational capabilities, resources, and management systems must be mobilized to support the enterprise's purpose. The company McDonald's has, for example, successfully aligned its enterprise with the global environments it serves, which is "1% of the world's population - more than 70 million customers - every day and in virtually every country across the world". The major operating goal of the firm driving its internal alignment is a "fanatical attention to the design and management of scalable processes, routines, and a working culture by which simple, stand-alone, and standardized products are sold globally at a predictable, and therefore manageable, volume, quality, and cost". A more detailed SWOT analysis of McDonald's operations can be found in endnote.

In practice, no internal organizational alignment with its external environment is perfect or permanent. Quite the opposite. Companies and organizations change leadership and strategies and make structural and systems changes to meet changing competition, market forces, and customers and end users' needs and demands. Even Amazon continues to develop, expand, and change. With a mission statement as bold and broad as Amazon's, change is a constant: "Our vision is to be earth's most customer-centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online".

Amazon has a functional organizational structure that focuses on business functions for determining the interactions among the different parts of the company. Amazon's corporate structure is best characterized as global function-based groups (most significant feature), a global hierarchy, and geographic divisions, as Exhibit 15.20 shows. This structure seems to fit with the size of Amazon's business - 43% of 2016 retail sales were in the United States. Seven segments, including information technology, human resources and legal operations, and heads of segments, report to Amazon's CEO. "Senior management team include two CEOs, three Senior Vice Presidents and one Worldwide Controller, who are responsible for various vital aspects of the business reporting directly to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos".  The strategic goal underlying this structure is to facilitate Amazon.com to successfully implement e-commerce operations management throughout the entire organization.

Despite the company's exponential growth and success to date, as noted earlier in the section on organizational structures, a disadvantage of structures such as Amazon's, and in this case Amazon's, is that it has limited flexibility and responsiveness even with its current growth. "The dominance of the global function-based groups and global hierarchy characteristics reduces the capacity of Amazon to rapidly respond to new issues and problems encountered in the e-commerce business". Still, Amazon's most outstanding success factor remains its CEO, Jeff Bezos - his ingenuity, vision and foresight, and ability to sustain and even extend the company's competitive advantages. Amazon customers value these factors - customer purchase criteria (CPC) that include price, fast delivery, and reliable service. "Consumers choose Amazon because it does better than its competition on these CPC".