Public Organizations Can Be Categorized Into Two Basics

Public Organizations Can Be Categorized Into Two Basic Categories

Public organizations can be categorized into two basic categories: open and closed models of organization. Compose descriptions of two fictional public organizations that are structured around one being open and the other being closed. Briefly describe what services, goods, or activities each organization provides. Then, compare the two organizations in terms of any similarities and differences based upon their open or closed organizational structure.

Assignment Guidelines Address the following in 750–1,000 words: Create and describe two fictional public organizations.

One organization should be structured around the closed organizational model, while the second should be structured around the open organizational model. For each of the two fictional organizations: Specifically, in terms of organizational structure, how are the two organizations different? Explain in detail. What services, goods, or activities does the organization provide? Explain.

Specifically, in terms of organizational structure, how are the two organizations similar? Explain in detail. Be sure to reference all sources using APA style. (at least 2 reliable references)

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Public organizations serve crucial roles within society, providing essential services and fulfilling public needs. Understanding the structural distinctions between open and closed organizational models helps illuminate how these entities operate, interact with stakeholders, and adapt to environmental changes. This paper explores two fictional public organizations: one structured as a closed organization and the other as an open organization. Through detailed descriptions of their structures and functions, it compares their similarities and differences, emphasizing how organizational openness influences their service delivery and internal operations.

Fictional Public Organization with a Closed Structure

The first organization, named the "National Emergency Management Agency" (NEMA), exemplifies a closed organizational model. NEMA operates predominantly with a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure characterized by formal channels of communication, centralized decision-making, and strict adherence to established procedures. The agency's primary mission is to develop, implement, and oversee disaster preparedness and response initiatives nationwide. These services include emergency planning, resource allocation, coordination of rescue operations, and public awareness campaigns.

As a closed organization, NEMA maintains limited stakeholder engagement during its internal decision-making processes. Its structure emphasizes control and stability, with a clear chain of command from the director down to field personnel. Policy formulation is primarily conducted by senior administrators with minimal external consultation. Staff roles are well-defined, and processes are standardized to ensure consistency and reliability across various emergency scenarios. The organization’s resources, information, and strategic directions are tightly controlled by top management, aiming to protect organizational integrity and security.

Despite its bureaucratic rigidity, NEMA effectively manages emergencies through its structured processes, ensuring swift, coordinated responses. However, its closed structure can sometimes hinder adaptability, delay innovation, and limit stakeholder input, which are vital during dynamic disaster events.

Fictional Public Organization with an Open Structure

The second organization, called the "Community Environmental Initiative" (CEI), exemplifies an open organizational model. CEI’s structure encourages stakeholder participation, transparency, and flexibility. This nonprofit aims to promote sustainable practices within local communities by organizing educational programs, community clean-up projects, and advocating for environmental policies.

CEI’s organizational structure is flat and matrix-based, promoting collaboration across different departments and with external stakeholders, including community members, local government agencies, and environmental experts. Decision-making processes are participative, involving community forums, advisory panels, and frequent communication channels that allow feedback from various stakeholders. The organization values innovation and responsiveness, often adapting programs based on community needs and scientific advancements.

This open structure facilitates increased engagement, accountability, and trust with its stakeholders. CEI’s decentralization promotes quicker decision-making at the project level, fostering a dynamic environment conducive to creativity and responsiveness. Its emphasis on transparency and stakeholder collaboration enhances organizational legitimacy and sustainability.

Comparison of Organizational Structures

Differences in Structural Design:

NEMA’s closed model is characterized by a vertical hierarchy with rigid procedures, clearly defined roles, and centralized authority. Its focus on control ensures consistency and security but limits flexibility and external input. In contrast, CEI’s open model features a decentralized, participative structure that encourages stakeholder involvement, adaptability, and shared decision-making. This openness fosters innovation and responsiveness but may pose challenges to accountability and coordination (Zhao, 2019).

Services and Activities:

While NEMA’s services are primarily reactive and focused on emergency management—such as disaster response coordination—CEI’s activities are proactive, emphasizing community engagement, education, and sustainable development. NEMA’s operations are structured for swift, uniform responses to crises, whereas CEI’s projects are often tailored to local community needs through participative planning processes.

Similarities in Organizational Features:

Despite their structural differences, both organizations aim to serve the public good and are guided by organizational missions emphasizing service delivery, accountability, and strategic planning. Both employ formal policies and procedures—though differing in rigidity—that align with their respective structural models to ensure effectiveness and compliance (Schaltegger et al., 2018). Furthermore, both organizations rely on internal staff and external stakeholders to fulfill their missions, illustrating the common goal of public service regardless of their structural approach.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of the fictional NEMA and CEI highlights how organizational structures—closed versus open—directly influence operational processes, stakeholder engagement, and service delivery. Closed organizations like NEMA prioritize control, stability, and efficiency, particularly during crises, while open organizations like CEI emphasize participation, flexibility, and continuous adaptation. Recognizing these differences enables public organizations to tailor their structures to better meet societal needs and improve their responsiveness and resilience.

References

• Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. John Wiley & Sons.
• Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The Dynamics of Policymaking and Public Administration. CQ Press.
• Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., & Petersen, H. (2018). Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production. Routledge.
• Kahane, L. (2015). The Open Organization: Igniting Passion and Performance. Jossey-Bass.
• Zhao, W. (2019). Organizational Structures and Stakeholder Engagement in Public Sector. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 456-467.
• O'Leary, R. (2013). The Collaborative Public Agency. Georgetown University Press.
• Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2015). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Routledge.
• Bohmer, R. M. (2011). The Power of Positive Deviance in Public Organizations. Harvard Business Review.
• Peters, B. G. (2018). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Routledge.