1. Marlene Drake’s Paper Professional organizations must connect the importance of technology, social boundaries, and the three perspectives (natural, rational, open) for survival. Employers and employees ought to understand that different organizations must be able to identify with the culture, system, structure, and political viewpoints to have effective problem solving within their work environment (Kuhne & Milacci, n.d.). When these are not applied the organization can impact the systems, structures, and cultures. Utilization of the concepts of technologies and social boundaries can inspire promotion of any or all of the three perspectives to maintain “best practices” of the organizations (Scott & Davis, 2007). The importance of this relationship will be discussed throughout this essay. Correlation of 3 Perspectives The concept explains how the structure is shaped by the technology, while the technology describes the work performed by the organization (Scott & Davis, 2007). Scott and Davis (2007) discussed how the organization can take a narrow or broader view of the word technology. For example, let’s say that the company decides to take a narrow view, which would contain the hardware (equipment, machines, instruments), or a broader view would include the skills and knowledge, as well as, the characteristics of the objects in which the work is performed (Scott & Davis, 2007). Theoretically, utilization of technology should promote less time spent collecting data, or negative feedback for certain organizations, such as factories. Instead, there are questions surrounding the reliability of data collected by technology (Scott & Davis, 2007). This definition explains how technology can alter, or influence humans, especially, when it is utilized within a rational perspective. Social boundaries remind organizations to be mindful of inappropriate, harmful, or desired elements based on the criteria set in place by the CEO (Scott & Davis, 2007). Rational perspective is identified as being used to evaluate systems in order to accomplish goals, and some organizations apply strategic contingency in cases where adaptation is required to promote higher performance that results in organizational success (Scott & Davis, 2007; Sayilar, Guc Endustri & Dergisi, 2016). Employers justify rational system as a way to reduce conflicts, while increasing efficacy of the individuals, as well as, inequalities among the group of workers (Scott & Davis, 2007). This may work within certain styles of organizations, such as within a factory, however; this may reduce creativity for the employees within the walls of education, hospitals, or mental health facilities. The technology and social boundaries can be impacted by rational perspective due to influences from the organization to recognize only the success of the company. Rigidity and firm structures can reduce social boundaries, just as technology can become more pronounced than the individual. Social boundaries are also related to all three perspectives, and the concept of technology because it promotes an unidirectional influence over employees, as well as, the organization (Scott & Davis, 2007). For example, if an individual is working under the rational system and this organization utilizes Taylorism as the pattern to success, the employer is not attempting to identify the needs of the individual but instead uses the machinery to change the social construct of the individual (Scott & Davis, 2007; Farrell, 2019). Farrell (2019) informs that if an organization is to stay successful leaders ought to try to understand the culture, while reinforcing, or attempting to change certain characteristics (training, debriefing) that can promote creativity and lead to the success of the company. This describes how natural perspective can take the technology and social boundaries of an organization by identifying what is beneficial for both the employee and employer, along with patterns of activities, while encouraging variations, experience, and skills knowledge (Scott & Davis, 2007). Open perspective, concept of technology, and social boundaries can be a challenge for an organization, due to the external flow of the outside environment. This is when the culture of the organization, or the norm, can take on a nominalist strategy that allows the employee to practice best practices while utilizing the known conceptual framework (Scott & Davis, 2007; Busby, 2017). Scott and Davis (2007) explain that tracking the social boundaries of a delimited social structure (open system) can be quite challenging, however; if culture plays a big role for the employee, positive influences from collaboration can reduce these challenges and maximize the goals of the organization (Busby, 2017). Busby (2017) details how four fundamental factors should be addressed, analyzed, and comprehended should the organization stay successful. These consists of understanding the organization’s culture, the impact and type of problem, concerns and attitudes towards the environment, and the possible concern for resistance (Busby, 2017). Technology Issues Social boundaries can be an area of challenge for participants, considering that best practices, and ethical behaviors, and norms must be applied. Integrity also plays a part within the company that can be impacted by expert power, reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, personal power, and referent power. The reason these forms of power correlate with social boundaries and the concept of technology is that when one of these areas are not pleased, the employee can be reprimanded. This speaks to the integrity of the employee being affected from