During the 90's I was quite a "new gimmick" junkie. I followed the latest "management fads", and it did not take much to make me a loyal disciple of anything new and "sexy". I have been a trainer in the field of management and leadership my whole life. In 2004 I began to consult in the sphere of strategy. I loved the Balanced Scorecard approach and practiced it to the finest detail. But as years passed, I found that it had many flaws. In 2006 I stopped using it as a tool. It was then that I created a project approach to strategy. I named this method "orgamatics". Over the years I created many theories and models around this. Yet, it was only in 2018 when I created an egis concept that embodies an organisational science. It would stretch from the systemic to the dynamic forces within any organisation. This became Orgtology, which I defined as "the science of organisation".
To create the word, I linked org- (organisation) to the Greek word -logy (science of). I added a conjunction - "to"-, to blend the words. Where humans and systems intelligence merge, we create an organisation. In my writings on orgtology, I use the abbreviation, "Org" to replace the word "organisation".
Orgtology works with two things, which are; the systematics and the dynamics of an organisation. The former is Orgamatics, a study of the mathematical construct of Org. The latter is Organamics, a study of its human dynamics. To distinct one from the other, we must know that in orgamatics, human dynamics play a minor role, whilst, in organamics humans are the main concern. In this, orgamatics is a more exact science than organamics. The latter has a myriad of unknown variables that we can only assess through perception.
Orgtology has eight theories that all eminate from a hypothesis. There is Theory 2I of Orgtelligence; Theory 2P of Work; Theory 2E of Results; and Theory O of the RPO. RPO stands for "Relevant and Performing Organisation". In organamics we have Theory Ix on Intelligence; Theory Px on paradigm; Theory Sx on Identity; and Theory D of the RPI. RPI stands for the "Relevant and Performing Individual". An Orgtologist is a person that uses these theories to work with the mechanics and dynamics of Org. These theories all originate from a hypothesis called "Hypothesis 2x of Inverse Duality".
Hypothesis 2x of inverse duality states that Org is made of a myriad of dual relationships that must constantly find equilibrium. The "2" shows a duality. Org exists within a binary that relates projective and receptive parts. E.g., strategy would be a projective part, because it works with the future and aims to dominate. Operations would be a receptive part, because it repeats the past and aims to maintain the purpose of Org. This relation creates an equilibrium that sustains existence. Projective elements have a masculine nature, whilst receptive elements hold feminine traits. The feminine part of Org must maintain its construct. The masculine part will always aim to deconstruct such construct. Together they bring new consciousness, construct, and vitality to Org. E.g., operations are the feminine construct or Org, whilst strategy is its masculine deconstructive part. In so, operations (feminine construct) puts bread on the table, whilst strategy (masculine deconstruct) makes sure that both the bread and the table stays relevant to those who sponsor such. In this binary, one part cannot exist without the other. E.g., there can be no strategy without operations, etc. The "x" shows an unpredictable element. We often call this the X-Factor. According to the hypothesis, two similar organisations will yield different results. This will be the case, even if you replicate them in an exact way, because the humans who manage and lead them are not predictable. The unpredictable minds of humans create an X-Factor. This is not a problem. In fact, it is what makes Org unique.
Orgtology is an interesting science, since it studies both the physical and non-physical aspects of Org. Most of what holds Org together is a construct, which is no more than a consciousness. The physical manifestations of Org are just products of its construct. The effect of this is that Orgtologists work with both, the concrete, and the abstract parts of Org. At the heart of any science is measure. So, to study an organisation, we must find a unit of measure. This is problematic since we work with both physical and non-physical things. Currently, in orgtology, the smallest objective measure within any organisation is "activity". We know that Org is real and alive because of its relations and relationships - the two judges of activity. We define an activity within time and space. Eery activity holds its own intelligence. E.g., an activity has a duration, a place, a risk, opportunity, etc. When we begin to cluster activities through a dependency sequence, we create outputs. Where a sponsoring environment responds to our outputs, they create our outcomes. Collectively, all this movement creates the consciousness of Org.
This is only a brief introduction to orgtology. I further explain Hypothesis 2x and its eight theories in other blog posts. These theories are mostly complex and abstract to grasp. I briefly introduce the theories of orgamatics in the blog article "What is Orgamatics?". In so, I introduce the theories of organamics in the blog article "What is Organamics?". If you need to grasp these theories at a deeper level, then I suggest that you enrol for the online IOI orgtology program. Please visit www.orgtology.org for more details.
The aim of the orgamatics theories is to create a Relevant and Performing Organisation (RPO). The aim of the organamics theories is to help employees to be Relevant and Performing Individuals (RPI). The base of this theoretical application is the hypothesis that any entity must do two things. It must perform and stay relevant at the same time. The aim of an RPO and an RPI is to use their intelligence, energy, and intent to outperform entities with similar purpose. Moreover, they must stay relevant to the environment that sponsors their existence.
To create an RPO, an Orgtologist will work with three systems. They are the resource-, the orgtelligence-, and the relationship- systems. Jointly they facilitate a maturity that will enable an RPO. The people, money, and assets of Org holds the key to its efficiency. Its relationships hold the key to its effectiveness. The intelligence of its processes and strategy will decide whether it can be efficient and effective. To assess the maturity of Org to be both relevant and performing, we use an EOP analysis. EOP stands for risk Exposure, Opportunities, and Process efficiency.
To help a person be both, relevant and performing, we work with three dynamics. They are leadership-, team-, and intrapersonal- dynamics. Jointly they deal with three human relationship types. (1) The relationship with power and authority. (2) The relationship between and within groups. (3) The relationship with oneself. The flowchart below shows a basic model for the practice of orgtology...
The IOI encapsulates these theories in an Orgtology Body of Knowledge (OBoK). I describe the OBoK in the blog article: "The Orgtology Body of Knowledge". The map above shows how these concepts interlink.
Orgtology also guides us to grasp the difference between management and leadership. Instead of playing one down against the other, it guides us to find balance between the two. It helps us to see that the practice of both are vital to the existence of Org.
It is key that there are a set of standards for any field of study. This is to ensure that we can regulate it in a neutral way. To do so, I founded a non-profit institute called the International Orgtology Institute (IOI). Within its first year, the IOI gained 175 members. To practice in orgtology, the IOI must certify you. The certifications that they offer are an Orgtology Specialists, or an Orgtologist.
I have only given a brief view of what orgtology is. However, I think it right to also give a glimpse of what it is not. It is certainly not a new name for old stuff. Orgtology is a new science. Our aim is to probe every aspect and component that creates the outputs and outcomes of an organisation. We do so with scrutinising minds. This helps us to deconstruct and reconstruct new and better constructs. These new constructs should then perform at higher speed and with intelligent complexity.
© 2018: CFT Hendrikz