ADTED575:

Lesson 5: Overview

 

Lens Three: The Culture Theorists

"Looking At The Organizational Village"

 

As we have already seen, although the "Blueprint" metaphor [Structuralist Theories] gives us important insights into organizations, the lens is inadequate by itself to really help us understand and problem-solve in our organizations. Structuralists tend to overlook the environmental factors and think of organization as in a "closed system". Structuralists also tend to over-concentrate on structure at the expense of functioning, focusing on "how" we organize production, not "what and why" we produce. Some of these weaknesses are addressed by a group of theorists we examine in the previous unit known as the "Systems Theorists". Systems theorists tended to think about organizations in terms of life-cycles, and processes. This lens encourages us to consider how organizations work over time and how the organization grows and interacts with its broader super-systems of other organizations., much like examining a living organisms growing and interacting with a broader eco-system. While providing valuable additional insights beyond the structuralist into organizational functioning, the systems theories are inadequate by themselves because such theories tend to overlook the human factor - the social and interpersonal dynamics of human organizations. It is this "human factor" that our third lens, the "Culture Theorists" incorporate into their analysis of organizational life.

Cultural Theorists think about organizations from the framework of a Culture, or "Village". Culture theorists believe that organizations are socially-constructed realities. Thus critical factors in organizational life are much more an issue of how people perceive each other and the organization than merely structures or a systems. Cultural theorists argue that to understand organizational life, we must understand the values, beliefs, and role expectations of the people who make up the organization. Drawing upon a concept from the system theories from the previous unit, organizations with same "Genotypic function" can have vastly different working cultures. Thus we must know more than genotypic function to understand what is actually going on in an organization. What is most important about an event is how people UNDERSTAND IT, not the event itself. Thus understanding "meanings" are a key to understanding organizational life and problems.

So how does a manager go about discovering the "meanings" people hold within the organization? The answer proposed by the cultural theorists is to use "culture tools" to discern the nature of the culture of the organization. These "Culture Tools" help reveal the basic "bent", as well as the specific ''peculiarities'' of the organization. Learning to read the Macro-Culture define the basic "bent" of organization. Learning to read the Micro-Culture reveals the specific "peculiarities" of organization. Let's turn now to the tools to read both the macro and micro culture of an organization.

Introduction to Systems Theory: "Looking At The Organizational Eco-System"

 

Although the "Blueprint" metaphor [Structuralist Theories] we examined last time gives us important insights into organizations, it is inadequate by itself to really help us understand and problem-solve in our organizations. The lens, while showing us some of the realities in our organizations, is simply not able to reveal all the pertinent variables. Structuralists tend to overlook the environmental factors and think of organization as in a "closed system", not really influenced by issues beyond the organizational walls. Structuralists also tend to over-concentrate on organizational structure at the expense of really explaining organizational functioning. IN other words, structuralists tend to focus upon "how" we organize production, not "what and why" we produce.

In an effort to broaden the analysis and see other aspects of organizational life missed by the structural theories, another group of theorists, loosely known as "systems theorists", turned attention from the organizational structures to the broader systems into which an organization fits and the sub-systems operating within the organization. Systems theorists think about organizations from the framework of ECO-SYSTEMS. The systems theorists tend to think about organizations in terms of organizational life-cycles, and systemic processes. In other words, this lens (or set of theories) looks at how organizations work over time in contrast to the structuralists who tend to look at point in time to fine tune to machine - like looking at a video versus looking at a snapshot.

In additional to life cycle focus, the systems view examines organizations as if they were living organisms growing and interacting with a broader Eco-system. Rooted in biological open systems theory, this approach is concerned with finding the proper place of organization within its larger system. This approach is also concerned with how the organization interacts with its environments and manages its boundaries and whether current practices will allow the organization to survive over time.

System Theory as a way to understand and predict organizational behavior has its roots in General Systems Theory. The biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy first outlined in 1950 the notion of general systems theory. The core theory assumes that an organism is an integrated system of interdependent structures and functions. An organism is constituted of cells and a cell consists of molecules which must work in harmony. Each cell must know what the other is doing. Taking their lead from the biological framework, Systems Theorists apply the concept to organizational life by substituting organization for organism, group for cell, and person for molecule.

Two core concepts of General Systems Theory in biology are sub-systems and multiple-causation. The concept of "sub-systems" means that everything exists in connection with bigger and smaller systems. The level of analysis depends on perspective - you could be considering a ... sub-system of a system, the system itself, or the super-system into which the system fits. The concept of "multiple-causation" grows from the fact that systems are complex and interrelated (sub-system issues impact the system, which impacts the super-system, and super-system issues doe the same in reveres, etc), causation's of organizational problems are likely complex and interrelated.

