組織環境에 關한 考察 = A Study on Organizational Environment

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The word "environment" is similar in its meaning with "situation" and "circumstance", but the former is terminologically imagined to indicate dynamic factors surrounding an organism. There are someone who divides the environment into two categories-one as inner environment, another outer environment. But I think it is more reasonable to contrast environment, as the whole outer phenomena, with a certain living organ. Thus environment is sometimes called a behavioral environment, ecological environment or psychological environment.
We all know that the studies on organizations in its early darts had been limited mainly to inner structuring, planning and management of organizations. And then we have come to find the structure and management of an organization might be influenced and varied depending on the environmental factors.
In reality, the decisions made in any enterprise about prices, inputs-outputs and budgets etc, are partly of the outcome of the problems posed by the economic environment, and partly the result of the way various groups and individuals attempt to influence the processes of decision-making. Anyway, organizations do not just only function and operate but also survive through challenges with and responses to the environment. In a word, none of the organizations can go without relations with environment.
Some scholars postulate that the environment contains people, place, physical technologies, social technologies, wishes and ideas, catastrophe, and personality : others contend it includes political, social, economical, cultural, geographical and customary factors. Fairly it might be said that it means all of the spiritual and physical factors surrounding an organization.
We can notice the resemblance of an organization to a living organism. It has ability to adapt to a dynamic environment through its reaction to the stresses and tensions created by conflict, uneasiness or uncertainty. Furthermore, organizations, like human beings, have the power to learn from experiences how to protect themselves and survive. It means they can revise work procedures, deployments, and also readjust their goals in accordance with new and important informations.
In the meanwhile, public administration can be defined as a common social process. We usually find the principle of "POSDCORB" in most forms of private administration. That is, the technical apparatus, organizational structures and work methods in both sectors are not much different. The differences could be seen substantially in its normative and environmental aspects. Among the differences of both sectors, I would pick up two major items. Public agency might be said to enjoy almost unlimited finances through its special revenue system, and also retain considerable legitimacy among wide sectors of the public, even if under legislative and public control. Anyhow most governments can assume and launch virtually any program in the long run that seems worth undertaking, especially in rich countries.
Concerning legitimacy, we must look about for some sophisticated way of theorizing. From the universal point of view, the output of one aspect in a given social system will be consumed by the other aspects of the system. So, in common sense, so long as an organization produces something desired and consumed, it continues to operate its enterprise. On the contrary, if an organization can net find out anybody who wants or can be persuaded to Reed its product, it will not and can not go on to survive any more. So, in a pure theoretical sence, prostitution, gambling association, organized crime, or the numbers racket are not supposed to be exception.
In dai1y life, we can easily find that many economic organizations spend lots of resources to keep customers for their output. It is said that legitimacy for nonprofit organizations is sometimes an even greater problem. Government apparatus are reorganized or quit to exist more frequent because of their legitimacy than we imagine.
In conclusion, it may be said that the study on organizational environment belongs to rather sociology than public administration. But for an abundant and flourishing content on any particular discipline, it is inevitable to coordinate with and exert cross-pollination from neighbour science. I have presented some examples of fluctuations of government organizations in Korea and the United States of America. But in the result, 1 cannot help but admit that this study could not surpass a limit just touching upon the subject generally and roughly. It would be better to analyze, check and labor under intensive view how a specific organ functions and operates, gets and loses life under real and actual circumstances.
I think it would be allowed to leave it for the next chance of study in near future.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ.序言
• Ⅱ.組織環境論의 擡頭
• Ⅲ.組織環境의 要素
• Ⅳ.公共機關의 環境觀의 特殊性
• Ⅴ.組織의 正當性問題
• Ⅵ.結言