possible job loss, or credibility from taking information from technology. Technology is defined as being comprised of being both intellectual and holding knowledge processes over the employee, and held to high standards by the company (Scott & Davis, 2007). This reminds me of an issue that Dr. Marbella Alfonzo was experiencing within her middle school. Dr. Alfonzo took the position as principal recently and is aware of the challenges around her. Data comes in stating that 100% of the student body is receiving free lunch, so this school is rated as a Title One school, as well as, 70% of the students are Hispanic and possibly ESL (English as a 2nd language) students. The school was operating under a rational approach, and following our discussion, we both recognized that this was always not a best practice under these conditions. The environment penetrated the walls of the school, and presented a challenge, so a cultural-cognitive framework ought to be implemented (Scotts & Davis, 2007). Social boundaries meant that Dr. Alfonzo must take a realist approach, in which she implemented trauma programs for the educators to learn, utilize, and know when to deliver these training at the appropriate times. While this is an educational system with governed rules, rational approach must be implemented, but natural, and open should be included as well. This is one example of how technology should not increase negative social boundaries. Hyeokkoo, Hyunji, Sang and Wonseok (2016) acknowledged within the rational addiction framework that dependence on social applications are not always accurate, and can reduce specific goals, based on inaccurate data taken from technology. Charki and Boukef (2017) explains how technology can also influence ethical decision-making, reducing positive mindsets of the participants, increasing possible loss or harm for the company based off of unethical information. Organizational Boundaries Technology can create issues for a participant due to organizational boundaries. These organizational boundaries can impact the creative abilities of the employee, or in some cases create states of mental stress. Power, ethics, and conflict can increase negative moral judgment for participants during challenging situations from top management (Bolman & Deal, 2017). A leader ought to be a like a quarterback that can motivate, inspire the team, as well as, determine or identify their strengths and weaknesses (Bolman & Deal, 2017). This can be a problem if the technology or the technology’s data does not work in the favor of the participants. Due to similar circumstances, Lam (2018) following irresponsible events, workers’ suicides, and poor working conditions, adopted best practices to prevent future challenges. This organizational challenge within organizations occur in the health and social fields, as well. Campbell, Olsen and Keenan (2016) shares information on how children were left in homes to be abused, only because of data that proved they were not affected by risk factors, that were extreme enough. Technology should not take the place of human intelligence that can increase social oppression for participants. Old organizational (boundary) actions were creating safety issues, which resulted in protests from the workers (Lam, 2018). This led to a new set of organizational boundaries of enforcing safety requirements that were stricter, designing a better inspection program, and required safety training to address the social issues within the organization (Lam, 2018). A longitudinal secondary data proved that these actions reduced the firm’s financial risk, and practiced new behaviors to prevent unfavorable working conditions, child labor, discrimination, and risks of health and safety that were more suitable structurally (Lam, 2018; Bolman & Deal, 2017). Following my discussion with Dr. Alfonzo, this was brought to my attention that this organizational boundary can impact the student, as well. When there is poor structuring, restructuring should be done to increase clarity, prevent overload, maintain individual needs, while allowing participants the ability to verbalize their emotions to top management. Scott and Davis (2007) explain how important it is for organizational boundaries (policies and procedures) to be emphasized, however; there seems to be more value in the control over the participants, rather than value of the participants. Personal Perspective The leadership style is important for the organization, especially, if the organization is attempting to maximize the success of the business, or support inner relationship for the company. Identifying the style of leadership ought to be known by the entire organization, as well as, the type of approach being emphasized, such as rational, natural, or open. I stand by maintaining self-sacrificial leadership qualities, because being empathic promotes mindfulness and focus for my employees, allows me to encourage, and supports dialogical listening that promotes value for the company by the employees. This is why I encourage openness among my employees through weekly debriefing that assist participants with positive interpersonal selfexpression. Natural perspective allows for my company to collaborate with the outside environment (principals, Medicaid offices, Social Security offices, etc.) creating a positive influence. Open system is also utilized and balances all the systems, while maintaining interrelations, and interconnections, as well as, supports sustainability and improvements with the environment (Scott & Davis, 2007). Rational perspective is only used when paperwork is related, based on the systems being connected with the external