In my last post we backed our way into a discussion of an emerging way of thinking about leadership and organization: the metaphor of the organization as an organsim.
http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/01/the-brain-as-a-metaphor-for-organization/
As we talked about earlier, metaphors are maps of the terrain that can yield some useful insights, so we don’t need to hold on to them too tightly (as an ideology). Rather, when considering a metaphor we might ask two questions:
- Does it have some basis in reality?
- Is it useful?
Whereas the organization as a machine metaphor can be seen to have arisen out of Newtonian physics (the view of the Cosmos as machine) and the industrial revolution, the metaphor of the organization as an organism has its recent roots in new physics and biology, and the framework of systems theory, which observes that the whole has emergent properties that can’t be fully explained by examining each of the parts. Rather these properties emerge as a result of the relationship and interaction of the parts.
I’ll apologize in advance for this: A useful but gorey example that is often given is that you sacrifice an animal and examine each of its parts, you won’t find life; life is an emergent property of the whole animal. The same could be said of a well-functioning team: a quality emerges in the interaction that only exists in potential in the individual team members.
Seeing relationships vs. parts requires us to shift our vision. Are you familiar with the famous cognitive optical illusion: the figure-ground vase? http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php
The image can be validly interpreted as two faces or as a vase. The one we see is the result of a mental interpretation, which may or may not be conscious. Once we’ve seen one view, it can be a challenge to see the other, because our current perspective is so obvious to us! Yet, if we look for the other figure, as described by others (or the text), we can see that as well.
And so it is with our metaphors of organization (and the cosmos). We might see the parts or we might see the relationships/interactions of the parts and the structures formed by those interactions. As Westerners, our cultural history has attuned us to see the parts very well. However, most of us have not been trained to “see” the tangible reality of the qualities that emerge in relationship and how these materially influence what emerges as the whole.
Coming back to our earlier post on the brain analogy for organizations … Scientist Fritjof Capra (1988) observes that biological organisms often have some machine-like qualities (Turning Point, p. 266). Our knowledge of these qualities has empowered the accomplishments of modern medicine. And, it is also true that biological organisms (and as it turns out, social organizations) also have emerging systemic properties. To “see” how relationships give rise to these properties, we need to shift our field of vision to look at relationships and patterns of relationship. (This is where Riane Eisler’s concept of Partnership can be seen to be very relevant to leadership and organizational development).
This is just one example of how a shift in perspective can be extremely powerful in opening up a whole new set of tools and possibilities. And that is what coaching is all about…
Gareth Morgan, Images of organisation (book) might be of interest to you
James, Thank you for your thoughtful note.
Yes, we’ve continued to explore metaphors for organization in the blog, and Carman de voer mentioned him in some more recent posts.
http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/02/15/towards-the-humanization-of-work-from-carman-de-voer/
I appreciate your reminder and will be sure to add him to recommended reading.
Best wishes,
Lisa
Hi Lisa, frankly I am needing guidance, because I don’t really speak English and in difficulty understanding Gareth Morgan.
Denis, Hello. Welcome.
Carmen de Voer, a contributor to this blog is familiar with Gareth Morgan’s work. I haven’t yet had the pleasure of reading it, but it sounds very relevant to this forum.
If you would like to discuss Dr. Morgan’s work in this blog, please feel free to bring particular topics to this thread for discussion.
Best wishes,
Lisa
Hi Lisa, thank you for welcoming me, and speedy reply (but I read it late). Anyway I’m trying to work on comtemporary examples of organization as machine. I am actually finding myself always discussing human resource materials. Such as: motivation, keeping the best employee (by reward, promotion, increase pay), and maintain competitiveness.
However I am in great difficulties finding examples. I’m thinking of discussing over depression and stress as the cause of working at fast pace (like machine) also repetitive works and lastly getting scold, facing managers anger (pressure).
Lisa with your kindness, can you please confirm me if I am at the right track?? I’m looking forward to your reply and hoping to be able to discuss another topic with you.
PS: Sorry for lacking in English 🙂
Denis
Denis,
Welcome back!
I just wrote you a long response, and then my browser shifted to Gareth Morgan’s web site, and when I returned, my reply was gone. So I will try to make this reply shorter 🙂
I personally agree with your direction of thought. The metaphor of organization as machine is compatible with Theory X and behaviorial psychology. Behavioral psychology assumes that people are like learning machines and that we learn through rewards and punishments. Theory X assumes that people do not want to work and that people work to avoid punishment and earn rewards.
Theory X ignores internal motivation (the satisfaction of acting in accordance with our values and self-actualization (associated with Maslow — and which I’ll define here as the expression and contribution our unique gifts in the world). Leadership as a practice tends to draw on this “internal” motivation — defining an inspirational goal and encouraging people to contribute their best. There is an author (whose name, unfortunately, doesn’t immediately come to mind), who makes the case that external rewards and punishments negatively effect this kind of intrinsic motivation.
