The Orgtology Blog
Orgtology Against The Rest: A comparison of the Orgtology Organizational Analysis Model against the Scientific and Bureaucracy Analysis Models
ABSTRACT
The continuous bloodbath of organizations is not only a problem facing company executives but also world economies at large. This may be pointed to the dynamic nature of the market landscape as well as the constantly changing customer demands. Also, the fact that business is not a straightforward science makes the issue of choosing a particular organizational analysis model instead of the other a cumbersome task. These issues further complicate the problem in terms of crafting the appropriate organizational model that will ensure organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Generally, organizational analysis is concerned with developing models and theories that accurately capture the functioning and development of organizations and that account for the ways in which organizations respond to and bring about changes. Therefore, this discussion seeks to compare and contrast the Orgtology perspective (Hypothesis 2x) towards understanding organizational analysis modelling against some of the well-known models; scientific and bureaucracy model.
Table of Contents
1.2 The Orgtology Perspective of Organizational Analysis5
2.1.3.2 Measuring Effectiveness
2.1.4 Relevant and Performing Organization (RPO) – Theory O.
3.1.1 The Organamics Paradigm Model
3.4 Relevant and Performing Individual - Theory Dx.
3.4.1 Relationship between Management and Leadership.
5.0 The Scientific Organizational Model
6.0 The Bureaucracy Organizational Model
6.1 The hierarchy of authority.
BibliographyList of Figures
Table 1: Organamics Paradigm Model
Table 2: Types of Collective identity.
Table 3: Management and Leadership: Attributes and Implications
1.0 Introduction
The continuous bloodbath of organizations is not only a problem facing company executives but also world economies at large. This may be pointed to the dynamic nature of the market landscape as well as the constantly changing customer demands. Also, the fact that business is not a straightforward science makes the issue of choosing a particular organizational analysis model instead of the other a cumbersome task. These issues further complicate the problem in terms of crafting the appropriate organizational model that will ensure organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
Generally, organizational analysis is concerned with developing models and theories that accurately capture the functioning and development of organizations and that account for the ways in which organizations respond to and bring about changes (Simons, 1979). Simons (1979) further explains that, the key goal of organizational analysis is to organize a company in order to manage it successfully and to bring about greater efficiency. Although this explanation seem to present some valuable understanding of the concept, however, it is limited as it focuses only on organizational efficiency (internal process) and ignoring organizational effectiveness (external relevance) and organizational relationships which are also important ingredients in organizational diagnosis (Hendrikz, 2020). Therefore, this discussion seeks to compare and contrast the Orgtology perspective (Hypothesis 2x) towards understanding organizational analysis modelling against some of the well-known models; scientific and bureaucracy model.
1.1 Hypothesis
If organizational analysis has an effect on the functioning and development of an organization, then Orgtology provides an effective and efficient framework to achieving organizational sustainability because it views an organization as a holistic system through the emphasis of duality.
Orgtology is a new phenomenon which seeks to decode the confusion around the formation of an efficient and effective organization. According to Hendrikz (2020), Orgtology views an organization as system driven by two interacting variables; Orgamatics (scientific side) and Organamics (abstract side). In essence, orgamatics looks the science of duality whilst Organamics studies the X-factor. Furthermore orgamatics looks at the relationship between the concrete and abstract sides of Organization. These variables are enchored by the Hypothesis 2x theory, which is the foundation of Orgtology (Hendrikz, 2020). The next section, attempts to explain the Hypothesis 2x theory by looking at different components and constructs that underpins the formulation of any organization.
2.0 Hypothesis 2x
Hypothesis 2x is the foundation of Orgtology, it emphases the idea of viewing an organization as a system that exists with two dependent spheres which are Orgamatics and Organamics (Hendrikz, 2020). In essence, the Hypothesis 2x theory views an Organization as any natural system, where everything exists in pairs with one being the opposite of the other for the purpose of balancing the system. For instance, with human beings, we have males and females, right and left, right and wrong, good and bad, hot and cold. These situations exist simultaneously in a single system, while one being predominant over the other at different times and space depending on the circumstance at play. Hendrikz (2020) explains this parity in existence as duality, which is core in understanding the different interactions driving evolution and change in any entity. According to Hendrikz (2020) the predominance of one leg of the system over the other signals an inverse relationship of duality which is paramount in enforcing change and evolution in any system or entity. So the "2" represents this duality existence of Organamics and Orgamatics, in which the "x" represents the different and dynamic thoughts of individuals within the Organization which are complex to understand, thus creating an x-Factor which is enshrined in the Organamics part of the Hypothesis 2x theory (Hendrikz, 2020). This section introduced the core of the Hypothesis 2x theory, bringing out the algorithm and thinking process behind the theory. The next sections explain the ideas and meaning behind of both Orgamatics and Organamics.
2.1 Orgamatics
The term Orgamatics is a combination of two words 'Orga' for organization and 'matics' for mathematics (Hendrikz, 2020). It represents the part of an Organization that can be analyzed and understood through mathematical manipulations. These are the processes and operations of an Organization which their outputs can be predicted with little to no uncertainty. According to (Hendrikz, 2020), because of their predictability and consistency they eliminate or minimize the risk of performance but not relevance. In principle, Orgamatics ensure that an Organization maintains a specific level of output and set of protocols in executing its operations which is viewed as acceptable practice. Any deviation from either the level of output or set of protocols disrupts the normal operation of the process. From this understanding, four theories are established which are directed towards developing a Relevant and Performing Organization (RPO). These theories are; Orgtelligence (Theory 2I), Work (Theory 2P), Results (Theory 2E) and Relevant and Performing Organization (Theory O). A brief description of each of these theories presented below to enable an appreciation they link in the pursuit find equilibrium for efficient output and effective outcomes.
2.1.1 Theory 2P - Work
Work is the actual delivering of outputs and outcomes. It is where the hammer hits the nail or where the tyre hits the tar. The '2P' represents the dual means an organization can execute its work; processes and projects. According to Hendrikz (2020), processes are repetitive, they deliver outputs and they guarantee or reduce the risk of performance. In essence processes are synonymous to a well programmed production line, which in the absence of any breakdown will continue performing and delivering the same output, thus ensuring efficiency (Hendrikz, 2020). The key measure of an efficient process is the delivering of a quality output at minimal utilization or consumption of resources (money, people and assets).
Contrary to processes are projects, which are projective in nature, have a distinct start and end time, and their deliverables are outcomes. Projects bring about change and transformation through continuous renewal of processes which thus ensure relevance of the Organization in its industry. In principle, projects are drivers of Organizational effectiveness, through the development of new products and services, installation of more complex but efficient production lines and the development and implementation of new corporate strategies to mention a few.
Hendrikz (2020) postulates an inverse and interdependent relationship between processes and projects. The inverse relationship is rooted on the idea that, an organization will always have finite resources which have to be shared between projects and processes during the execution of work. Therefore, if an organization opt to invest more in its internal processes, obliviously there will be less work done on projects. This relationship of 'give and take' between projects and processes creates a continuous drive of revolutionary changes within an organization which ensures the execution of work as well efficiency and effectiveness. It is also paramount to acknowledge the dual existence of processes and projects in any organizational formation. It is not an issue of having either and eliminating the other they co-exist, but depending on the decision taken by the Organization whether to execute more work on projects or processes the other will prevail over the other in terms of investment allocation.
2.1.2 Orgtelligence – Theory 2I
Orgtelligence is a new word derived from combining two words; Organization and Intelligence. The theory of Orgtelligence looks at the total systems intelligence that constituent any Organization. According to Hendrikz (2020), any organization is made of implied and tacit intelligence. The implied intelligence is what can be referred to as the DNA of the organization. In essence, it is the blueprint of the organization that is knitted into every employee of the organization. It is driven by purpose as well as culture, and it is a property of the organization. Also, because of the way it manifests itself in organizational operations it is receptive and repetitive in nature.
Contrary to implied intelligence is tacit intelligence. Tacit intelligence for an Organization is its strategy, innovation, all the unique attributes of an Organization that set it apart from its competitors. At individual level, it is knowledge or intelligence that is difficult to express or extract, and thus more difficult to transfer to others by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. This can include personal wisdom, experience, insight, and intuition, thus it is projective in nature. However, once tacit intelligence is codified or written down it becomes Explicit or Explained intelligence. Therefore, considering the rate at which the way of executing business is changing, and the disruption caused by artificial intelligence (AI) it is imminent that Organizations that will survive these changes are those that are investing in codifying tacit knowledge or intelligence of its human resource. This will not only benefit Organizations in terms of improving internal process efficiency but it will also leverage organizational effectiveness through effective communication of organizational information while differentiating the organization from its competitors (Pycraft, et al., 2010).
Theory 2E measures outputs and outcomes of an Organization (Hendrikz, 2020). It analyses the domino effect of organizational operations and strategic initiatives. In essence the aim is to quantify the efficiency of the internal processes in delivering our purpose and the effectiveness our project or strategic initiatives in achieving our intent. According to Hendrikz (2020), an outcome is an evaluation of how the industry landscape responds to the output, which then influences the decision to either renew organizational processes to improve performance or to invest in new projects to leverage relevance.
The '2E' represents two metrics that can influence and empower the results of an Organization, and these are efficiency and effectiveness. As pointed earlier, efficiency quantifies performance while effectiveness measures relevance. Hendrikz (2020) explains the difference between efficiency and effectiveness as the former is concerned about doing things right while the latter being doing things right that are relevant. This explanation is fundamental in organizational sustainability, as it ensures linkage between the organization's purpose and intent through the alignment of processes and projects to deliver outputs and outcomes that are efficient and relevant to the environment. Finding a balance between efficiency and effectiveness eliminates a majority of costly organizational wastages which may include duplication of work, development of irrelevant products and services, investing in unnecessary projects and employment of unnecessary human resources to mention a few.
The figure below depicts relationship between efficiency and effectiveness in delivering outputs, outcomes and goals of an organization. An important observation from the Figure is the imperative need for co-existence and interdependence of both spheres for an organization to exist. However, this does not translate to receiving the same resource allocation at given point in time to achieve equilibrium or organizational sustainability.
Figure 1: Relationship between Efficiency and Effectiveness (Source: Hendrikz, 2014)
Due to industry dynamics, an Organization may decide to invest more resources on projects or new strategic initiatives to renew its relevance of the outcomes which will later disrupt the current processes with the sole target of improving performance and thus the outputs. Their co-existence and interdependence of efficiency and effectiveness is what drives organizational continuity and the constant need to measure performance and relevance which are fundamental in controlling entropy. Therefore, theory 2E plays a vital role in both leadership and management of an Organization because from measuring outcomes leadership can take strategic decision to reposition the products and services of the Organization for relevance. On the other hand, from evaluating process outputs managers are able to either maintain the status quo in terms of process performance or request for upgrades or improvements on processes to leverage efficiency.
2.1.3.1 Measuring Efficiency
Efficiency is easy to measure and monitor, it is a ratio outputs divided by inputs as shown below.
Efficiency = (Output/Input), and the result must be at greater or equals to one for an efficient process.
Equation 1: Efficiency
The above computation emphasizes the need for an Organization to constantly strive to optimize its resource utilization (people, money and assets) in all production processes while maximizing outputs to ensure efficiency.
2.1.3.2 Measuring Effectiveness
Unlike efficiency, effectiveness is more complex to measure because it involves human perceptions which is the x-Factor. The varying human perceptions based on beliefs and values make evaluating effectiveness a complicated endeavor because it involves understanding how relevant the value proposition of an Organization is to an environment. This has to be based mostly on assumptions and assigning numbers to these assumptions especially those relating to relevance. Below is a mathematical expression for evaluating effectiveness.
Effectiveness = (Relevance/Output) , and for an effective project the result has to be greater or equal to one.
Equation 2: Effectiveness
From the above equation it can be observed that, for an Organization to be effective it needs to reduce its output to increase its relevance. This also holds true from a demand and supply perspective. In bumper maize season, farmers usually reduce their outputs by keeping their maize in silos to starve the market which then creates demand thus increasing the relevance of maize in the market.
However, contrary to the increase in effectiveness as a result of output reduction is a reduction in efficiency as shown in the efficiency equation above. This further consolidates the idea that efficiency and effectiveness co-exist and are interdependent in organizational dynamics. Hendrikz (2020) postulates that, this is because both efficiency and effectiveness utilize the same scarce resources of the Organization which leads to competing demands between these two elements. It is the responsibility of Leadership to always strive to achieve a balance between these elements which may be influenced by the dynamics of Supply and Demand.
2.1.4 Relevant and Performing Organization (RPO) – Theory O
Theory O describes the ultimate target of Orgamatics for an Organization. It defines how an Organization can leverage its intent (T), resources (E- Energy), intelligence (I) and purpose (P) to achieve optimal efficiency and effectiveness in its industry. According to Hendrikz (2020), the organization's intent together with the way it utilizes its resources and intelligence will change the organization's purpose. For instance, a Water Utility in South Africa will have the same function as a Water Utility in India, but they will not yield the same result (efficiency and effectiveness). This is due to difference in the manipulation of their intent, utilization of resources and intelligence which influences the organization's purpose thus the results. It is therefore sensible to conclude that, a lot can be deduced from understanding the processes of an Organization about its purpose, since the former strives to deliver the latter.
It is not difficult to agree that Organizations trading in the industry with the same purpose will never measure equally in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. This means we should be able to measure an organization's ability to be a Relevant and Performing Organization by focusing on how it manipulates the relationship between its intent, energy, intelligence and purpose. Hendrikz (2020) presents the relationship below between these parameters for the evaluation of any organization's ability to achieve RPO.
Ability to be a RPO = (TEI/P), parameters are as defined above.
Equation 3: Ability to be a RPO
From the above equation it is imperative to understand that purpose is neutral parameter, and it is what defines the organization is all about. For instance, a Fashion designer will be defined by designing high quality or stylish or low cost clothing otherwise he/she will be something else. Therefore, this means purpose cannot be increased or decreased, the only thing that causes the variation in results between organizations with the same purpose is how each manipulates or creates the relationship between intent, energy and intelligence. However, it is important not to confuse this with the increase or decrease in supply and demand of the purpose, which will definitely affect the level of sponsorship as well as competition of the environment. Taking from the same vein, it is therefore impossible for an organization to be a RPO when it is pursuing multiple purposes with the same intent, energy and intelligence. Consequently, for proper diversification, an organization needs have a different purpose, intent, energy and intelligence for each of the different business streams. This is true when considering the different government departments and different revenue streams owned by Apple. Imagine if all the services provided by government were to be assigned to one office, service delivery would be a total chaos. The same thing with Apple, the company has acquired more 100 companies in the past 6 years, and these companies have their own intent, purpose, energy (including different Chief Executive Officers) and intelligence to be RPOs. The equation above proves the importance of government or organizations to have different departments with different intents, resources, intelligence and purposes but all feeding to the same goal. It also contradicts the idea that an individual can manage multiple organizations which have different purposes, pursuing different intents as well as requiring different resources and intelligence. This is not to be confused with owing a number of businesses ventures, in which the owner receives profits from each business venture.
As already stated in earlier discussions, efficiency drives and ensures performance but not relevance. However, for organizational sustainability it is imperative to find equilibrium between its ability to perform (efficiency) and ability to stay relevant (effectiveness). The equation below reveals that the product of the two will result in a Relevant and Performing Organization.
Ability to be a RPO = Ability to Perform x Ability to stay Relevant
Equation 4: Ability to be a RPO
From Equation 4 above it can be observed that for an Organization to achieve RPO, it has to find ways of ensuring high levels of performance and relevance. However, in reality this is impossible because organizations operate with finite and scarce resources which have to be efficiently and effectively allocated amongst the competing needs of the Organization. Also, the effect of duality plays a major role in this regard resulting in an inversely proportional relationship between the ability to perform and ability to stay relevant. In essence, this means over investing in performance will affect the ability of the Organization to stay relevant. Consequently, this calls for Organizations to find a point of balance or equilibrium amongst these parameters based on the prevailing dynamics of the industry environment. Although this seems to be a difficult task to achieve, but it provides an excellent framework for decision making in terms choosing the appropriate strategic posture to ensure relevance and efficient management of resources.
Theory O acts as a point of equilibrium for the other 3 theories of Orgamatics in relation to performance and relevance of the Organization. This idea leads to the development of 3 constructs; Relationship, Process and Project. Organizations exist through relationships with both external and internal stakeholders. As stated by Hendrikz (2020), depending on the condition or state of the organization's relationship with either of the stakeholders an Organization may decide leverage either its internal processes to improve performance or focus on projects to advance relevance. If focus is put on the relationship and process construct, this will mean the Organization seeks to improve performance which will result in process efficiency which will be measured in terms outputs. However, if the project and relationship constructs are the focus areas, this will improve the organization's relevance to the environment which will be measured through outcomes, a reflection of the effectiveness of its products or services. Lastly, if the focus areas are on process and project constructs, then this will be aimed at improving Orgtelligence, Work and Results as depicted in the Figure below.
Figure 2: Orgamatics Constructs (Source: Hendrikz, 2014)
The next section discusses the Organamics part of Hypothesis 2x which deals with the x-Factor of the Organization. The same pattern adopted in discussing the Orgamatics section is followed in explaining this next section. The theories governing Organamics will be first discussed ending with a brief narration on the constructs.
3.0 Organamics
The term Organamics originates from combining two words 'Orga' for organization and 'namics' for dynamics (Hendrikz, 2020). It represents that part of an Organization which focuses on the dynamics and complexities created by interaction of the different stakeholders within the Organization. These stakeholders have different thoughts and perspectives on which projects to invest in for the Organization to stay relevant, as well as on how the processes and operations need to be streamlined for optimum performance. It is these differing thoughts and viewpoints that create the dynamics and complexities which are difficult understand and for that reason they represent an 'x-Factor' to the Organization. Hendrikz (2020) points that the co-existence of these equipoising thoughts and viewpoints is a priceless element for the sustainability of an Organization. It enables revolutionary organizational changes through new and innovative projects, as well as evolutionary process and operation changes. In essence, Organamics seeks to understand and define an appropriate character for Leadership and Management individuals for Organizations that represent a cluster of organizational personnel who are Relevant and Performing Individuals (RPI). According to Hendrikz (2014), four theories are established which are directed towards developing a Relevant and Performing Individual (RPI). These theories are; Paradigm (Theory Px), Identity (Theory Ex), Intelligence (Theory Ix) and Relevant and Performing Individual (Theory Dx). A brief description of each of these theories is presented below to enable an appreciation of how they link in the pursuit to find an equilibrium between efficient output and effective outcomes.
3.1 Paradigm – Theory Px
It is the window through which an individual understands the world, which thus defines the reality of the mind (Hendrikz, 2014). Hendrikz (2014) further presents that the key pillars of paradigm are emotions and thoughts, which both drive or influence individual behavior. In essence, this is not about the individual but it's a case of the belief construct that drives the individual (Hendrikz, 2014). This explanation seems to agree with reality if we are to consider the varying human paradigms driven by our different religious beliefs. For example, a child born in a Christian family will have a different understanding of the world to a child raised in a Muslim community. Their beliefs and behavior are contradictory, from their dress codes to their life values. This goes further to manifest itself in the everyday thinking algorithm of the child in terms in how to behavior when interacting with different members of society, from body language to voice tone. Therefore, because of the contradicting religious belief constructs our individual paradigm tends to gravitate towards a defined way of thinking and viewing the world around us, and this is what defines uniqueness in human beings as well as on animals.
It is therefore imperative to appreciate and understand the level of difficulty that may be required to change an individual's paradigm. According to Hendrikz (2014), this is a mammoth task which can prove impossible many a times. The only effort at disposal for cultivating change is to influence the individual to view the world in a different perspective, but the decision to change will always reside with the individual concerned. Hendrikz (2014) postulates that, individual change begins with change of the heart, which changes the mindset then followed by change of behavior. This holds if we are to consider the fact that there are people who have been in and out of Correctional Centers numerous times and remain the same in terms of behavior. Correctional Centers attempt to influence change of individual behavior through incarceration and deprivation of individual freedom. However, regardless of the hardship endured in the prison environment, some people come out the same, and this supports the idea that change is a personal choice. No matter the amount of influence put to cultivate the change, if it does not touch the heart to bring about a shift in mindset, which will then manifest itself through change in behavior that influence will be a waited effort and time.
Based on the above discussion, it therefore make sense to understand paradigm change as a component of both emotive and cognitive elements. According to Hendrikz (2014), emotive elements include values and beliefs, which define or create paradigm. The same author further presents that perceptions and assumptions are cognitive elements and they create rules and behavioral ethics which have to be adhere to. In essence, values and beliefs translates to behavior, which is the last component that manifests itself as paradigm.
3.1.1 The Organamics Paradigm Model
This model explains the relationship between feeling, thinking and doing which are the process flow steps for establishing paradigm change. Feeling resides in the heart, while thinking is a matter of the mind. Lastly, doing or the actually manifestation of paradigm change could related to the hands and judged by behavior and attitude.
Table 1: Organamics Paradigm Model (Source: Hendrikz, 2014)
Table 1 above depicts relationship the between the feeling, thinking and doing actions. It also shows the responsible human body parts for the accomplishment of each of these actions. Lastly, it presents defining elements for each of these actions in the pursuit of paradigm change. As it may be observed from Table 1, interaction between the action feeling and thinking is a cyclic and continuous process. If the influence can touch the heart it is mostly to alter ones beliefs and values, which will lead to a shift in mindset. A shift in mindset will cultivate change of perceptions and assumptions about the world around we occupy. The final step is the manifestation of paradigm change through the change in attitude and behavior.
Therefore, in the case of an Organization the above process is a continuous cycle which may be dictated by the change of Leadership or Management or by changes in the industry landscape. As postulated by Hendrikz (2020), this situation should not be viewed negatively because it is the source of organizational renewal which ensures optimal performance and relevance. The next section discusses identity (Theory Ex) which is another important theory under Organamics.
3.2 Identity – Theory Ex
It is what makes individuals or social groups unique from the next (Hendrikz, 2020). It is the traits and characteristics, social relations, roles and social group memberships that define who one is (Oyserman, et al., 2012). In essence identity defines the differences or similarities that may bond or separate individuals or social groups, this may include race, gender, age, complexion, height to mention the least. Hendrikz (2014) stresses the point that, identity can be viewed as that boundary that binds or differentiates entities or people. The key word in this explanation is 'Entity', which refers to anything with distinct and independent existence. Organizations and people have traits and characteristics of being distinct and independent existence, and it is sensible to refer them as entities.
The 'E' in this theory represents 'Entity' and the 'x' is the x-Factor of the Organization displayed by its workforce. In Orgtology, the E relates to the uniqueness of an individual, which is essentially the source of conflict between the workforce. In general life situation, without uniqueness there will neither be conflict nor discrimination because there will be equality at every dimension of our lives, unfortunately nature does not allow that kind of scenario. Hendrikz (2014) presents that, differences create life and it enables progress, which are essential parameters for any Entity. Taking from the same thought, without problems there is neither growth nor innovation, which may lead to organizational irrelevance and non performance. This brings forth the importance of the disruption caused by the human x-Factor in an Organization as this fosters individual renewal or change which is facilitated by the conflict in ideas rooted in our uniqueness. In essence, conflict need not be viewed negatively because it is necessary in nurturing an increased organizational intelligence which thus lead to organizational growth and innovation which ensure relevance and performance.
3.2.1 Types of Identity
Hendrikz (2014) presents two main types of identity which are essential in decoding the concept of the x-Factor under Organamics; Collective and Hidden identity. The former deals with understanding the conflict between social groupings or individuals and the magnitude of tolerance each of these systems may have towards each other (Hendrikz, 2014). Collective identity is divided into two; chosen and non-chosen identity. The table below provides examples of each of these groups. As it may be observed from Table 2 below, chosen identity are things that we choose consciously and we have control on what we want to identified with. Like dress code, we can change it depending on the image we want to portray at a given period of time. Contrary to chosen identity, non-chosen identity we have no control at all over it. We are born with it and it is our DNA.
Table 2: Types of Collective identity
3.2.2 Change
Since the theory of identity is attached to the x-Factor, it is therefore ostensible to understand how we can influence one's identity to suit the needs of an Organization. As already presented in previous sections, change resides with the individual and the process to change can only be influenced to allow the individual to rethink his/her beliefs and values. According Hendrikz (2014), change of identity is strongly influenced by intelligence and paradigm which then leads to transformation which is an evolutionary process. To transform, one needs to first internalize and realize the need to change the results of the status qou. If the change is successful, it manifests itself through an adjustment of identity which may include values and beliefs or a total shift in paradigm. It is important to appreciate that, the change process is revolutionary while transformation is an evolutionary process. In essence, change is a swift process, which can be achieved suddenly. For example, a Drug Addict can decide to quit drugs because he/she has realize and internalize the consequences of such action are a hazard to his life. This is a swift decision to make. However, the transformation from being an addict to a clean person that is accepted by society will be an evolutionary (gradual) journey, which may take years of commitment.
In the above section an attempt has been made to show the effects of individual identity on the everyday operations of an Organization as well as on its sustainability. Important is to recognize is the link between identity and paradigm and how each influences the other. A change in paradigm will affect some elements of identity more especially in terms of chosen and hidden identities. Although paradigm and identity are separate theories but they are interrelated and acknowledging their interaction is of paramount importance. The next section deals with Intelligence (Theory Ix), another important dimension of Organamics in pursuit to decode the x-Factor of an Organization, and a similar format as above is adopted in the discussion.
Intelligence is about people's ability to solve problems and how they handle themselves or react under diverse situation in an Organization. It is the ability to use memory, knowledge, experience, understanding, reasoning, imagination and judgement in order to solve problems and adapt to new situations (Legg & Hutter, 2007). Organizations function through processes and projects which are dynamic in terms of the types of problems they present to the people managing them. It is the responsibility of these people to constantly drive for process efficiency and business relevance through their intelligence. In essence, this calls for these individuals to display elements of being relevant and reforming individuals by pushing the precincts of the Organization while being cognizant of not confusing the processes of the Organization which define its DNA. Legg and Hutter (2007) present that intelligence not only talks to the ability to solve problems but also being able to adapt to new environments or way of performing tasks. Many a times new solutions bring disruption to the status qou, therefore intelligence should also encompass versatility to foster organizational growth and sustainability through performance and relevance.
According to Hendrikz (2014), intelligence has no limits, its limits being itself. It can manifest itself at any point in time, as it is measured by the individual's ability to perform a specific task with ease. Organizations benefit from intelligent individuals through efficient output delivery as they contribute in the organization's ability to perform. Furthermore, such individual's contributions ensure organizational relevance to its sponsors by solving complex problems or situations. In essence, intelligence enables Organizations to maintain order to ensure optimum delivery of outputs and outcomes. When we automate scientific processes we create order which reduces uncertainty in the performance of the process as well as in the quality of output. On the other hand, when we craft the organization's Intent, the goal is paving a path in which we want the Organization to follow to remain relevant in the industry, and by so doing we are creating order. In essence, order provides a reliable instrument of minimizing organizational chaos and uncertainty in terms of performance and relevance, and stresses the importance of having individuals with the appropriate level of intelligence.
Intelligence also plays a significant role in our everyday decision-making process, it defines our level of scientificity and lack of it. It is important to appreciate the duality of these conditions and their inverse relationship in complimenting each other. Their co-existence allows for the differentiation of an output or outcome that is normal or abnormal. Also, Organizations are operated through scientific process efficiency, and are changed through non-scientific thinking; innovation, vision and intent as well as emotions (Hendrikz, 2014). This displays the importance of their co-existence and none is superior than the other in terms of significance in an Organization.
According to Hendrikz (2014), normality is a sphere located between scientificity and non-scientificity. It provides a safegate against any deviation from the status quo which will result in disruption. Disruption is an important resultant of intelligence as it aids Organizations to improve their processes while ensuring organizational relevance. In this section we showed the importance for an Organization to acquire individuals who are able to efficiently and effectively solve problems and adapt to new inventions or solutions. In the next section we discuss the last dimension of Organamics; Relevant and Performing Individual (Theory Dx). Theory Dx defines a complete individual who is not only able to manage processes but also has the capacity to drive the Organization forward through projective and irscientific thinking.
3.4 Relevant and Performing Individual - Theory Dx
The 'D' represents the dynamics between receptive and projective elements which is a result of the interaction between management and leadership respectively. The 'x' is the unpredictability of the projective elements of the Organization. Needless to state is the duality existence and inverse relationship between management and leadership, which tends to reflect actions taken to manage organizational process and those taken to change the Organization (Hendrikz, 2014).As already present earlier, managers govern the receptive part, while leaders drive the projective part of the Organization. However, to be a Relevant and Performing Individual one needs to possess both qualities of a manager and leader at the same time depending on the circumstances. In essence, this means having the appropriate intelligence, identity and paradigm to empower organizational process by focusing on the Purpose, while at the same time being able to influence change in the Organization through negotiation to ensure relevance. Hendrikz (2014) presents that, managers empower processes by focusing on the purpose, containing evolution and empowering transformation. However, leaders influence organizational change by understanding the intent of the Organization, then innovate revolutionary changes and through negotiation are able influence the acceptance and implementation of these new changes. The importance of understanding this difference in roles is profound, it aids in being able to regulate ones level of thinking depending on the nature of the task whether it requires management or leadership skills. The table below provides a summary of management and leadership attributes and their implications to the overall growth and sustainability of the Organization. Importantly is the appreciation of the fact that, attributes of management jointly define the Purpose of the Organization, while those of leadership relate to Intent.
Table 3: Management and Leadership: Attributes and Implications (Source: Hendrikz, 2014)
3.4.1 Relationship between Management and Leadership
Managers empower processes through focused marginal changes which lead to continual improvement. These are management systems and innovations which are documented and implemented at scheduled periods to minimize the risk of non-performance while ensuring process predictability. This algorithm of management role accomplishment enables ease of establishing the Purpose of the Organization as well as fostering innovative and efficient methods of delivering quality outputs. Table 4 below provides the contribution of management to leadership in ensuring relevance.
Table 4: Contribution of Management to Leadership (Source: Hendrikz, 2014)
On the other hand, leadership through structured understanding of the Purpose and status quo of the Organization is able to detect risks, opportunities or inefficiencies which thus enables crafting a relevant Intent reflecting the Purpose of the Organization. Also, with this knowledge leadership is able to innovate in a manner that will influence and focus the Organization.
Table 5: Contribution of Leadership to Management
Meaningful containment is achieved through documented policies, procedures, processes and management systems to ensure that every innovation is properly documented and understood as a property of the Organization. This also contributes in influencing acceptance and implementation of these new innovations.
New ideas or innovations bring new process efficiency problems, and to solve these problems needs an understanding of the problems and current processes. This means understanding when the process is operating efficiently and when it is not, to be able to distinguish when there is a flaw in output quality or rate of production. An appreciation of this understanding is paramount as it ensures finding a balance between the transactional and transformational elements of problem solving thus leading to innovative improvement as depicted in Table 5 above.
4.0 Sectional Summary
Hypothesis 2x is the bedrock all Orgtology theories, it dwells on the idea that Organizations exist through the duality between receptive and projective elements. The receptive elements are constructive and repetitive while projective elements are destructive and unpredictive. Also, the former is aimed at ensuring efficient performance and delivery of outputs, while the latter relate to relevance and effective delivery of outcomes. Although these tasks are distinct but their management overlaps between management to leadership and versa-versa thus requiring Managers to have the skills of Leaders and Leaders having the traits of a Managers which thus lead to a Management/Leadership dilemma (Hendrikz, 2014). The extent of this dilemma is revealed when these duties are positioned in the portfolio of a single incumbent which calls for juggling from one way of thinking to the next and coming back. Also important to appreciate is the fact that, because the leadership role is projective and it has a definite start and end, it is therefore a project. This means, at the end of the project leadership should stop. In essence, Leadership is installed to deliver a specific project or solve a particular problem and once solved their should exist. Contrary to this are management roles which are repetitive and predictable in nature, thus they are never ending. Management roles are continuous and never ending as long as the Organization exists. In the next section the Hypothesis 2x theory is compared other existing Organizational Analysis method to find their similarities with the aim of establishing its relevance in understand Organizations.
5.0 The Scientific Organizational Model
The scientific model is mostly concerned about process formalization and goal attainment (Olmez, et al., 2004). In essence, this model seeks to create a standardized method of executing tasks with an aim of eliminating uncertainty in the output. This means people are regarded as 'parts' of a continuously moving machine which is under constant surveillance and guidance, they cannot be innovative in the way they perform their tasks. Olmez, et al. (2004) asserts that, the scientific model is dominant in the fast-food industry (e.g. KFC, Nandos, Chicken Licken), where there operations are standardized including preparation of a meals, customer engagement protocol and customer seating arrangement.
According to Ritzer (1995), the scientific model is rooted on four main dimensions; predictability, efficiency, control and calculability. Efficiency is about finding an optimum way of completing a task by implementing evolutionary improvements in the current process. It is a central and fundamental idea for any Organization as it ensures the minimization of performance risk and output delivery. However, unlike in the Orgtology perspective, the scientific model fails to acknowledge the contribution of the x-Factor in ensuring efficient performance brought by the value of two-way interaction between the human resource of the Organization. As stated earlier, in the scientific model workers are considered as parts of the whole but not the whole. They are instructed or trained to function in a standardized manner which tends to define the DNA of the Organization, and they have no contribution in terms of process renewal through innovation. The merits of the model in terms of predictability cannot be underscored, which is its similarity to the Orgtology perspective. However, the single-mindedness approach of the model presents it as a more authoritative way of organizational design, which is irrelevant to the twenty first century. It is more about performance through utmost control and allocates absolute control to a single individual, who assures the authority of being a leader and manager simultaneously, and failing to recognize or appreciate the importance of the dual existence of receptive and projective interaction between management and leadership. Furthermore, based on the foundational dimensions of this model (scientific), it is apparent that it is strictly concerned about optimum performance and the delivery of outputs but nothing about relevance and outcome delivery.
Based on the dynamic nature of business nowadays and the ever changing industry landscape coupled with the effects of Artificial Intelligence as well as digital technology in general, it is imperative that Organizations cannot survive only by concentrating on internal organizational dynamics and ignoring external organizational relevance. Organizations need to fully utilize their Energy (especially the human capital) both in terms of output delivery as well as in outcome delivery. Theory Ex stresses the idea of uniqueness amongst individuals and social groupings. This is influenced by numerous things including exposure to different life circumstances and work experiences which are significant in shaping our paradigm. Therefore, the interaction or conflict between individuals cultivates an environment of diverse thinking which is essential in fostering innovation and organizational sustainability. It is on this premise that we find the scientific model to be lacking in ensuring the development of a Relevant and Performing Organization as well as Relevant Performing Individuals as addressed by the Orgtology model.
Braverman (1974) asserts that, the scientific model seeks to drive the capitalist agenda and methods of production as well as the adaption of labour to the needs of the capital. It is more labour organization driven than technology development driven. In principle this model suggests that, employees should be controlled not solely by dictating orders and maintenance of discipline but also by take away any decision making or suggestions on the method of completing their work. As noted Braverman (1974), this approach tends to de-skill employees, which could have been the sole strategy of employers during the industrialization era as means of protecting organizational implicit and tacit knowledge.
6.0 The Bureaucracy Organizational Model
The swelling size and complexity of Organizations has led to bureaucracy to be the organizational style of choice. This has been escalated by over emphasis on planning and design of organizational structure as well as clear definition of individual responsibilities and duties. In principle, bureaucracy is founded on the emphasis on clear structure and delegation of tasks through different layers of hierarchy as means to achieve effective organization. Nevertheless, considering the dynamic nature of industry landscape coupled with increased customer literacy nowadays, it is imperative that there is a need to renew organizations for flexibility to remain sustainable. Contrary to the bureaucracy style of organization, the Orgtology perspective appreciates the importance of constant interaction within the Organization as well as the disagreements and conflicts that result thereafter as perfect constituents for ensuring innovation and organizational growth as well as individual growth. Stewart (1999), points four main features of bureaucracy which are; hierarchy of authority, system of rules, specialization and impersonality.
6.1 The hierarchy of authority
The hierarchy of authority is thought to provide for sharp distinction between administrators and the administered or rather between management and workers. Also, within the management hierarchy there are clearly defined levels of authority for which any deviation may justify disciplinary actions. In essence, this clear-cut and comprehensive stratification tends to create an armed force-like or civil service environment where positions are attached to power and authority as well as instilling fear over those below. An obvious loophole of this organizational approach is the detachment of management from the Organization's Purpose to concentrating on individual image based on the position. Besides being counterproductive in terms of ensuring process efficiency and product/service relevance, it also suppress individual and organizational growth as workers tend to be reluctant to innovative new ways of performing their tasks. Furthermore, this approach may lead to the degradation of unity within working groups, as management may be viewed as driven by a capitalist mind-set and less concerned about empowering innovation and individual growth. As already pointed earlier, strict procedures and rules coupled with fear in employees, are the greatest nemesis to organizational growth and sustainability in the current industrial era when considering the rate of industry changes in terms of market share dynamics, political stability and consumer bargaining power and preference dynamics to mention a few. Organizations need to adopt and adapt to fluid organizational models that encourages consistent engagement not only between leadership and management but also with those below in the organizational structure. Through this approach, leadership is able empower innovation, achieve focused influence and structured understanding of the business, while management achieves meaningful containment of knowledge, influenced focus and innovative empowerment of processes.
6.2 The system of rules
However, because of the power and authority attached to individual position in the bureaucracy organizational approach, it might prove difficult if not impossible to ensure consistent and fair application of rules across the organizational hierarchy. High positioned individuals are likely to flaw some of these rules and not be accountable to their actions. The issue of absolute power and enforcement of fear is one major loophole that discredits or contradicts the weight of having a system of rules with regards to the bureaucracy approach. Managers tend to have absolute immunity from being engaged by those below them on issues of innovative methods of performing tasks. Argis (1964) presents that, the bureaucracy approach restricts psychological growth of individuals and resulting in feelings of failure, frustration and unnecessary conflict. The same author further postulates that, Organizations need to strive to create an environment that provides a significant degree of individual responsibility and self-control; commitment to the purpose of the Organization; efficient performance; and an opportunity for individuals to apply their full abilities. Theory Ix (Intelligence) addresses this issue sufficiently, as it acknowledges the fact that intelligence has no limit and can manifest itself at any time and from anyone.
6.3 Specialization
This feature of bureaucracy is about creating individuals that are specialists on a particular task only. It is more about the job than to the individual performing the task. In principle, it seeks to ensure continuity of the job even when the current individual leaves through precise set and documented rules of performing tasks. Needless to mention about this approach is the development of individuals who are not versatile in skills; who cannot be transferred to different work tasks depending on the needs of the Organization. Today's business environment requires diversity in problem solving as well as in understanding of industry dynamics. Although the work of management is receptive in nature, but that does not provide immunity from constantly striving for innovative means of efficiently improving the current production processes by contributing new ideas to other sectors of the Organization if necessary. The narrow focus on special expertise may drive a bureaucrat to an error in the performance of a task. Compounding the problem may be the bureaucrat's inability to recognize the problem if it occurs in an area outside the bureaucrat's expertise, which then stresses the importance of versatility and diversity in work accomplishment and thought processes. Haveman and Kluttz (2018) suggests that, bureaucracy requires a money economy (to pay the specialists), a Centralized Organization (which requires coordinated action to achieve large, complex goals), and an increase in number, scale and variety of administrative tasks.
6.4 Impersonality
This means the allocation of privileges and exercise of authority should not be arbitrary, but in accordance with laid-down system of rules (Stewart, 1999). According to Haveman and Kluttz (2018), these rules are more or less stable and exhaustive thus they can be learned. In essence, these rules constitute explicit rather than tacit knowledge and they are the foundation of management decisions to avoid the element of personal bias. This is a vital attribute of management as it seeks to provide a systemic protocol of dealing with specific issues. However, this approach fails to appreciate the need for managers to be able to handle complexity through the application of their utmost intelligence. As stated by Hendrikz (2014), management is more about emotional intelligence than experience and knowledge, it requires ability to be cognizant of oneself in relation to others as well as the environment around. This is beyond written set roles, but it requires the ability to regulate ones emotions to suit the situation in moment. In principle, this relates to interpersonal and intrapersonal attributes of those in leadership and management positions which enables them to handle unpredictable and complex human dynamics under their supervision.
Hannan and Freeman (1989) points that, the formalized and rule-based organizational structures tend to create structural inertia; organizations tend to resist change while the environment is changing rapidly thus leading to organizational irrelevance and outcome ineffectiveness. The same idea is supported by Haveman and Kluttz (2018) who asserts that, the bureaucracies tend to unwieldy, even stultifying in dealing with idiosyncratic cases, because of the concentration of power in the hands of those at higher levels in the organizational hierarchy. In essence, bureaucracies are persistent and difficult to destroy even when the environment does not justify their existence. According to Haveman and Kluttz (2018), over time organizations polish their routines and so develop competencies that yield efficient performance. However, if the industry landscape changes, these competencies become traps because they become institutionalized and thus fixed. Consequently, such organizations continue producing/delivering the same product/service as before even when these things are no more effective and relevant to the industry market.
According to Haveman and Kluttz (2018) bureaucracies are prone to goal displacement because they have to be reliable to be effective. They tend to value rules and the behavior needed to those rules, over the objectives the rules were intended to accomplish. Consequently the rules displace performance goals (Merton, 1940). The same author asserts that, bureaucracies tend to value means over ends and rules over performance thus failing to achieve performance when industry landscape changes. The need for Organizations to find a 'sweet' spot between relevance and performance is of paramount importance for organizational sustainability. Therefore, the devotion to and creation of cast-in-stone rules will blind Organizations from swift responsiveness to environmental changes because of narrow focus on rules as they conceive them to more important than performance.
7.0 Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, it is clear that both the Scientific and Bureaucracy organizational models are dominant in most businesses in this day in age. Even though their development was targeted to address problems of a different era (beginning industrialization) they remain the most understood and applied organizational approaches even though the industry dynamics have completely changed. It is however important to highlight the role played by these approaches in the study of management science in providing a base for the development of other organizational approaches including Orgtology.
Nowadays Organizations are faced with increasing global competitiveness coupled with complex demands for information and technological changes, which both require alternative forms of corporate organization and systems. It also calls for the appreciation of the dynamics rooted in the duality of organizational existence. The issue of ensuring organizational performance and relevance remains supreme for any Organization, and it is impossible to accomplish it without taking cognisance of the inverse relationship of the concrete (Orgamatics) and abstract (Organamics) elements of any Organization. The scientific model is mostly concerned about process formalization and goal attainment, which is the concrete element of an Organization. This approach neglects the importance of the abstract part, which is concerned with constantly agitating disruption to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. On the other hand, bureaucracy is about the emphasis of a clear organizational structure and delegation of tasks through different layers of hierarchy, as means of achieving effective organization. However, as pointed earlier this approach tends to lead to structural inertia and goal displacement. Organizations adopting this approach tend to be swamped in processes/products/services that they have perfected over the years and fail to constantly renew them as industry dynamics change. Furthermore, the issue of specialization consolidates this problem even further, as this approach asphyxiates individual skill diversity and innovativeness. Also, because of the value placed on rules and behaviour over the objectives the rules were envisioned to accomplish, this tends to displace goal performance. Therefore, this shows that both the scientific and bureaucracy approaches fall short in most aspects in ensuring organizational sustainability and relevance in today's business age considering the dynamic nature of industries as a result of digital disruption.
Bibliography
Argis, C., 1964. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons .
Braverman, H., 1974. Labour and mnopoly Capital , s.l.: Monthly Review Press .
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J., 1989. Organizational Ecology , Cambrige : H\arvard University Press.
Haveman, H. A. & Kluttz, D. N., 2018. Bureaucracy , Berkeley: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
Hendrikz, D., 2014. Organamics, s.l.: International Orgtology Institute .
Hendrikz, D., 2020. What is Orgtology?, s.l.: The International Orgtology Institute.
Legg, S. & Hutter, M., 2007. A Collection of Definition of Intelligence , Canberra: IDSIA.
Merton, R. K., 1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces , 18(1), pp. 560-568.
Olmez, E. A., Sumer, C. H. & Soysal, M., 2004. Organizational Rationality in Public, Private and Mutlinational Firms in Turkey. Information Knowledge Systems Management , 4(1), pp. 107-118.
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K. & Smith, G., 2012. Handbook of Self and Identity. 2nd ed. New York London: The Guilford Press.
Pycraft, M. et al., 2010. Operations Management. 2nd ed. Cape Town: Pearson.
Ritzer, G., 1995. The McDonaldization of society. 1st ed. Newbry Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Scott, W., 1987. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Simon, H., 1964. Administrative behavior. 1st ed. New York : MacMillan.
Smons, H., 1979. Rational Decision Making in Organizations. American Economic Review, 1(6), pp. 493-513.
Stewart, R., 1999. The Reality of Management. 3rd ed. s.l.:Butterworth-Heinemann.
Join the Orgtologist Certification Program (OCP) - Empowering Executive Teams Worldwide
Copyright
© Sabelo V. Kunene
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
About the author