How Core Concepts of System Theory Relate To Organizational Life: Dynamic Connections, Environmental Interactions, Entropy, and Equifinality

Let's examine specifically how the core concepts of System Theory help us to better understand organizational life. Perhaps most importantly, this lens helps us to recognize that there are "Dynamic Connections" within organizational systems. This means that movement anywhere in the organization sooner or later influences and affects other parts of organization. Picture it like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond. The ripples will eventually work through the entire pond. Yet the ripples, while coming, could take time before they arrive. Those looking too much at the current moment in time could miss the true "cause" of the ripple if it came from another part of the pond and from an action removed in time from the ripple hitting the shore. Managers and administrators must learn to think about the very real "system impact" of decisions made in one area of the organization on other parts of the organization. Learn to consider how decisions will impact throughout an organization and impact over time!

A second critical insight into organizational life comes from the recognition of the role of "environmental interaction". Any organization exists within a broader super-system and organizations interact with this larger environment. Structural theorists tend to focus only on the organizational structures at the expense of broader interactive factors. Just as a biologist considers how the organism interacts with its environment, so the system theorist considers how the organization interacts with its environment. Primary to this lens is the question of how does the organism (organization) get food (input), how does it digest the food (throughput) and what does it put out into the ecosystem (output)? Thus Systems Theorists focus on the "Input-Throughput- Output" cycle.

"Input" refers to the way an organization depends upon its environment to import energy to function. Organism and organizations must import energy or die! So what does the organization input and how does it get such inputs? "Throughput" refers to the way an organism (organization) transforms the energy it receives into satisfying its basic survival needs and producing products for the broader super-system. So managers consider the question of what is done with organizational inputs? This turns attention inevitably to questions of efficiency and effectiveness. "Output" refers to how an organism (organization) exports energy (products) into the broader Eco-system. Who gets our products and how are they received?

Organizations create cycles of input-throughput-output that go on in endless repetition (referred to in the literature as the System Cycle). A critical consideration for an organization is how the output affects future input? Much like analyzing the relationship between a tree produces oxygen for the broader super-system and a humans producing carbon dioxide, organizations must consider the connected nature of our outputs become inputs for other organizations, and their outputs become our inputs. How healthy is the organizational cycle?

Systems theory also turns attention to organizational survival questions. To survive, all systems must act to arrest entropy (movement toward death). All organism tend toward entropy, or death, unless they act to survive. An organization will do the same unless it implements actions to reverse the entropic process. What are we doing to try to survive and thrive? Survival requires responding to system problems. All organizations need negative input to correct systems operations. Like the body needs "pain" receptors to alert us all is not right, so organizations need negative input to act like a "flashing light" on the dash. A central problem here is that organizations tend to not be open to negative feedback and would prefer riding itself of symptoms rather than solving problems, much like taking pill to deaden pain. The manager must be working against this tendency. Are we open to such negative input and how do we process such input?

Another systems concept that has bearing on organization leadership is "equifinality". This concept means that systems can reach the same final state from differing initial conditions and by a variety of paths. In other words, there is there is not "one way" to run an organization, or one strategic plan that is best for getting us to the desired point.

Understading Organizations as Organisms: Genotypic Functions and Maximization Principle

A third critical insight into organizational life from the systems lens turns attention to the broader super-system. How does organization work over time to produce its outputs and "survive and thrive" in its broader Eco-system? How does the organization deal with other organizations within its super-system? Such a question forces managers to focus outside the boundaries of their organization and consider inter-organizational relationships. How do such relationships impact the organization? Focusing on the broader super-system lads managers to consider genotypic functions of organizations. In systems theory, each organism has a special place in their Eco-system, an important and "unique" place. There will be system-wide impacts if organism is missing. System theorists look at organizations in the same way - each organization has a special function (or role to play) in their respective Eco-systems. Organizational survival is linked to fulfilling this function. Organizational problems can emerge if we try to change our "place" in the ecosystem, which is often done to reduce perceived vulnerability. Let's examine this concept further.

There are four "Genotypic Functions" in the organization's super-system: the productive, the maintenance, the Adaptive, the managerial. Organizations have a "productive function" if they are concerned with the creation of wealth, the manufacture of goods, and the provision of services for the general public. Primary productive function would include such things as farming and mining. Secondary productive function would show up in manufacturing, while tertiary productive function shows up in the service industries. Organizations have a "maintenance function" if they are concerned with the socialization of people for their roles in society. Direct maintenance functions would include schools and training organizations, while restorative maintenance would include such things as health and religious groups. The point here is that maintenance organizations help keep society from disintegrating. Organizations have an "adaptive function" if they are concerned with creating knowledge, developing and testing theories, and applying information to existing problems. A good example of such organizations would be research universities and fine arts groups. Organizations have a "managerial function" if they are concerned with the adjudication, coordination, or control of resources, people, and sub-systems. Organizations like government units, courts, unions, and special interest groups are fulfilling a maintenance function.

A number of problems arise in organization tied to genotypic function issues. For example, some organizations try to "bridge" the functions to become less dependent upon other organizations. But the "cost" of trying to be in too many genotypic functions can kill an organization. Like an organism, an organization is designed to be most efficient in its proper "place" and will always less efficient in other "places". Thus organizations can't ultimately benefit from too much diversification of function. Trying to bridge beyond our "place" can cost the organization too much and be a cause of organizational problems!

Another systems theory concept that ties to organization life is called the "Maximization Principle". A key goal for any organization is to get as much "input" as possible and "throughput" it as efficiently as possible. This would theoretically lead to maximized profits for an organization because profits are usually increased through organizational efficiency. This often leads organizational leaders to assume that "profit" is the single most important issue in decision making. But system thinking helps a manager to recognize that profit through more efficient throughput must be balanced by a focus on long-term survival of the organization. IN other words, efforts toward "profit" must be balanced with an eye on long-term survival needs. Otherwise we put our whole organization at risk. A classic example of this principle can be seen in the fishing industry, where increased efficiency in catching and processing fish often led to over-fishing in an area (like the Grand Banks) that led, in turn, to the ultimate marginalization and death of various companies within the industry. Creating the proper balance of profit and survival within organizations (maximization) calls for both a long-term view and an eye on issue sint he broader super-system in which an organization operates, both fostered by the systems lens. Remember, in "systems" the consequences of a choice can take time to be seen throughout the organization. Many decisions that could produce increased short-term profits could seriously comprise the organization's long-term survival. Managers need to learn to ask "are we overfishing the Grand Banks?".

Understanding Organizations as Organisms: Scanning Your Environment

As identified earlier, system theorists believe that organizations are involved in ongoing interactions with their environments and leader must understand the nature of such broader environments, discover ways to objectively "measure" of such environments, and decide how best to interact with broader system in light of such measures.

Even a brief glance at the above factors would underscore that finding exact and accurate measures would be hard (or impossible).

Using Systems Theories As A Way To Understand Problems In Organizations

To summarize and apply our study of systems theories as a lens for organizational life, the following provides a set of core questions a systems consultant would ask to guide the analysis of organizations. These questions can also be used to guide you analysis of the problem being examined in your own case study.

• Core Questions of Systems Consultants

  
  

  1. What is the cycle of production for this organization? i.e., what are we about as an organization?

  - What do we bring in (input), how do we use it and form our products (throughput), and what do we send out into the larger world (output)?
  - What are the feedback mechanisms?
  - What are we doing to reverse the entropy of the system?
  - How do we decide between possible options (equifinality)?

  2. What is our "proper place" in the broader society and economy?

  - The issue is genotypic function (Productive, Maintenance, Adaptive, Managerial/Political), what is our place?

  3. How do we balance our need for "profit" with a long term view of what we need to "survive"?

  - The issue here is the Maximization Principle.
  - How do we storing, re-invest, build public relations, etc.

  4. How are we scanning our organizational environments?

  - What "sectors" do we scan?
  - How do we make sense out of these out of the environmental sectors that we scan?

   

 Bridge to the Next Lesson

 

As we have already seen, although the "Blueprint" metaphor [Structuralist Theories] gives us important insights into organizations, the lens is inadequate by itself to really help us understand and problem-solve in our organizations. Structuralists tend to overlook the environmental factors and think of organization as in a "closed system". Structuralists also tend to over-concentrate on structure at the expense of functioning, focusing on "how" we organize production, not "what and why" we produce. Some of these weaknesses are addressed by a group of theorists we examine in the previous unit known as the "Systems Theorists". Systems theorists tended to think about organizations in terms of life-cycles, and processes. This lens encourages us to consider how organizations work over time and how the organization grows and interacts with its broader super-systems of other organizations., much like examining a living organisms growing and interacting with a broader eco-system. While providing valuable additional insights beyond the structuralist into organizational functioning, the systems theories are inadequate by themselves because such theories tend to overlook the human factor - the social and interpersonal dynamics of human organizations.

It is this "human factor" that our third lens, the "Culture Theorists" incorporate into their analysis of organizational life.