environments in order to maintain success, and incorrect paperwork can also be critical for the company (Scott & Davis, 2007). The concept of Technology is not the only form of data that is utilized, and social boundaries are set in place to empower, inspire, motivate, and nothing more. Proverbs 14:16 comes to mind when I think of moral dimensions, peace, harmonious, or the courage to seek wisdom, especially within the walls of a crisis facility (Merida, 2015; King 1). Unfortunately, following these guidelines can still lead to unhappy employees, and this is why policies are in place for short term goals, as well as, long term goals for all employees. My company does not practice what other organizations may label traditional communication processes during challenging situations; instead, paid self-care (spa, bowling, hiking, kayaking) and therapy sessions are offered. We offer progressive muscle relaxation through the company, for daily usage to reduce feelings of compassion fatigue, or frustration to meet the AIDA (attention, interest, desired outcome, action) framework (Busby, 2017). Philippians 2:4 has become 2nd nature with my thought process, and is expected from all who works under my umbrella to identify with when it pertains to human dignity given to all. Romans 12:2 reminds us that integrity should be kept close, and to not be confined to what the world wants, but what is good and acceptable. Natural perspective allows the company the opportunity to practice genuine concern for all staff, and clients, while practicing John 14:6 with each session, and with all clients. This commitment, and biblical practice is embedded in all employees to cease from anger with all clients, trust in the lord, commit to their way (norm, culture), and comprehending that commitment is not just a statement, but unwavering giving (Klamm, LU). This is why along with utilizing all three perspectives, encouraging Path-goal Theory can motivate, encourage, and guide participants to shared goals, while reducing workrelated stress, anxiety, and frustration (Northouse, 2019). References American Association of Christian Counselors. (n.d.). Understanding Organizations as Machines. [Video]. U.S.: Liberty University. Bolman, L., Deal, T. (2017). Reframing Organization: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Busby, N. (2017). The Shape of Change-A Guide to planning, implementing, and Embedded Organizational change. New York, NY: Routledge. Campbell, K., Olson, L., Keenan, T. H. (2016). What Happened next: Interviews with Mothers After A Finding of Child Maltreatment in the Household. Journal of Sage, 27(2), 155169. http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1177/1049732315625197 Charki, M. H., Josserand, E., Boukef, N. (2017). The paradoxical effects of legal interventions over unethical information technology use: A rational choice theory perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 6(1), pp. 58-76. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.07.001 Farrell, M. (2019). Leadership Reflection: Organizational Culture. Journal of Library Administration, 58(8), 861-872. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu /10.1080101930826.2018.1516949 Hyeokkoo, E. K., Hyunji, S., Sang, P. H., Wonseok, O. (2016). Excessive Dependence on Mobile Social Apps: A Rational Addiction Perspective. Informs, 27(4). Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1287/isre.2016.0658 Lam, H. K. S (2018). Doing good across organizational boundaries: Sustainable supply chain practices and firms’ financial risk. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(12), 2389-2412. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1108/IJOPm-02-2018-0056 Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group. Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. (8th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Sayilar, Yucel IS., Guc Endustri Iliskileri vd Insan., Dergisi, kaynaklari. (2016). The Past, Present, and Future of Structural Contingency Theory. Bursa, 18(4), 99-124. Doi:10.4026/2148-9874.2016.0333.x Scott, W. R., Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2. Jeremey Steele’s Paper the concept of technology structures and social boundaries for organizations Today, the world is governed by turbulence and uncertainty. There are various transformations taking place in competition, technology, demand and regulations and have become a norm. The external environments for the businesses have become complex and hard to predict. This has inspired various organizations into adopting mechanisms which facilitate flexibility of the organization and quick decision-making across the organizational boundaries. The organization’s social boundaries are more permeable and fluid assisted by various technological structures facilitating the dissemination of skills, knowledge and resources. Technological structures play a vital role in enhancement of collaboration across the boundaries. An economy built on innovation is faced with a leveraging technological structures challenges that create flexible companies with effective collaboration in all organizational boundaries. Most of the organizations transform the vertical hierarchies to the horizontal networks that develop interfunctional teams. Also, with the external entities, they form strategic alliances like suppliers, customers as well as competitors. In this paper, we will examine the technological structures and social boundaries concept and come up with an overview of the technological and social terminologies for the organizations in modern business environment. Application to three perspectives Organizational boundaries