What is Org?

Orgtology is about understanding organisations. It thus makes sense to know what an organisation is. One will agree that you do not create a child when registering it with a Home Affairs department. In so, registering a company does not create Org. Like human life, Org begins in consciousness. This is an awareness of purpose and an intent to survive. When we mobilise resources and intelligence around purpose, operations begin. When we direct resources and intellect towards intent, strategy ignites. That is how Org comes to life. The registration of Org as a legal entity is only an act of compliance.

The word "organisation" directly implies that we organise something. A general definition is that it is an organized group of people with a particular purpose. An organisation is a purpose that we sanction through intent.

When human intellect and systems intelligence collaborate, magic happens. This interaction will organise activities and resources to a point where outputs appear. Where a community sponsors these outputs, Org survives. Its efficiency will decide its performance and its effect will decide its relevance. In that we learn that Org must do two things. It must perform and stay relevant. There is nothing else it must do.

The consciousness of purpose

Governments and businesses are organisations. This is clear because all employees know what they are taking part in. Purpose is thus conscious. However, there seems to be (at least some) evidence that consciousness is often vague. This is especially true for giant and thriving organisations.

Evidence shows that consciousness of what Org is, has levels. E.g., most consumers do not know that McDonald's makes more money from real estate than from burgers. Yet, their EXCO team knows this. In so, we all take part in the economy. Yet, few know that they are keeping a capitalist system alive. In this example, capitalism has no EXCO team or Board. It is also unlikely that any person or team of people will destroy it. We can say the same for communism, religion, culture, etc. These organisations are extremely powerful.

Please note that I am not fending for or against any examples given. I am merely saying that consciousness of purpose is mostly blurred. In Org, frontline staff and the EXCO team can never see Org in the same way. You cannot change this through team building or other "fixes". To exist, Org must be seen in diverse ways. E.g., rain, mycelium, ground, and air all understand a tree in different ways. Not even the tree knows its true purpose. It does what it must because it is programmed to do so. The same goes for Org. To customers it is a place of delight. To employees it is a place of survival. To directors it is a place of profit. To suppliers it is a place of symbiosis. Etc…

The consciousness of purpose becomes interesting when one writes a mission statement. Take this example. In battle, the great Julius Caesar would often send one or two battalions to test the ground. He did so whilst knowing that they would all die. The purpose of this was to understand the enemy strategy. A tactic that will sacrifice the lives of 50 people, but one that will save 2000. How would one define a joint mission statement for those who lead, who live, and those who must die? Try to write a mission statement for this scenario without distorting truth.

The basic assumption of organisation

Org exists through interaction between purpose and its external environment. It will need intent, energy, and intelligence to keep this relationship going. This is because purpose cannot exist without relations and relationships.

Desire will keep purpose relevant. E.g., it is one thing to be a boxer (purpose) but another to be the best (intent). To keep purpose running, Org must have processes, systems intelligence, and efficient performance. To drive intent, Org needs projects, human intellect, and relevance. These things do not run by itself. Activity needs energy. In Org, energy comes through people, money, and assets. One can replace the word "energy" with "resources".

The anatomy of organisation

I am a European male, 1.9 metres tall, 50 years old, and I speak with an Afrikaans accent. These are my physical features. Add that to my thinking and perception, then I am different to anyone else. In so, I am unique. That is my X-factor. Yet, if dissected, one will find that my anatomy is like that of every other person on this planet. In fact, when taken apart, my parts will resemble the parts of everything else. Difference is a macro reality and a quantum illusion. Sameness is a macro illusion and a quantum truth.

All organisations share a basic anatomy. This does not make them the same. It only suggests that they are made of the same stuff. Org is a purpose, surrounded by intelligence, energy, and intent. In 2001 I created a model that depicts the anatomy of an organisation. It shows the vertical cut of a sphere. At its centre is purpose (P), which is its origin. Surrounding this purpose is intent; energy (resources); and intelligence. I refer to this combination as TEI. The letter "T" is an acronym for intent so that we do not confuse it with intelligence (I). Surrounding Org is an external environment (Ω) and entropy (FOE).

TEI is a field, which displays shades of grey. This depicts the complexity of duality. The light parts are projective, whilst the darker shades are receptive. Their interaction portrays shades of grey.

Bordering the TEI field is the force of entropy (FOE). This is a natural force that constantly works towards disorder. Entropy is nature's way to reorder energy and intelligence that has lost its relevance.

On the far-outer circle of the sphere is an external environment (Ω). To exist, Org must have a relationship with its environment. This relationship will decide the fate of Org. A weak relationship will increase FOE and contrariwise.

As with human life, Org begins in a state of dependency. To survive the table must turn. This is a process where Org negotiates a favourable position within an environment. A best-case scenario is where an environment needs Org more than the other way around. A worst-case scenario is an environment that does not need Org at all. It is likely that Org will exist between the two.

Purpose

Purpose is the nucleus that defines Org. Where purpose changes, Org will become something other than what it was before. No purpose can exist outside an environment. Therefore, a need within an environment gives birth to purpose. This need can be conscious or subconscious.

Mother nature needs honeybees to pollinate plants and grazers to control it. This is a duality between entropy and growth. In so, predators control the grazers and insects control the plants. There are systems within systems. E.g., praying mantis will control the grasshoppers who control the grass. In turn, lizards control the mantis. Nature will choose and end purposeful processes, as and when needed. The boundaries of purpose shackle all species. E.g., a praying mantis cannot decide to become a vegetarian. It therefore cannot decide to act outside its purpose. But humans can create intent beyond any given purpose. A forestry company can, for instance, decide to manufacture mobile phones. Human intent makes it possible to control an environment. As a result, the creation can challenge and control its creator. This is an unnatural state. E.g., when we create a world of things to serve us and end up serving this world of things.

Our ability to create intent beyond purpose also gives us the ability to innovate. Org is a result of this ability. Because of this, our environment no longer decides our purpose. Organisations now run the world of people.

Org became known through agriculture. Villages needed food on a consistent basis. So, Org was instantly sanctioned. There was no dispute for the need to farm. As humans evolved, we began to disrupt needs with desire. E.g., the ability to abort a child before birth disrupts the natural need for procreation. Humans can even disrupt a disruption. E.g., Apple iPod killed the use of a Sony Walkman.

Where you create purpose, you create Org.

TEI - Intent x Energy x Intelligence

The difference between Org and a natural system, like the eco system, is intent. Mother nature has locked most of her species into purpose. In so, a hawk can decide to kill a rabbit, rather than a rat. Yet, it cannot decide to rather eat fruit. Purpose limits its choice. The only species who can create intent beyond purpose are humans. E.g., abortion. It goes against the grain of evolution and survival of a species. Yet, we can choose to do it. The anomality to decide against an inborn algorithm makes humans intelligent species. This is because anomality drives change and growth.

Human intent drives Org. This is the main difference between a natural system and an organisation. All of nature is driven by purpose. Intent is also the most difficult thing that AI could ever stive to create. Especially intent beyond its purpose.

Human intent pushes Org beyond the algorithmic flow of purpose. To do so, it needs intelligence and resources beyond what the world can give. For this reason, Facebook and Google are more powerful than those who harvest oil and gold. Cyber-based systems have learned how to harvest the very people who use them. They need no mines or land to survive. They have combined intent, energy, and intelligence into a self-sustaining system. In so, they have recreated an eco-system within cyber space.

Jointly, intent (T); energy (E); and intelligence (I), enables the purpose of Org. We call this collaboration TEI. The task of TEI is to help Org perform and to stay relevant. It is the fuel of Org, without which, it will not survive.

FOE - Force of Entropy

The theory of entropy originated as the second law of thermodynamics. Its use is to measure disorder within a system. It teaches us that no physical object can claim permanence. Entropy needs no strategy, plan, or intent. All it needs is time, through which it can make all that exists irrelevant. According to FOE, it is not natural for energy to pass from a lower to a higher level. A fire, for instance, will die if you do not add wood. In so, the natural direction of change is always towards disorder, and not order. All you must do to destroy Org is nothing. By doing nothing you will achieve nothingness. This is FOE at work.

On face value FOE might seem like something bad, but its purpose has beneficial use. Disorder is nature's way to remove that which has become irrelevant. To us, disorder is deterioration, which leads to chaos. Yet, it is simply a system that reorders itself. It redistributes energy. "Chaos" is a word we use to describe an order that we do not understand.

Where Org stops fulfilling a specific need, entropy will speed up. In so, it epitomises nature's way of taking out the weak. Once I left an old chair outside my house. After some time, it completely came apart. Riddled with termites, and the worst for wear because of weather, it was no longer a chair. It had lost its use, for its purpose became redundant. It could still be fine if I varnished and kept it inside. But then again, I've lost my need for that chair.

FOE will always be present in Org. We see this when people stagnate; assets become obsolete; products and services lose their relevance; processes become outdated; strategy loses its aim, etc. There will always be a force within Org that constantly works towards total disorder.

In terms of the theory of FOE, we can curb entropy if we isolate energy from its outer environment. E.g., if you vacuum pack meat, and put it in a freezer, then you fully protect it from any outside elements. In this way, your meat will be edible for quite some time.

In Org, we enclose energy within a process. By doing this, we minimise human choice, which creates order. E.g., a conference attendant, who services a conference room, must follow a process. This process will ensure that he prepares the room, 30 min before the conference begins. There is not much thinking or debate that can happen here. At 8:00am, the attendant enters the room. He will put a bottle of water, peppermints, and stationary on each delegate's table. Water comes on the left, peppermints on the right, and stationary in the middle. He will test the data projector, adjust the air conditioner, and so on. At 08:30am, he will complete this process, and then leave the room. The attendant cannot decide to change the given time or sequence. All intelligence in this process belongs to Org, and not to the attendant. To replace him would take the venue manager only a few hours. All that one would have to do, is induce a new employee into this process. Not only will a process slow down FOE, but it will also help to predict performance, reduce uncertainty, and minimise risk. Yet, as with our example of the vacuum-packed meat, eventually FOE will claim its toll. At some point, all processes will become outdated; redundant; and irrelevant. The abstract thinking of humans will create innovative ideas and disruptive thinking. Abstract thought pollinates the functionality of processes. In so, tacit intellect keeps process intelligence relevant.

Org must stay relevant, regardless of how well it might be doing at present. Often, current success might blur the necessity for transformation. The ally of entropy is time, which means that time is against Org. We must change to stay relevant. The price of change is exposure to FOE. To minimise exposure, Org must isolate its work from dysfunctional dynamics and influence. At the same time, it must disrupt its processes to renew them. This is a deliberate act of disorder. Therefore, to perform we create order and to be relevant, we induce chaos. It is a "catch 22" situation since one cannot be without the other.

The External Environment of Org

Existence is an endless system of complex process relationships. Org is simply a construct that responds to a need, within this vast process network. Process intelligence and tacit intellect define the internal world of Org. Relationships and relations defines its environment.

To decide the difference between internal and external is often complex. Rules on the outside are also the rules of the inside. The only way to know what is inside and what is out is to have a clear consciousness of purpose. This will create an identity, which will drive the relations and relationships of Org.

To survive, an environment must sponsor Org. To stay sponsored, Org must continue to ensure relevant performance. Sponsorship could include a myriad of means. E.g., paying of tax; buying of products or services; voting at an election; giving money to a worthy cause; etc. An environment will only sponsor Org if it needs it. Purpose solves need.

Difference between a relation and a relationship

Because relations and relationships define an environment, we must know their difference.

In short, a relationship is reciprocal, whilst a relation is not. When walking, my movement is in relation to gravity. I need gravity, but it does not need me, therefore there is no relationship. To walk past a person implies a relation. To love a person implies a relationship. 

 Conclusion

As with most things, to understand simplicity, we must work through a myriad of complexity. Org is a system that has strong purpose. Resources fuels it, intelligence enables it, and human intent drive it. This can happen in a conscious or unconscious way.

Much complexity underlies the simplicity around how we see Org. At its nucleus, there is purpose – the essence of performance. At its outer edge lies intent – the driver of relevance. Purpose justifies Org whilst intent keeps it alive.

First one must know the complexity of Org that underlies the simplicity that it must present. Then one can begin to design it. In so, purpose and intent will end as operations and strategy. The things we do between are mere "wiring".