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