Hi, need to submit a 750 words paper on the topic Strategic Leadership: Open & Closed Systems.

Hi, need to submit a 750 words paper on the topic Strategic Leadership: Open & Closed Systems. running head: Strategic Leadership Strategic Leadership Open & Closed Systems Submitted [Pick the Both open and closed systems are concepts defined in systems theory, also known as structuralism and humanism. The distinction between these two organizational models is only the way they respond to external environment. A critical analysis may indicate that this responsiveness defines basic organizational processes and internal practices. For the purpose of understanding open and closed systems, organizational models of SAS.com and Armed forces are studied. Their comparative analysis in the light of behavior shown by open and closed system defines that SAS has an open organizational system which makes it respond to external stimuli whereas Armed forces have isolated functions. System theory helps in determining how an organization interacts with its environment and on the basis of this responsiveness, it can be labeled as having an open or closed system. According to definition provided by the theory, open system can be defined as an organizational model which facilitates interaction between organization and its environment. Hence, an organization can take inputs from the environment and process them according to its purpose along with providing its output to the organization. In addition to that, feedback from environment can also alter organization’s processes and systems accordingly. On the other hand, closed organizational systems are self-sustaining models that are isolated from external environment and do not allow environmental variables to affect their processes. Only internal feedback mechanisms have a tendency of altering organizational systems. Hence, open systems tend to have flexible structure which allows them to grow in response to their external environment. Whereas, closed systems bear a constant character that shows slow gradual changes if necessary (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Analysis of systems theory further helps in evaluating the nature of SAS.com. SAS has an organizational model which requires it to interact with market analysts, customers, suppliers and other industry players on constant basis. In fact, its business is to share analytics about organizations and industries. This business model and its processes require an open system that would allow management and workforce to interact with the environment on continuous basis and this is what SAS.com precisely does. It collects information from the industries in which its clients exist, perform analysis of that information and share the identified trends and projections with the client. It can be observed that there is a constant exchange of information between SAS.com and its external environment. Due to its constant feedback mechanism, its internal systems have shown transformation and development since its inception. This responsiveness to environment is the foundation of its business mechanism (SAS Inc, 2013). In today’s world where organizations are forced to respond to rapidly changing industry landscapes, it is difficult for organizations to have closed systems and survive simultaneously. However, there are institutions that have closed system but not in an ideal theoretical way. For the sake of example, national armed forces can be used. Armed forces have a culture of isolation which allows them to use resources that they already have (Schverak, 2010). Although human resources and other necessary supplies are obtained from the environment but armed forces do not change their systems and policies in response to external environment. Their pay scales, budgets and many other policies remain constant for a considerably long time and show slow amendments on the basis of government’s orders. Here, the example is used by considering Army’s routine operations and individual events such as secret operations etc, are not considered. Similarly, exceptional events such as strategic alliances with other countries and responsiveness to intelligence are not discussed here. In a highly non-idealistic way, Armed forces bear a closed organizational model. Critical analysis of SAS helps in understanding that having open organizational systems suits its objectives and goals. SAS is a business analytics company that has global presence. It has a clientele that is present in almost every country of the world and it requires constant information gathering and sharing between industry and itself. Without having interaction with external forces and constant feedback loop, SAS would not be able to survive since it would not have necessary business intelligence that provides it a competitive advantage over other market players. Other than providing preliminary analytical information, SAS remains connected with its clients while that information is used by clients to make fact-based decisions. Had that information been faulty, not up-to-date or accurate, SAS would be incapable of fulfilling its client’s requirements. Literary analysis of open and closed systems helped in understanding how each organization responds to its external environment and how this interaction affects its processes and performance. Analyzing SAS in the light of these pre-established concepts lead to a conclusion that having open organizational systems is appropriate for its goals and objectives. This is so because SAS provides market analytics on the basis of up-to-date information gathered from industry, processed according to the purpose of client and presented to the client in a desired manner. Furthermore, it has evolved to be a leader in market research companies by responding to industry’s requirement and analyzing market trends in a timely fashion. This status would have been difficult to attain if SAS would have had a closed system. References Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. SAS.com (2013). About SAS: Providing organizations with the Power to Known since 1979, North Carolina, USA, Retreieved from http://www.sas.com/company/about/index.html Schverak, C.M. (2010). The Globalization of Military Logistics. Army Sustainment, 42(3). Retrieved from http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/May-June10/spectrum_globe_logisitics.