and social boundaries can be defined in two ways. The approaches are realist and normalist approaches. The normalist approach agrees with the conceptual views on identifying the theoretical boundaries. The realist approach accepts the opinions of the participants to recognize the important boundaries to the participants. Various organizational components have to be determined despite the perspective taken that is either natural, rational or open perspective (Tripathi et al., 2020). Examples of some relationships between individuals are the nature of the activities performed by people and the inclusion criteria for the members. Examination of the relationship between people helps to identify the boundaries of the organization where interpersonal relationship is scarce. Emphasizing on the nature of activities undertaken by participants assists in recognition of boundaries where change of the nature of activities can be witnessed. It is crucial to determine the inclusion criteria used for the members as it entails rules and norms applicable to the participants. Such practice identifies the boundaries and where the change rules and criteria can be applied. The social boundaries are blurred as the normative, activity-based and relational boundaries do not coincide (Yonkers, 2020). The efforts put by the organization in differentiating participants from the non-participants individuals always asks the reason behind the social and organization boundaries failure in outlining the crucial activities and relations. The organizational systems vary based on how open the systems are to external entities depending on whether the system is rational, natural or open. Open systems consist of interdependent activities which are heavily influenced by external environment. The open systems have active exchange of information and resources with the external environment. Such organizations are highly influenced by external powers and are not in a position to have full control of their behavior. In other words, the open systems’ social boundaries are flexible in nature. The natural perspectives provide an organization with collective entities where participants take part in the mutual activities by informal structures hence making sure that the system survives. The nature of social boundaries in the natural systems requires the participants to actively collaborate and work as a team to achieve the desired goals of the organization. Rational perspectives show that an organization can be seen as a collective entity focusing on achieving certain objectives and demonstrates highly-formalized technological structures. The rational system’s social boundaries have two characteristics that is formal social structures and goal specificity. The technology structures define the participants’ roles and responsibilities and system expectations (Őnday, 2018). The social boundaries set in the system between the environment and organization do not exist as environment is not considered by rational perspective during evaluation of vital factors that affect organizational dynamics. There are some scholars that have presented their views on rational perspectives without presenting a complete nature overview and importance of the social boundaries to the organization. Therefore, it would be better to highlight the emergence of open system perspectives that comes up with various benefits from studying influences that are expected from social boundaries in the organization. Other scholars are allowed to conceptualize as well as recognize all components of social boundaries. The open perspective recognizes environmental penetration to the organization in a way that blurs simple procedure to differentiate environment from the organization. Areas of technology that are an issue for participants There are critical areas where technology has become an issue for the participants in technology structures and social boundaries. Some of these issues includes difficult to assess accuracy of the social boundaries or technology structures of the organization. Another issue is on the reliability of the shared information and challenges on myriad cybersecurity which negatively impacts technological structures integrity (Alm et al., 2020). Most of the technology structures like social media platforms are used inappropriately through sharing propaganda and false information that can negatively affect the people sending and receiving the information. Most of the participants are unable to determine the reliability and accuracy of information that is shared through the organizational technology structures. Cybersecurity challenges is a crucial issue that faced the technology structures as they influence integrity and expose participants to cybersecurity risks. We can use the technology structures in improving collaboration and social boundaries through social media platforms as well as integrated technologies. This would help in cybersecurity risks mitigation. Using the social media platforms improves the collaboration and interaction of the participants as they can share ideas and opinions on various issues or factors. Integrated technology consists of interoperable applications that are actively integrated to improve connectivity within the participants. Integrated technologies improve the collaboration of all members in the organization and enhances teamwork and interconnectivity among them. Boundaries are traditionally wired in all structures in the organization. The traditional organization structure describes non-existing business environment. Fast-changing market and new technologies have emerged hence changing the existing business relationships. This