Also, to your point of people working very fast due to fear and pressure and that causing stress and depression, we can say that fear *is* stress, and that chronic fear and the feeling of powerlessness can lead to depression.
I think you might find some journal articles to back up your hypothesis….
Please let me know if I answered your question.
Best wishes,
Lisa
[…] Lisa Some related posts: http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/01/the-brain-as-a-metaphor-for-organization/ http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/09/organization-as-organism-machine/ […]
Lisa,
Oh no, your reply is longer than my lecturer’s. I am very very happy with your explanation. I did not aware you are marketer, lecturer and MBA or PhD. Anyway you did answered my question. Gareth Morgan wrote complex theory, therefore I find it hard to cope with this subject. I want to ask permission until October, can I shoot more questions regularly? This is my last semester and I need to pass this subject to graduate.
I am seeking for journals about organization as machine, I have watched Business Change video (2002). I read Morgen Witzel (2002) to relate with the the video. Do you have any recommendation over which journals related to organization as machine? I’m working to get 2 journals.
Will it be convinient if I post questions here? I do not understand organization as organism. But I will write here later after submitting my assignment on Monday. Are you in Australia?
I’m from Deakin University by the way.
Lisa, thank you so much for helping me.
Denis
Hi Denis, Carman de Voer, a contributor to this blog, is familiar with Gareth Morgan’s work, and might be better able to assist you.
If you would like to post questions from time to time, you can post them here, and I will put them in the main blog, to see if we can generate some discussion around them.
Have you spoken to your reference librarian about the journals? In my experience reference librarians have a wealth of information that they are glad to share, on how to locate information.
I can also post your question regarding journals in the main blog thread, in case Carman or another reader might have some specific suggestions for you.
Does that work for you?
Lisa
P.S. I am located in the U.S.
Yes Lisa I have found the journals. I’ve submitted my assignment. I’m up to Organization as political system. It looks like reading bible here! I will be posting question over this topic.
Thank you very very much for rescueing me.
Denis
Hi Lisa,
How do I find Carman? I’m having a great difficulty understanding organization as political system. The English they’ve written too advanced for me. Meanwhile I’m starting reading domination. I’m desparate for help..
Cheers
Denis
Hi Denis,
If you send me your question(s), I will post them in the main blog. That way, if any of our readers, including Carman, have some ideas to share that may help, they will can post responses there.
Also, is there any support available to you on your campus, in your original language?
Lisa
Hi Lisa,
No Indonesian translation available in my uni, only English, since I’m international student. Yet there are many students asking question so it is very hard to get any discussion. That’s why I switch to find more answer here. Ok, I will post them. Meanwhile I haven’t gotten any questions. I’m focusing on easy chapter, difficult chapter will be undertake later.
Denis
Denis, It sounds like a challenging course. Good luck and please post your questions, when you are ready. I hope that some of our readers will be able to help.
Best wishes,
Lisa
Hi Lisa. I’m trying to understand organization as culture. Can you forward to Carman de Voer to explain me these explanations. I am having great difficulty understanding this writing, the language she wrote were too heavy for me. If you understand would be even better.
Hatch (2006), which is given as an additional reading in week 2, has a clear explanation of the three perspectives of organisational theory: modernism; symbolic interpretivism; and post modernism (this last is not examinable). Where modernism assumes that there is an objective, external reality which exists independent of what we know about it, symbolic interpretivism assumes that we cannot know about anything except through our subjective awareness of it. As Hatch 2006, p14) puts it, ‘that which exists is that which we agree exists.’
Under modernism we can discover the truth about our world by measuring and testing from which we can deduce universal laws. The organisation is seen as a concrete separate entity driven by rational goals. The focus of organisational theory from this perspective is around developing universal laws and techniques that can be applied to the structures and processes of organisations to improve their efficiency and effectiveness in the pursuit if rational goals. Through much of the history of organisational theory this approach has dominated so you are probably most comfortable with this approach. It is consistent with the approach taken in the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry.
Under the symbol interpretive approach organisations are seen as arising from the social processes of their members as they interact and develop understandings about their selves and others. That is, organisations are socially constructed. The only way to know about organisations then is to understand the point of view of the individuals involved rather than seek for universal laws. The focus of organisational theory under this perspective is on ‘how people give meaning and order to their experience within specific contexts, through interpretive and symbolic acts, forms and processes’ (Hatch 2006, p14).
To take an example from the model exam on dso, question 6 asks about how we could study organisational culture from a modernist perspective. Modernism would assume that culture was a concrete phenomenon which could be identified, measured and understood using universal laws. Once properly understood it could be manipulated in the same way as structure and processes to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Sutton and Nelson (1990), give an example of this approach in their article when they talk about using cultural artefacts to facilitate change. A symbolic interpretive perspective on culture might look at the processes of interaction and meaning making that result in shared values, beliefs and assumptions with the aim of understanding particular cultures and how they are created and perpetuated.
Cheers
Denis