Adobe SVG Viewer
plug-in recommended
ADAPTIVENESS IN HUMAN SOCIAL ORGANISATION:
SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES
by
Michael Church
"...it is impossible to represent the
organising principles of a higher level by the laws governing its isolated
particulars."
Michael Polanyil (1)
"Those who are obsessed with
practice, but have no science, are like a pilot setting out with no tiller or compass,
who
will never know for certain where he is going."
Leonardo Da Vinci c. 1470 (59)
Abstract
In a world that is becoming increasingly complex, the need to
develop a new paradigm of organisation and management is widely recognised. One
approach has been to view organisations as complex adaptive systems (CAS); it
has been found, repeatedly, that important behaviours of different kinds of CAS
can be described simply - the basis of the development of the science of
complexity. So far, no set of principles have been proposed to explain what
might make any form of human social organisation, more, or less, adaptive; most
theorising has been limited to the weaker
and sometimes misleading explanatory levels of metaphor and
analogy. In this paper it is suggested that there is an underlying order in the
universe, reflected in the phenomena of discontinuity, levels of order,
emergence, autonomy and coherence. By understanding this underlying order, six
systemic principles can be identified to explain the organisational basis of
the unique ability of living systems to respond and adapt to, learn from, and
shape a complex environment. It is then shown how these six principles can be
applied literally to understand and shape adaptiveness in any human social
organisation; two further principles are also identified, necessary to take
account of the singular qualities of human beings. Three of these principles -
level specific processes, level specific information, and values - are explored
in more detail in this paper.
INTRODUCTION
In 1994, a study (2) by the American Management Association found
that a quarter of companies investigated had undergone three or more episodes
of downsizing in the past five years, yet less than half of these companies
subsequently raised their profits. Governments also appear to be having
difficulty in dealing with an increasingly complex global environment, with
seemingly simple decisions leading to unintended consequences, and the
subsequent poor management of emerging crises - eg BSE in
Such a picture highlights the important social and economic
implications of developing our understanding of organisation. Yet in spite of a
widespread recognition of the need for a new paradigm of organisation (3), an
examination of the prevailing organisational
literature points to a lack of scientific progress in this field in
recent years.
Let me start by identifying two of the most serious limitations.
Firstly, the richness of many of the descriptions of this new paradigm has been
matched by a theoretical vagueness. Seminal books by Margaret Wheatley (4) who
stimulated interest in the application of chaos theory and the science of
complexity to organisation, and Peter Senge (5), have raised awareness of the
properties of certain features of biological organisation, for example, 'acting
locally', 'control without controlling', and
self-organisation. However, until such ideas about the nature of
control and distributed decision-making are operationalised with respect to human
social organisation, they cannot be applied with predictable outcomes to human
social organisation. In general, attempts to demonstrate the utility of
biological theories in understanding human social organisation have failed to
move beyond the weaker explanatory level of metaphor and analogy (6).
Secondly, the growth in new ideas about social organisation have
taken place in a context where practice has come to dominate theory;
organisational restructuring is big business, with a proliferation of gurus,
each with their own' brand of organisational practice. World-wide, one of the
most influential of these brands has been Michael Hammer's business process
re-engineering (BPR). Hammer appears to have drawn some of his ideas from the
work of W. Edwards Deming (who developed a theory of organisation, founded on
an understanding of process, variation, information, systemic thinking and
scientific method). However, rather than trying to build upon or extend
Deming's work, BPR has been simply spawned as a set of techniques in which
theory is notable by its absence. As Hammer (7) wrote: "...the absolutely
essential element in every reengineering project is to be directed at
process...practically everything else in reengineering comes down to
technique..." Later, at a
conference (8) he explained the high number of re-engineering failures
estimated in his original book: "Why had 70% failed? Because they were not
doing it right, and if you do not do it right you will fail too, but if you
know what you are about then you will succeed."
The absence of theory is problematic in any applied field:
practice all-too-easily becomes tampering when it is driven by faith; circular
argument and self-fulfilling prophecy replaces prediction and hypothesis
testing; and the opportunity for scientific progress is greatly diminished.
ORGANISATIONS AS COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS
The development of the science of complexity has been made
possible by the repeated finding that important behaviours of different kinds
of complex system can be described simply. In this light, a question of
particular relevance to our understanding of social organisation is whether or
not a small number of principles can be identified that have explanatory power
and provide insight into the phenomenon of adaption? (I will define adaption to
mean the ability to respond to, learn from, and shape the environment.)
The approach I have taken in trying to answer this question has
been to identify the principles underlying adaption in biological systems
(which show an unsurpassed ability to adapt in complex environments), and see
if these can be applied literally, rather than metaphorically, to social
organisation, showing how the important differences between biological and
social systems might be accommodated within any such theory. As it turns out,
much of the knowledge required to do this can be found in the existing systems
literature (though not particularly accessible, nor presented in the framework
outlined in this paper) and empirical research in various branches of biology
provides a rich source of supporting information. Before I begin to go into
more detail about human social organisation, it is necessary to lay some
conceptual groundwork. Firstly, I will indicate that there are some
regularities underlying all phenomenon - microscopic to macroscopic - in the
universe. Secondly, the relevance of these regularities to the adaptive fitness
of
biological systems will be explored. Thirdly, the implications of
these with regard to different types of control in complex adaptive systems
will be considered.
DISCONTINUITY, LEVELS OF ORDER/COMPLEXITY,
EMERGENCE AND AUTONOMY
One of the most interesting prepotent phenomenon in our universe
is that of discontinuity. This can be seen as the vast array of different levels
of order or complexity; from fundamental particles to galactic clusters. What
might the physical basis of these discontinuities be? Most of us are, at least,
dimly familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: this affirms that all
real world dynamics proceed spontaneously so as to maximise entropy (in effect,
our universe - if it is a closed system - is running down to a state of
homogeneity). However, since entropy is produced faster by order than disorder
- the law of maximum entropy production, Swenson (9) - the universe has an
important order producing quality.
Thus, because every jump to a higher order state greatly increases
the rate of entropy production, the emergence of discontinuities and
ever-higher levels of complexity is an inevitable consequence of the universe
moving towards maximum entropy. Let me be more specific about what I mean by
discontinuities and higher levels of complexity. Table 1 shows some simplified
examples, or snapshots, of naturally occurring discontinuities.
Table 1
Discontinuity, Levels of Order and Emergence: Some Examples
A |
Atoms |
|
MOLECULES |
Binding property with
other molecules - eg Carbon Monoxide (CO), a simple
molecule, has a strong affmity for haemoglobin (300 x that of
Oxygen). |
|
|
B |
Randomly folded polypeptide |
|
|
NATIVE PROTEIN (ie folded polypeptide
in medium supporting disulphide exchange) |
Enzyme activity. |
|
|
C |
Kidney glomeruli
|
molecular filtration (of molecular
weight < 68,000) |
KIDNEY ORGAN |
pH of blood held constant at 7.4 |
|
|
BODY
ORGAN METASYSTEM |
Homeostasis |
|
|
D |
Individual ant processes |
30 - 40 simple 'rules of
thumb' behaviour continue hunting for
certain foodstuff if the present foraging load is accepted by nestmates. |
|
AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL ANT PROCESSES |
meeting the needs of the
colony (eg re nutrition, temperature, defence, etc.) |
|
|
'QUEEN
ANT' PROCESSES |
Creation of new open
systems in new habitats when eg steady state reached,
(eg dispersal flights, nest build- ing, mating,
reproduction, etc.) |
|
|
E |
Sensory-motor system |
unskilled and skilled movement |
|
CONCRETE COGNITIVE PROCESSES |
concrete thought x
Levels |
|
|
ABSTRACT
COGNITIVE PROCESSES |
abstract thinking x Levels |
|
|
Key |
Lowest level
INTERMEDIATE
HIGHEST LEVEL
|
|
In all non-living and most biological systems the structural basis
of discontinuity is visibly obvious (10) See examples, Table lA, lB, & lC).
In each case the transition from one level to the next higher order level results
in the emergence of new properties: atoms react to become molecules with new
emerging properties such as binding or catalysis; polypeptides in their natural
medium undergo an oxidative process and fold into a specific shape from which
enzymic properties arise; and homeostasis is an emergent property of the body
organ metasystem, of which molecular filtration is but one of many processes at
a lower level.
In example Table lD higher levels are not so visibly obvious. At
the lowest level individual ants in a colony operate using some 30 to 40 rules
of thumb (11) or distributed processes (eg 'continue hunting for a certain
foodstuff if the present foraging load is accepted by nestmates'). The queen or
queens are part of higher order processes concerned with longer term adaption,
increasing the probability of genetic replication, eg by creating new open
systems in new habitats: when a steady state is reached in a particular
environment, dispersal flights are triggered to seed and develop new colonies
through reproduction.
Finally, in Table IE higher levels of order can be seen purely as
different levels of Thought (12), both concrete and abstract, arising from the
unique structure of the human brain with its parallel and distributed
processing.
THE ADAPTIVE VALUE OF LEVELS OF ORDER/COMPLEXITY,
EMERGENCE AND AUTONOMY
In evolutionary terms, adaptive fitness can be viewed as the
probability of genetic replication (13). The development of higher order levels
of complexity can be shown to increase the probability of this in two important
ways: 1) Each higher order level adds the greatest possible value, as its
emergent property allows the management of relationships and maintenance of a
dynamic equilibrium with a qualitatively unique slice of the environment (14);
(15).
The notion of each higher order level in dynamic equilibrium with
a different qualitative environment reflects a well recognised and fundamental
systemic property of biological systems irreducibility (16). As Richard Dawkins
(17) puts it: "...at every level
the units interact with each other following laws appropriate only to that
level, laws which are not conveniently reducible to laws at lower levels."
The irreducible laws referred to by Dawkins are embodied in different
space-time relationships; thus, the local environment of each higher level of
complexity has different 'rules of the game', reflected in the qualitatively
greater scope of environment, longer process cycle time (18) and different
order of information and resources required at each level. The example of the
ant super-organism Figure lD demonstrates this. It does not take too much of a
leap of imagination to realise that the scope of local environment served,
process cycle time, information and resources required for an individual ant to
run its processes (eg following a pheromone trail) are very different (19), to
that characterising the emergent properties found at higher levels; eg meeting
the nutritional needs of the colony, or the process of developing new colonies
in other habitats as the existing colony reaches a steady state in its
environment. It should be clear that such higher order processes enhance the
probability of genetic replication, by extending the activities of the ant
colony
temporally and spatially.
2) As a direct corollary of emergence, the maximum autonomy is
created for every higher and lower order level of complexity (20) - reflected
in what Herbert Simon (21) calls loose vertical and horizontal coupling. Each
level in a biological system has the maximum freedom to learn about, manage the
relationships in, and maintain a dynamic equilibrium with its unique
environment: top down interference is minimised; the misuse of time and
resources - eg to double-guess or tamper with the work of lower levels is prevented;
and responsiveness to the environment is maximised as there is no chain of
command (22).
We can draw on our everyday experience to illustrate this
complementary aspect of emergence - autonomy. Consider an individual walking to
work across a busy city; at the same time as planning a major culture change
initiative using concepts and ideas (abstract thought), her sensorimotor system
- a process operating at a lower level of complexity, below consciousness (like
an autopilot) - gets her safely to work. The common motorway experience of
'losing miles' is another example of this partial autonomy of process levels.
How much abstract thinking would be possible, I wonder, without this partial
autonomy of levels; if each of us had to constantly monitor and control our
every movement?
As a prelude to the next section on the nature of control in
complex adaptive systems I would like to highlight a crucial difference between
the levels of complexity, emergence and autonomy found in biological systems
and what might be seen in human social organisation. It has already been noted
that in biological systems, levels of higher and lower order complexity are
usually visibly obvious, although they may not be (as in Example 1E). This has
led many theoreticians (24) to make the fallacious leap of logic that the
visibly obvious levels - eg management levels, organisational hierarchy - in
human social organisation are equivalent to levels of complexity found in
biological systems (25). In fact, this is most often not the case. Because
social institutions and organisations have usually developed without regard to
a proper understanding of process, their structures have become a mishmash of
layers or echelons often with two or three echelons covering a level or part of
a level of complexity (26). These echelons violate the underlying order of the
universe and as a consequence the powerful natural ordering phenomena of
emergence and autonomy are lost, reducing the quality and range of
relationships with the environment (27).
Since these phenomena are also the basis of the 'order for free'
found in nature, it is almost inevitable that the nature of control in much
human social organisation is top-down command/control rather than what Senge
(28) calls "...control without controlling".
CONTROL WITHOUT CONTROL :
REGULA TED AUTONOMY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Let us look now at the nature of control in biological systems.
Table 2 shows a continuum on which control or order in systems can be
characterised. At one end of the continuum the elements in the system have
complete autonomy, there is no control or ordering of relationships. At the
other end of the continuum, there is no autonomy for individual elements as
relationships are fixed or rigid (ie as in dead or mechanical systems).
Table 2
Continuum of Control and Order in Systems
|
Description of Control |
System Type |
Relationships Obtaining |
No Control |
Random |
Independent un-coordinated relationships. |
|
Strange
Attractors |
Chaotic |
Random relationships. |
|
Control without
Controlling |
Coherent |
Highly ordered interdependent relationships in which the costs of achieving order are minimised; ie no premium paid. |
|
Command &
Control |
Top-down |
Predominantly dependent relationships. Order is controlled from above with a premium paid. |
|
Total Control |
Mechanistic |
Fully dependent, Fixed and immutable relationships. |
Typical human social organisation is usually to be found towards the
rigid end of the Continuum (29), with top-down command/control. Such control is
not only costly to operate, but significantly limits autonomy, impeding
self-organisation, reducing responsiveness and the ability to learn from the
environment.
In contrast, living systems show coherence, aptly described as
'order for free' – anyone who has studied a flock of birds, a school of
dolphins, or an insect colony, will attest to the almost magical quality of
this phenomenon, in which, paradoxically, a high degree of local autonomy is
preserved alongside highly ordered coherent whole system behaviour. A move
either way on the continuum results in this balance being lost; chaos lies in
one direction and increased rigidity the other.
It has been known for some time that even simpler coherent
behaviour in nature cannot be reproduced using centralised command/control.
Even disregarding the massive associated costs, before long, as the number of
entities to be command/controlled increases, it becomes computationally impossible
to direct a complex system top down, a point shown empirically using computer
simulations (30) of flocking behaviour. In human social organisation this
'difficulty' has been reflected in the commonly seen cycles of
centralisationldecentralisation.
In biological systems, centralised control - as a detailed
specification of what is required, held centrally, passed downwards as a
continuous flow of commands to other parts of the system which are dependent
upon these commands for their behaviour - is minimised by creating clear
boundaries (31), within which the optimum self-organisation can take place. In
an earlier paper I used the term regulated autonomy to try to give a feel for
this form of control.
Three key criteria that underpin regulated autonomy are introduced
next using the ant superorganism as an illustration:
Minimum critical specification of processes (32) : ie specify the
simplest possible processes - ie fewest number, simplest design within and
between processes – to enable the particular purpose to be achieved. For
example, Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson (33), have found that individual
ants operate using only some 30-40 "...rules of thumb, elementary
decisions based on local stimuli that contain relatively small amounts of
information ", such as "...continue hunting for certain foodstuff if
the present foraging load is accepted by nestmates; follow a trail if
sufficient pheromone is present; feed the queen more if final instar larvae are
present; and attend the larvae and other immature stages if regular nurse
workers are absent." I need not remind my readers of the contrast with
human social organisation, where the overcomplication (34) of processes is
endemic.
Foster inter-dependant relationships within the system - specify processes
to produce the minimum necessary dependence in relationships and the maximum
independence (35) - ie creating inter-dependent relationships. For example, by
not specifying how to follow a pheromone trail, the ant process 'follow a trail
if sufficient pheromone is present', creates a boundary within which the
maximum possible independence is produced. Again, this criterion is often
violated in human social organisation, eg when over-dependent relationships are
created by adding echelons of management, and through overcomplicated, poorly
specified or understood processes, with rigid procedures that limit independent
action, severely constraining self-organisation.
Distribution of processes - rather than hold processes centrally,
distribute these processes (and the means to run them) locally (not just to
individual ants, but to that level of complexity). As noted earlier, in ants
this distribution takes the form of internally wired rules (the means to run
these processes - such as information and resources - are also distributed).
Picking one aspect of distribution - information – it is my view that the
massive problem of information overload identified by Reuters (36) is largely
explainable by the failure to redesign and properly distribute information
processes when restructuring organisations.
The two important advantages of this form of regulation can be
summarised as: . minimising the economic costs of achieving and maintaining
coherent purpose (included in this are costs arising from changing relationships,
such as leaving or rejoining the ant colony), minimising constraints on
autonomy; hence responsiveness to the environment is preserved.
Let me address one final common misunderstanding of this form of
regulation and the implications for self-organisation as applied to human
social organis,ation. Although the importance of autonomy has been recognised
in the literature, it has been interpreted in purely concrete terms (37) - ie
the self-managed team; which has a visibly obvious physical boundary (like the
worker ants in my example). However, unlike worker ants, a human self-managed
team will often not be responsible for running transformation processes
covering a qualitatively distinct environment (38). Rather such a team will
usually still be part of a overlayered structure of echelons and although
creating a clear boundary will help to facilitate self-organisation, any gains
will be undermined if that team is not responsible for managing a qualitatively
distinct environment. A visual image of this human self-organisation as applied
to ants would be that of worker ants, having a smaller team of worker ants
above them providing direction - the proverbial monkey on the back, ie
managerial tampering - rather than adding value by doing something distinctive.
To summarise, in biological systems the primary means of achieving
coherence are the levels of higher and lower order complexity; with processes,
information, and resources, minimally specified and having the property of
inter-dependence, distributed to allow highly autonomous operations within each
level of the system.
ADAPTIVENESS IN HUMAN SOCIAL ORGANISATION:
EIGHT GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Table 3 summarises six principles or necessary conditions for defming
the distinctive organisation that leads to what I have already shown to be the
desirable phenomena of emergence, autonomy and coherence. It should be noted
that the separation of these principles into those shaping autonomy and those
shaping coherence is merely to indicate the relative contribution of principles
in each area; in reality each principle is necessary to form a system with the
properties of autonomy and coherence. Although these principles can be applied
literally to human social organisation they are, in themselves, insufficient;
they fail to take account of two key differences between biological systems in
general and human beings in particular.
Table 3
Principles for Enabling Adaptiveness in Living
Systems and Human Social Organisations
|
Living Systems |
Human Organisations |
|
Have levels of complexity with emergence, autonomy and distributed control reflected by: |
Can be designed to have levels of complexity,
with emergence, autonomy and distributed control reflected by: |
AUTONOMYLevel specific transformation processes; Level specific information processes; Level specific resource control. |
AUTONOMYLevel specific work/business processes; Level specific information processes; Level specific resource control; Level specific capabilities.
|
|
REGULATION Relationship authority; Relationship style; Co-ordionating mechanismns |
REGULATIONRelationship authority; Relationship style; Co-ordionating mechanismns; Values. |
Firstly, humans are the only species whose cognitive powers have
developed to enable action significantly beyond the limited sphere of the
immediate physical world; this is evidenced by the extent of human achievement
in inventing, creating, discovering, and organising. An important aspect of
this cognition is what has been called self-reference - the ability to stand
outside or above one's self (39), reflect upon, and change what one does.
Whether or not you or I are able to self-refer to produce effective decisions
in the face of a particular real-world problem depends on our level of
capability (ie level of mental abstraction).
Secondly, in contrast to physical systems - which are bound by
laws - people may choose (or chose not to) follow rules. We are all actively
engaged in creating meaning in our worlds, and the meaning-made by each of us
represent the intemalised rules guiding our behaviour. The principle of values
is required to understand this - as we shall see later this is a very different
formulation from the usual top-down prescriptive list of ill-remembered
corporate values.
Because of time limitations it is not possible to address in
detail each of eight principles proposed in this Paper. However, a brief summary
explanation of these principles is given in Appendix I, with introductory
references for those who wish to follow up specific areas. In my own practice I
have found these eight principles to be a powerful systemic framework for
reviewing and developing a deeper understanding of any organisation.
APPLICATION TO HUMAN SOCIAL ORGANISATION
I am aware that many reading this Paper (presented at the British
Deming Association annual conference 1997) have a considerably deeper
understanding of Deming's work than I do. With this in mind, I had hoped that
some of the connections with his theory would be self-evident. In case my
assumption has proved false, and to focus our minds on the three principles I
have choose to illustrate in more detail (as applied to human social
organisation), I have selected four of Deming's axioms (40) and in Table 4 and
highlight some common themes with these principles.
Table 4
Four of Deming’s Axioms
|
Axiom 1 : Control of a business is established
by leadership and co-operation. Axiom 2 : Improvements are due to increasing
division of work, information and creativity. Axiom 5 : Inconsistencies and contradictions
which become apparent on analysis of the system
may be used to detect and isolate the built-in flaws of the system. Axiom 6 : Role of Management is to create a
secure environment eg free from fear. |
|
Observations: Axioms 1 & 6 identify the importance of having the
right values shown by management as leaders, and the need
to move away from continuous top-down monitoring, command and
control. The principle of values outlined in this Paper are a means of
operationalising key aspects of leadership: ie it shows how values might
be distributed through system design, hence enabling top management to
scrutinise and reflect upon its role in leadership and its
responsibility for managing social processes. Axiom 2 identifies the importance of the
distribution of information and processes as a means of enabling
continuous process improvement (moving away from top-down control). The
principle of level specific information processes provides a
methodology for showing how information can be distributed in the correct form to
the appropriate system level. Axiom 5 reflects the fact that no system can be
perfect, eg as much as 90% of productive power can be wasted in
over-complication. One important area that the principle of
level specific processes can throw light upon is over-complication arising
from the failure of management echelons to add value by not making a unique contribution. |
The three principles I have chosen to illustrate further are level
specific work Processes; level specific information processes, and values. It
should become apparent from these examples that all the principles interact
strongly with each other and unfold in a non-linear fashion (as one might
expect from our understanding of other complex adaptive systems (41).
Level Specific Work Processes
Table 5 provides a brief summary of the seven process levels that
can be used to describe work of any complexity - whether it be cleaning a floor
or the process Gandhi used to secure
Table 5
The Seven Generic Process Levels in Work
|
General Domain |
Brief Description of the Transformation Process |
Spatial Boundary of the Process |
Process Cycle Time |
|
|
Added Value for Customers (Improving existing value-chains) |
1 |
Bring into being a product or service
with minimum waste using available means. |
Immediate physical world to locality. |
Up to 3-months |
|
2 |
Meeting needs directly or indorectly
through the specification of the means required to create product or service. |
Locality to sub-national geographic
area. |
3-months to 1-year |
|
|
3 |
An open system that meets the needs of
an existing group of customers to provide products and services that are continuously
being improved. |
Sub-national geographic area to single
nation state. |
1 to 2-years |
|
|
Added Value for the Future (Developing new value chains) |
4 |
Transforming signals of change in a value
system of main stakeholders into new products and services that can meet
stakeholders stated or unstated needs. |
National state to region of the world. |
2 to 5-years |
|
5 |
Creating an intent which enables the
internal (organisation) and external (industry structure) change necessary
for full connection with the evolving socio-economic environment. |
Region, or regions, of the world. |
5 to 10-years |
|
|
Cultural Transformation (Creating different world views) |
6 |
Redefining political, socio-economic,
and technological relationships to manage turbulence in the environment for
groups of businesses, regional groupings, national states and transnational
organisations. |
Regional to global. |
10 to 20-years |
|
7 |
To bring into being current or nascent
contexts for future generations or institutions, shaping different global
futures. |
Global. |
20 to 50-years |
|
In contrast to some of the new forms of 'horizontal' (45)
organisation, which have much greater clarity and less overcomplication (two
good examples are that of the strategic network form of organisation - eg
Benetton - and the middle-up down management (47) of some Japanese companies),
some of the most overcomplicated nesting of processes are to be found in
organisations that are or have been state owned. For example, following
privatisation, British Gas had a structure of some 15 echelons, with bundled
processes obscuring the actual economic value created by particular process
streams. Two subsequent reorganisations and the recent demerger of part of its
business 'Centrica' (to manage the problem of monopoly regulation of the its
Gas Business in Britain) has led to an organisation in which the main processes
are unbundled, with greater clarity and a much closer fit to the six levels of
complexity required by the business.
The author used the principle of level specific processes within
one of BG's businesses - TransCo - enabling the shaping of a new organisational
structure that was process aligned and has the potential to add the maximum
economic value, prior to a detailed process map of the organisation being
available. With the manager and project staff of a core customer facing process
(Deliver Gas), it was possible to define this process as requiring only three
process levels (1, 2 & 3 in Table 5) in contrast to the previous
overcomplicated, many-level structure. Some two years on, this three level
structure has been implemented, providing an organisational context that is facilitating
the introduction of continuous improvement with the information processes and
supporting culture change required.
To summarise, the principle of level specific processes is a
powerful tool for managers to be able to model and gain a deeper understanding
of the shape of organisation that will support a move to process working. It
also provides a means of auditing for overcomplication of managerial processes
at all managerial levels (48).
Level Secific Information Processes
Three types of interrelated information process have been
identified (49):
. control - for steering and monitoring processes,
. strategic - for making meaningful choices,
. audit - for sampling and deeper understanding.
Viewing these as distributed through the different process levels
challenges the traditional top/down - strategic, tactical, operational - view
of organisations; a view that implicitly devalues the contribution of the
majority of employees in organisations. In the distributed model a continuous
stream of decisions at every level is a necessary condition for maximising
organisational adaptiveness: with front-line workers and managers at every
level enabled to organise their own work and make meaningful decisions
regarding the work processes for which they are responsible, removing the need
(and justification) for a steady top down flow of commands.
Rather than valuing the work of one level above another, the model
presented here suggests that each level of work required by the organisation
(depending on its purpose and the nature of its business environment) are
equally important but different; in the time frame over which value is added
(see process cycle times, Table 5), the nature of the environment served and
hence the nature of information processes required. One way these differences
can be summarised is to view levels 1, 2 & 3 as making up a domain that
adds value for customers, with a process cycle time of up to two years, whilst
levels 4 & 5 add value for the future with a process cycle time of 3 to 10
years.
It is my view that many Japanese companies have been particularly
successful in understanding, clarifying, and embedding these two different
domains of organisational adaptiveness. Indeed, understanding the differences
between these domains, in the processes and information necessary, is the key
to managing within a complex, unpredictable, differentiated but global
environment.
The level 3 process outlined in Figure 1
is an open system that adds value for customers, ie meeting the needs of a
known group of customers (the focus of much total quality management). The
assumption underlying this process is that of a predictable environment with
various trends unfolding in a regular manner. Economic quality and adaption at
level 3 is founded upon managing and continuously improving existing
relationships in the value chain.
However, the business environment has become increasingly likely
to show discontinuities; eg when markets mature and decline, with technological
innovation, as personal and social values suddenly shift, when a wave of
selling is triggered around the world's financial markets. In order to deal
with the qualitatively different complexity inherent in a discontinuous
environment, the processes found at level 4 (and 5) are necessary. At process
level 4, economic quality depends on bringing into being new relationships with
stakeholders; creating value chains that do not yet exist. The information
processes necessary to successfully run level 4 work processes reflect the
broader more complex environment of this process level; for example, the
control information process (see Figure 1) must be able not just to measure,
but also to influence and shape the values and reactions of stakeholders.
One of the important consequences of these two different domains
not being clearly embodied in organisational process, information and
structure, is the loss of the loose coupling (or autonomy) between the 3/4
axis, directly compromising the ability to adapt to discontinuity. When these
domains are too tightly entrained through the 3/4 axis (eg by the presence of
extra echelons) the new organisational responses that must be developed by
levels 4 and 5 to deal with the discontinuities occurring, will be constrained
and more likely to disrupt existing operations that add value for customers (3,
2 & 1). Loose coupling enables discontinuities impacting on levels 4 (and
5) to be managed, for example, by the creation of new level 3 open systems
and/or modifying the outputs or relationships between existing open systems
(50).
Of course, disruption of the loose coupling between levels is not
the only way organisational adaption to discontinuity can be undermined. The
poor understanding and design of information processes at process levels 4 &
5 seems to be widespread in organisations and social institutions - some
examples of common failures are listed in Table 6.
Table 6
Some Common Failures in the
Information Processes at Levels 4 and 5
|
Relationships with important stakeholders are ignored or poorly
managed. Inter-relationships / interaction between different technologies
not properly considered. Conflicting technical expert advice / findings are not fully
explored. Tacit (Level 1) knowledge is not accessed when developing new products
/ services. Failures to scan for or detect early weak irregular signals of
major discontinuities (butterfly effect). Process outcomes that guide information process design (eg
vision, scenarios, purpose) are based on the assumption of a predictable
incremental future. Social and / or technical relationships within the wider system
not properly understood. Values signalled by the information processes are negative or
contradictory. |
Values
In spite of the long recognised importance of human organisation
as socio-technical Systems (51), the widespread failure to effectively manage
social processes remains enshrined in HR and Trade Union functions; what should
be a direct set of relationships between employees and management is dealt with
indirectly, through third parties.
If there is to be a sea change in the nature of relationships in
work, the leaders of our organisations and social institutions will need to
draw into their practice a deeper understanding (52) of the basis of human
social co-operation: a key aspect of this is a formulation of values that is
quite different to that found in traditional value based management.
Macdonald (53) has identified six core values and their opposites
that are necessary for social co-operation:
Honest
v Dishonest
Loving
v Unloving
Fair
v Unfair
Courageous v
Cowardly
Dignifying v
Undignfying
Trustworthy v
Untrustworthy
In contrast to the typical list of organisational values, these
core values have two of the inherent characteristics crucial to the development
of coherence. Firstly, these core values are pre-otent and distributed (54) to
every individual regardless of culture (unlike the often ill-remembered
organisational values). Secondly, as part of every individual's tacit
knowledge, they facilitate inter-dependence by providing a point of reference
from which each of us can hold an internal dialogue (55) about our own and
other behaviours. Contrast this with traditional lists of organisational values
which, in spite of their apparently positive aura, are prescriptive; implicitly
putting employees into a dependent relationship and increasing the risk that
these values may be used to stifle debate, dialogue, and the questioning of
assumptions, thereby reducing organisational adaption.
Values and System Design
Let us return now to Figure 1, the generic model for information
processes at level 4. Even a brief reflection on recent discontinuities - the
BSE and E coli crises; cash for parliamentary questions; top managers' pay in
Britain - gives enough ground for suggesting that the reactions of stakeholders
are frequently misjudged and poorly shaped; indicative of a serious shortcoming
of level 4 control information processes. At the heart of this is the failure
of top managers and leaders of our institutions to understand information and
values, and the implications for system design that flow
from their interrelationship.
At level 4, information cannot simply be treated as technical and
tangible, rather the emphasis must be upon its intangible social quality.
Knowing whether or not systems are doing what they say they are (level 4 audit
process, Figure 1) therefore demands not just effective technical design (how
easy are they to use, how efficient are they etc.) but social design so that
appropriate values are signalled. Macdonald suggests that the prime attribute
that results in systems being positively or negatively rated on this core
values continuum is the degree to which these systems differentiate or
equalise. As our society has become more egalitarian it has brought into sharp
relief systems that are highly differentiated.
Reducing the degree of differentiation of a system can lead to a
dramatic improvement in process capability. In a recent year-and-a-half long
study in London it was found that ensuring police officers routinely provided a
rights information leaflet when initiating a stop and search procedure (a high
percentage of ethnic minorities are subjected to this procedure) led to a
decrease of more than 50% in the number of arrests. Here, the provision of
tangible/technical information altered the nature of the social relationship,
dramatically reducing false arrests, ie waste (process capability in level 1
processes is evidenced by the amount of waste).
This example illustrates two further points. Firstly, it shows how
powerfully appropriate values can be signalled (and distributed) through
apparently minor changes in organisational systems and processes. Secondly, it
indicates that leaders must not just consider their own view of their
organisation's systems, rather they must understand how other stakeholders
perceive56 any system or process. In the example above, one might guess that
those from ethnic minorities have been subject to a very different set of
experiences leading them to perceive the stop and search procedure as highly
differentiating. A rights information leaflet is an organisational signal
indicating equalisation to both the police and members of ethnic minorities,
and indeed is likely to act as control infonnation modifying any implicit
differentiation in the way the procedure is carried out by the police
constable.
CONCLUSION
As the world has become increasingly complex, there has been a
steady stream of signals indicating an all too frequent failure to tackle
complicated problems effectively. Shaping sustainable economic development and
reconciling differing economic interests (eg between poor and rich countries);
managing the social implications of scientific development and new technology;
moving towards a just society in which rights are balanced by responsibilities,
and poverty, crime and violence are reduced; creating proper health-care rather
than illness-treating systems; maintaining even one of earth's many gifts to us
- bio-diversity; will all require more sophisticated solutions than those we
have so far been able to deliver.
Indeed, since our world is on the edge of another major discontinuity,
as the ability to manipulate our DNA pulls humanity into what Stephen Hawkin
(57) calls a new phase of "...self-designed evolution..." how
successfully our social institutions can be reshaped will have profound
consequences for future generations. No amount of personal, interpersonal and
team skills, important though these are (58), will be sufficient, if the
organisational practice of our leaders is not founded on science. We would do
well to remember the words of Leonardo Da Vinci (59) who noted c. 1470 that:
"Those who are obsessed with practice, but have no science; are like a
pilot setting out with no tiller or compass, who will never know for certain
where he is going."
This paper has argued for a science of organisation based on an
deeper, system based, understanding of our natural world. Eight principles for
shaping the adaptiveness of organisations and social institutions have been
identified - it is, I believe, a theoretical framework that can help us address
some of the pressing challenges of organisation that our world faces now and
into the next millennium.
Appendix
Eight
Organisational Principles: Summary and Brief Explanation
1) Level
Specific Work Processes
- Processes:
are they properly specified, understood, mapped, aligned, in control ? (60) Is there
a technological infrastructure that supports process working?
- Process
levels: are they clearly defined reflecting processes distributed to the
correct level, does each level add full value in relation to the local
environment served ? (6l)
2) Level
Specific Information Processes
For each work
process level, three types of information process (62) are required: Strategic
(meaningful decisions); Audit (sampling and deeper understanding); Control
(monitoring and steering).
- Are the information
processes in place to enable staff at each level to make effective
decisions, steer and continuously improve processes?
- In
particular, is properly specified control information available (right
person, place, level, and frequency) to allow work processes to be steered (or
is top/down control used as a substitute)?
3) Level
Specific Resources
- Resource
Availability: are the resources available to allow every level to achieve
its goals (eg people, their skills and competencies?)
- Resource
Control: is there the correct scope of resource control for each level; ie
reflected in managerial accountability, budgetary control and process time
scales?
4) Level
Specific Capability
Traditional
approaches to understanding what cognitive attributes – eg intelligence and
critical reasoning - enable contribution to higher management jobs or process
levels have limited explanatory power, accounting for less than 20% of the
variance. A non-reductionistic theory based on the notion of capability as the
exercise of discretion which suggests that individuals have level specific
capability, growing at different rates for different individuals. Level
specific capability should be regarded as a necessary condition for the
individual to
make a flow of effective decisions at the matching process level complexity:
- Does your
organisation have the right pool of capability (including potential) so that a
correct balance between the needs for organisational stability and change or
development can be achieved?
- Are their
effective organisational systems (64) for keeping people in-flow and fostering
personal responsibility for career development?
5)
Relationship Authority
A minimum
authority in relation to processes, based on an understanding of variation,
must be specified in order to sustain any system's integrity. This must include
vertical relationships (eg distinction between out-of-control points and
process capability) and horizontal relationships (as process capability and
input/output specification). In human social organisation this minimum
authority in relation to processes must be translated into, minimum authority
in different roles (65).
- Are peoples'
formal accountabilities matched with the correctly specified and understood
authority laterally and vertically with regard both to processes (re
variation) and people?
- Do the other
organisational systems (eg information processes) enable or undermine these
authority relationships?
6)
Relationship Style
As an organisation
becomes flatter, the maintenance of top/down control removes much of the
organisational benefit (of increased responsiveness) and can lead to loss of
control (eg with large spans of control). The loose coupling necessary for
coherence is in fact a loose/tight relationship (loose in respect of the high
level of autonomy given, tight in the sense of a high level of clarity about
outcomes). In human social organisation this must be reflected in the nature of
relationship between managers and their direct reports.
- Do managers
have the right skills to support process working with larger spans of control?
.
- Do direct
reports have the skills to shape and improve their managers style?
- Are these
skills reflected and recognised in selection procedure processes/criteria?
7)
Co-ordination Mechanisms
Creating an
effective organisational system depends on understanding the key
inter-dependencies between processes and therefore the minimum necessary
co-ordination mechanisms66 eg include systems, processes, procedures,
information processes, service level specification etc.
8) Core
Values. System Design and Leadership (67)
All of us tend
to evaluate the behaviour of others and organisational systems and processes
(HR etc.) on a small number of core values (necessary for social cooperation) -
trust, honesty, courage, love, dignity & fairness. How positively or
negatively organisational systems are evaluated depends on the degree to which
these systems differentiate or equalise (differentiated systems tend to be
rated
negatively). A primary leadership role of top management is the design of
systems to reflect positive core values.
- How do you predict the current systems in your organisation
would be rated on this values continuum by staff? And how do they actual rate
it? Is there a gap?
References
(1). Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, Great Britain, 1966.
(2). Cited in: When Slimming is not enough. The Economist.
September 3rd, 1994 pp 67-68
(3). For example see: Nitin Nohria and James T. Berkley, An Action
Perspective: The Crux of the New Management. California Management Review,
Summer. 122.. 4, pp 70 - 92. John A. Byrne, The Horizontal Corporation,
Business Week, Dec. 20th, 1993. Homa Bahrami, The Emerging Flexible Organisation:
Perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 4, 33-52, 1992.
(4). Margaret J. Wheatley. Leadership and the New Science-
Learning ahout Organisations from an Orderly Universe. (Berret-Koehler: USA,
1992)
(5). Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline. The Art & Practice of
the Learning Organisation. Doubleday, USA, 1990.
(6). For example, see John Mingers (1995 detailed exploration of
autopoiesis - Maturana and Varela's theory of the living - in which he suggests
that "...using autopoiesis metaphorically is reasonably
unproblematic...", p 151. This is in contrast to attempts to make a more
literal application to social organisation. John Mingers, Self-Producing
Systems. Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis, Plenum Press, New York,
1995" Humberto R. Maturana & Francisco Varela, The Tree of Knowledge:
The Biological Roots of Understanding. Shambhala, Boston, 1992.
(7). Michael Hammer and James Champy, Re-engineering the
Corporation A Manifesto for Business Revolution. (Nicholas Brearley: London
1993).
(8). Quote from transcript of Michael Hammer's presentation to
British Gas, TransCo, at Birmingham Metropole Hotel, November 1995.
(9). R. Swenson. Emergent Attractors and the Law of Maximum
Entropy Production: Foundations to a Theory of General Evolution. Systems
Research, 2, 1, 1989.
(10). As a set/superset pair, or subsystem/system/metasystem
nesting. For a mathematical treatment of different levels of order and some
interesting biological examples see: Clifford Grobstein, 'Hierarchical Order
and Neogenesis' Chapter 2 in Howard H. Pattee (ed.) Hierarchical Theory: The
Challenge of Complex Systems. George Braziller, New York, 1973.
(11). Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson. The Ants. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
(12). There is now a considerable body of evidence to support this
view in the area of infant development: see Annette Karmiloff Smith, Beyond
Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. (MIT Press,
Cambridge, 1992) who uses the term representational redescription to describe
this process. Although the empirical evidence is less comprehensive, a
comparable process
(which may be the same fundamental process) is apparent in younger
and older adults described by Elliott Jaques as different levels of capability
which grow at different rates for different individuals.
See E. Jaques, (1976) A General Theoy of Bureaucracy, Heinemann,
London (1976).
(13). Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1976.
(14). The distinction between environment and organism at any
level of complexity is of course an artificial one and is used to try to aid
clarity. Christopher Alexander calls the natural organism and its physical
environment a "...biological ensemble" p16, emphasising the whole as
a system of relationships. See Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of
Form, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1964. Maturana and Varela (1987) op. cit. make a
similar point as part of their concept of autopoiesis - they describe what they
call structural coupling in which the system
structurally co-determines
a particular set of relationships with the environment.
(15). This can be seen as recursions (the unfolding of complexity)
in the Viable Systems Model, see Stafford Beer, The Brain of the Firm, Wiley,
Chichester, 1982.
(16). The is a considerable systems literature arguing for the
irreducibility of system levels. See L. von Bertalanffy, General Systems
Theorey - Foundations. Development. Applications, George Braziller,
New York, 1968. Michael Polanyi provides an instructive
illustration of irreducibility in physical systems by posing the question can a
machine be fully specified in terms of the principles of physics or chemistry?
The answer is no - as a machine has a higher level order represented in its
operational principles and component interrelationships as a machine (serving a
purpose), p 328-331. Michael
Polanyi, Personal Knowled&e, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London, 1958.
(17). Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1983.
(18). The change in space-time dimensions at higher levels of
order or complexity can be viewed in a number of ways, for example: . in
molecules as lower frequency and decreased bond strength,
Planck's Law (from the perspective of an atom amolecule appears to
be standing still), in dissipative structures ie Benard cells, as increasing
mean-free-path times and relaxation times. Process cycle
time in biological and work organisations might best be defined as
the time taken to get feedback from the environment if a process is operating
just outside its stable control limits.
(19). In the fire ant, individual ants (the lowest order process
level) work to the rule 'continue hunting for a certain foodstuff if present
foraging load accepted by nestmates'. The information process
is simple unmodified measure of acceptance of foodstuff or not
(the exact control limit has not been identified). At the next higher order
level these individual processes are aggregated into a process
of 'meeting the needs for nutrition of the whole colony'. At this
level, the information process is based on demand, ie amount of a particular
type of food stuff taken by nestmates over time. As demand
falls for a particular food stuff, the specification required to
meet the nutritional needs of the colony automatically changes, as reflected in
the shift in the aggregated individual processes (as individual
ants seek alternative foodstuffs eg oils verses carbohydrates).
See Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson (1990)
(20). The importance to
adaption of a high degree of autonomy between different subsystems has been
noted by a number of authors. Ross Ashby, Design for a Brain,
(21). Herbert Simon has noted the importance of loose vertical and
horizontal coupling in the evolution of biological systems. Herbert A. Simon,
The Organisation of Complex Systems, Chapter 1, in
Howard H. Pattee (ed),
Hierarchy Theory : The Challenge of Complex Systems, George Braziller,
(22). More accurately the chain of command is specified to be the
minimum necessary for systemic integrity - ie top down 'commands' are still
necessary for: setting the broad limits (or purpose) within which the lower
order level is free to operate: when emergencies have to be dealt with; and for
overseeing the development of new repertoires of 'behaviour' at the next lower
order level. This is reflected
in the necessary condition of minimum authority relationships.
(23). For example, Baron et al writes "...there is no
exe,cutive machinery responsible for guiding the leg movement. The properties
of the movement (and the properties of the perception for movement)
arise naturally form the properties of the leg's movements."
pl14. Reuben M. Baron, Polemnia G. Amazeen, & Peter J. Beck, Local and
Global Dynamics of Social Relations, Chapter 6, in Robin Vallacher
and Andrzej Nowak (eds.) Dynamical Systems in Social Systems,
Academic Press,
is at an unconscious level in cerebellar terms. E. J. Parkins,
Cerebellum and Cognition: The "Unconscious Mind's Eye"? British
Psychological Society Annual Conference, 1995. See also Sten Grillner,
Neural Networks for Vertebrate Locomotion, Scientific American,
January, 1996.
(24). Even James Millar, who has produced a profound systemic
theory of living systems, falls into this trap. See James Millar, Living
Systems,
clear in other general systems theories eg Laszlo's natural
systems hierarchy; and Boulding's hierarchy of system complexity. Renneth
Boulding, The World as a Total System, Sage,
Ervin Laszlo, Introduction to Systems Philosophy. Harper and Row,
(25). This confusion is reflected in the every-day use of terms
such as emergence. For example, Ralph Stacey draws on the Kauffman's research
(concerning self-organisation in evolution and Boolean networks), to make
comparisons with 'emergent order' in organisations. One might question the
usefulness of such an analogy which tells us little about the boundary
conditions necessary for order to emerge, gives a spurious scientific feel to
what might be seen as trivially obvious (ie that some kind of order always
emerges when people get together), and uses the term emergence in a way that is
not comparable to emergence in biological systems (as described in this paper).
Ralph D. Stacey, The Science of Complexity: An Alternative Perspective for
Strategic Change Processes. Strategic
Management Journal, 16. 1995, pp 477 - 495. Stuart A. Kauffman,
The Origins of Order. Self-Organisation and Selection in Evolution. (Oxford
University Press: New York, 1993).
(26). This difference between levels of complexity (in biological
systems) and echelons (in human organisation) is reflected in the different
implicit meanings of the term hierarchy found in the literature.
As John Holland (1992), one of the fathers of the science of
complexity points out, "...a hierarchical building block structure utterly
transforms a system's ability to learn, evolve and adapt", p169.
Most managers find this
statement surprising, to say the least. This is because they are using the term
hierarchy to describe their experience of the stultifying
organisational culture that arises out of too many echelons with
command control (in which levels of complexity, emergence, and control without
controlling are greatly compromised). John Holland
cited in M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity The Emerging Science at
the Edge of Order and Chaos, Penguin Books,
(27). For example, with extra echelons, what should be level
specific information processes will inevitably become overcomplicated,
impairing the organisation's ability to co-determine the environment.
(28). Peter Senge 1990 op cit, pp 293.
(29). The author has noted that public enterprises (eg utilities)
seeking to become commercial run the risk of moving from being rigid to too
loose – eg accountability can become the casualty of empowerment; and the
safety and reputation of the business, which is founded in its core technology,
can be put at risk by narrow economic analysis and the devaluation of technical
expertise.
(30). See M. Mitchell Waldrop Complexity The Emerging Science at
the Edge of Order and Chaos. Penguin Books,
(31). Michael Polanyi (1966) op cit, describes this as "..
the principle of marginal control" in which "...successive working
principles control the boundary left indeterminate on the next lower
level." p 41-42.
(32). Gareth Morgan, Ima&es of Or&anisations. Sage,
(33). Bert Holldobler and Edward O. Wilson, (1990) op. cit.
(34). F. Timothy Fuller, 'Eliminating Complexity from Work:
Improving Productivity by Enhancing Quality,' National Productivity Review,
Autumn,.:4,.:4, 327-344, 1985.
(35). The principle of free markets is one macro application of
this criterion. However, free markets by themselves cannot fulfil this
criterion (as can be seen in practice), and free market advocates have
often not recognised the need for a minimum necessary dependence
(to achieve inter-dependent relationships) – I believe this can be specified in
terms of certain values which must then be expressed in
‘the system'.
(36). Dying for Information; Reuters, October 1996.
(37). This can be seen in more traditional discussions of
empowerment See Jeff S. Margulies, and Brian H. Kleiner, 'New Designs of Work
Groups: Applications of Empowerment', Empowerment in Organisations 3, 2, 12-18,
1995. Also, this concrete interpretation can be seen in the use of biological
analogy eg the notion of compartmentation, see Gerald Fairtlough, Biological
Models and Business Success, Business Strategy Review,.6, 3, 1995.
(38). This is reflected in the lack of sound theory explaining how
the notion of self-organised or managed teams can be applied at levels beyond
front-line teams. For example, see Edward E. Lawler III,
The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-Involvement
Organisation, Jossey-Bass,
(39). For every perspective there exists a higher order or
metalevel perspective and so on ad infinitum.
(40). Axions are discussed in Chapter 8 in Kenneth T. Delavigne
and J. Daniel Robertson, Demin&'s PrQfoung Chan&es: When will the
Sleepin& Giant Awaken?,
(41).
(42). The different temporal and spatial characteristics of each
level mean that specific organisational 'issues' - such as quality, safety,
regulatory relationships - are expressed in a unique form at each
level (for example, quality at process level I is represented as
waste; and at process level V as reputation). A deeper understanding of many
organisational issues can be gained through use of levels of complexity.
(43). It might be noted that one result of overcomplication as too
many echelons, is that process levels required by the organisation often
seriously impaired or even missing.
(44). It is no use blaming managers for tampering when the system
parameters – eg extra echelons - make it almost inevitable.
(45). Of course, the term 'horizontal corporation' coined by John
A. Byrne (1993) op. cit. is a misnomer - once one gets beyond about a size of
50 people, there is no such thing as horizontal organisation
only an organisation with' fewer echelons and different kinds of
lateral relationships (eg not based on ownership).
(46). J. Carlos Jarillo, Strategic Networks: Creating the
Borderless Organisation, Butterworth-Heinemann,
(47). Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating
Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
(48). Top management is usually the last (if ever!) part of the
organisation to be questioned about how much economic value it adds to an
enterprise.
(49). Hoebeke, L., Making Work Systems Better: A Practitioner's
Reflections, John Wiley,
to fully reflect the importance of feedback information for
steering processes, neglects the importance of more intangible, social
information (such as perception and values). In general, Jaques'
presentation of his theory is still couched in the language of
command/control. See Elliott Jaques, Requisite Or&anisation: The CEO's
Guide to Creative Structure and Leadership.
(50). A good example of developing a new level III open system is
that of the Home Bakery, a new product that created a large new customer market
for Matsushita when some of its other markets
were starting to saturate. The description by Ikujiro Nonaka and
Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995) op. cit., indicates considerable clarity about the
difference between process levels 3 & 4 (and also 5).
(51). For example, as can be seen in Deming's profound knowledge.
(52). For example, although game theory (Axelrod, 1984) provides a
powerful understanding of a particular aspect of social cooperation (ie winnose
situations) it is of little help in explicating the many shades of social
cooperative behaviour that are not about winning or losing. R. Axelrod, The
Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books,
(53). Ian Macdonald et aI, Leadership: A New Direction, British
Army Review, December, 1989.
(54). That is not to say each individual can be easily make these
cores values explicit on command; rather, they appear to be tacit knowledge to
use Polanyi's terminology. See Michael Polanyi, (1966).
(55). Internal dialogue as a means of referring to some 'higher
authority' has been shown to be an important factor in reducing the willingness
of unwitting subjects to carry-out dehumanising
procedures (eg electric
shock torture in Milgram's classic experiment) on other people; ie it reduces
inappropriate dependent behaviour in social conformity.
(56). One might argue that a good indicator of failing leadership
is the repeated protestation that the situation is not properly understood by
particular stakeholders, ie they are said to have the wrong perception!
(commonly used by politicians, in recent months, to describe the public).
(57). Sunday Times, News Section, 30th March, 1997.
(58). For example, those identified by Peter Senge, 1990, op. cit.
(59). Bramley Serge, Leonardo the Artist and the
(60). W. Edwards Deming, The New Economics for Business.
Government, Education, MIT
(61). These seven levels of complexity were originally identified
by Elliott Jaques in A General Theory of Bureaucracy. (Heinemann: London,
1976). For comprehensive description as process levels see: Hoebeke, L. Making
Work Systems Better A Practitioner's Reflections, John Wiley,
(62). Luc Hoebeke 1994 op cited.
(63).
(64). Gillian Stamp, The Individual, the Organisation, and the
Path to Mutual Appreciation, Personal Management, July, 1989.
(65). A detailed description of authority in relation to roles is
provided by: Elliott
Jaques, Requisite Organisation: The CEO’s Guide to Creative
Structure and Leadership,
(66). Stafford Beer has demonstrated that co-ordination is
necessary to prevent oscillation.
(67). Ian Macdonald, Understanding Organisational Change, in
Festschrift for
The Author
Michael Church worked for
12 years as a clinical psychologist in the NHS and since the late 1980's has
been an independent consultant based in