has resulted as the organizations have blurred traditional boundaries when responding to the emergence of more flexible business environment that would positively impact the organization and social boundaries. Roles and responsibilities performed by people in the modern business environments as they continue working have become ambiguous. Today, the business environments need organizations to have a highly interconnected team. This can be achieved if the participants go beyond the set social boundaries in the organization. Organizations are developing strong customer relationships and collaborating with the stakeholders in value chain to ensure that they work together towards achievement of the organizational objectives. Most organizations have leveraged current technological structures in facilitation of the fast information and knowledge dissemination between external contacts and participants. Also, it assists the employees in making informed decisions based on the information made available by technology structures like the social media platforms. Technology structures take crucial roles in breaking down the social boundaries making organizations to be rigid (Almklov et al., 2018). The recommendations to all organizations are that they should use different technology structures which lead to open exchange with employees and business stakeholders or partners and conduct authentic conversations with the customers hence gaining trust. Organizations should have consistent communication, visible engagement and appropriate behavior as they use technological structures. The way in which an organization interacts with different people like the employees, investors, or customers shape the image of the organization and its identity (Őnday, 2018). The interaction may be in person or through an online portal. Behavior or voice of one employee can have a great influence of the organization as it can be linked to the global social networks and used to generalize the entire organization. Issues with organizational boundaries for participants There are various issues that are linked with the organizational boundaries for the participants in a given organizations. These issues are based on the approaches that are used in dealing with the organizational boundaries. There are various primary factors which can lead to emergence of issues in the organizational boundaries as per the perspective of the participants (Neumeyer et al., 2019). These factors include behavior pattern caused by actors involved and boundaries and events that take place in the organization as a result of social boundaries. Different studies have argued that sharing of knowledge across the social boundaries is complex and difficult as knowledge is socially constructed in context and practice. Therefore, knowledge exchange is hugely affected by level of knowledge or its context as classified. Such attributes made information or knowledge dissemination over the social boundaries to be hard and complex. With the emergence of new technology structures and communication channels, organizations are still dealing with disconnected tools and media. Most of the participants go through hard moments as they try to determine relevant and authentic information, evaluation of the information and using the information for individual purposes. Some characteristics of organizational boundaries may be the traditional approaches to the information management and communication channels which are reduced down to effective participant collaboration. An issue can emerge based on the fact that the efforts in sharing knowledge across the social boundaries do not always achieve the desired goals and outcomes. Hindrances are caused by the structures and practices in the organization together with political and technical environments. The organization has to do away with such obstacles to ensure that communication and sharing of information can be done without resistance from them. Participants taking part in various social boundaries in the organization are under different governance which makes it difficult to come up with an effective collaboration. Factors that may prevent effective participant collaboration in such situations are boundaries like political, jurisdictional and organizational boundaries. It is advisable for the organizations to use technological structures to improve the interactivity among employees or participants and boost collaboration across the social boundaries. Personal perspectives After examination of the relationship that exists between the social boundaries and technology structures which show that most organizations are appreciating the importance of knowledge and sharing of resources across the organizational boundaries. Sharing of knowledge and information in the organization is important for the operations that take place in the organization and improvement of the performance and productivity of the organization (Őnday, 2018). One of the primary factors leading to research on influence of technology structures and social boundaries is the increased information integration need across the organizations or their departments in making well informed decisions, planning of organizational programs as well as providing services to their customers. Emergence of the new technologies has contributed in facilitation of faster information dissemination and permitted the integration of information in the system which improved connectivity and collaboration among participants. Collaboration and communication of employees would succeed depending on the nature of interaction in consideration to various components facilitating sharing of organizational activities. Exchange of information is a vital practice as far as organizational boundaries are concerned. Companies need to develop strong participant connections which they should be linked with, provide accurate and reliable information and messages, follow right format and deliver it at the right time and are adapted to the specified organizational boundaries. From the biblical perspective, collaboration has been advocated as indicated in Romans 12:4-6 which states that “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So, we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one member one of another.Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.” Boundaries have ubiquitous and is central in regard to social sciences and regions like the social construction careers formation (Tangen, 2018). The boundaries are seen as socially and organizationally unproblematic are per the economic efficiency reflections. Adopting new technology structures in the organization can shrink or enlarge the organizational boundaries. Conclusion In conclusion, social and organizational boundaries can be defined in two primary ways. The two approaches in definition of the boundaries are realist and normalist approaches. Normalist approach allows conceptual view on the identification of theoretical boundaries. Realist approach is the recognition of important boundaries based on the opinions or viewpoints of the participants. Today, the business environments need organizations to have high interconnected teams beyond the social boundaries. Organizations have started to develop unshakeable relationships with their customers, clients or employees and more so on stakeholder collaboration in the value chain. Technological structures are employed in improving participant collaboration as well as the social boundaries like the social media platform and integration of the technology structures. The social media platforms improve participant interaction and collaboration through sharing information, opinions and ideas on different factors that contribute or affect the organization success. The external business environment can be complex and unpredictable hence inspiring adoption of flexibility mechanisms in the organization and ensure that decision making process is faster and accurate across the organizational boundaries. References Alm, A. A., Bergman, A., & Åge, E. (2020). Balancing Vertical Acquisitions and Strategic Outsourcing: A study of how non-efficiency conceptions can influence vertical integration strategies and impact organizational boundaries. Almklov, P. G., Antonsen, S., Bye, R., & Øren, A. (2018). Organizational culture and societal safety: Collaborating across boundaries. Safety science, 110, 89-99. Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Who is left out: exploring social boundaries in entrepreneurial ecosystems? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 462-484. Őnday, Ő. (2018). The relationship between concepts of rational, natural and open systems: Managing organizations today. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 10(1), 245-258. Tangen, K. I. (2018). Leadership as Participation in Christ: Paul’s Theology of Leadership in the Letter to the Philippians. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 8(1), 276-290. Tripathi, V. R., Popli, M., Ghulyani, S., Desai, S., & Gaur, A. (2020). Knowledge creation practices at organizational boundaries: the role of ICT in sickle-cell care for tribal communities. Journal of Knowledge Management. Yonkers, V. (2020). Creating theoretic boundaries for the study of human behavior and emerging technologies: A framework for choosing theory. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. BMAL 710 DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM INSTRUCTIONS Discussion Board Forums Modules 2, 4, 6, and 8 (130 Points Per DB) Discussion boards are collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, the student will create a thread in response to the provided prompt for each forum. Each thread must be 2,100-2,200 words (due by Thursday of each week) and demonstrate course-related knowledge. In addition to the thread, the student will reply to the threads of at least 2 classmates. Each reply must be 600-700 words (due by the end of the respective module/week). Each initial thread must include a mínimum of 7 sources in addition to the Bible, and peer replies must include the integration of at least 3 peer-reviewed source citations and scripture, in current APA format, outlined in each respective Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical principle. This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussion Board Forums. This means you will only be able to read and interact with your classmates’ threads after you have submitted your thread in response to the provided prompt. For additional information on Post-First, click here for a tutorial. Note: Students will not be permitted to attach files within the forum posts, you can copy/paste from any Word file. Formatting consideration is provided due to the editing feature in Blackboard, but students must attempt the best APA format as possible. For Discussion Board Forums 1–3 (Modules 2, 4, and 6), submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned module/week, and submit your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the same module/week. For Discussion Board Forum 4 (Module 8), submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of Module/Week 8, and submit your replies by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of the same module/week. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment