Organizations operate in turbulent, “chaotic” environments, with rigid structures and processes that try to be predictable. Then there are difficulties in seeking change. Well the same organizational design is the facilitates / hinders the process.
This hypothesis is supported by questions such as: new paradigm, complexity, chaos, autopoiesis, field of operation, self-organization, culture and identity, operating conditions, organizational structure, change, predictability.
The present work is developed on the hypothesis that it is possible to use structural design as a tool that facilitates change in organizations. For development, it was necessary to have a set of paradigms in which to support the demonstration of the presumption. The work has, as a consequence or characteristic, an “apparent” disorder in ideas and texts, as well as the use of confusing terminology.
the-design-of-structure-as-an-instrument-of-organizational-changeI will try to explain the reason for this confusion:
The first problem has to do with the existence in organizations of a set of contradictions, paradoxes, oxymorons that in and of themselves are not resolved by organizational theory, at least with current paradigms. Dynamic structure: if the structure is stable it cannot itself be dynamic. Or as the satisfaction of needs, from whom, from the shareholders, from the employees, from the clients ?, including, predictability of the decisions, if they are going to operate on people, the environment, etc., a set of unpredictable variables, at least random. The solution to the problem lies in finding new studies and developments based on an incorrect paradigm. While studies of complex systems, chaos, and autopoiesis, among others, did not emerge specifically for organizational analysis,some authors have started to develop some specific material. I have had to research for this work in other sciences and try to find parallels that allow us to "explain" the problem. Fields such as quantum physics, nonlinear mathematics, biology, philosophy, and the social sciences were sources of study and the first to use these views.
The second question or stumbling block came to me when I started to do my dissertation. And it has to do with how to build a text based on the ideas of complexity and chaos following the principles of mechanical objectivism. In other words, following a linearity and an explanation of the desired result through a cause-effect model, starting with the parts in order to reveal the whole.
There are not only problems from the syntactic or semantic, they are also from the grammatical and argument structures. Our language presents a linear disposition, as well as the research methodology. The ―subject, verb, predicate modelo model, the logic, the presentation of arguments of the type ―if X then B, therefore C‖ correspond to the -… mechanistic Newtonian explanation of the physical universe… a deterministic physical-mechanical model… Capa (Capaldi, 2000) that does not have much to do with the human condition, less with its relationships.
The construction in language that allows us to discover the phenomenon of complex systems, of chaos, is of recent development in the field of physics, even more so in the social sciences and even more so in administration. Finding the descriptive order for the organizational phenomenon, a phenomenon within the complexity with the restrictions that I mentioned before, is in the order of what Freddy Kofman said -… we do not name the world that we see, but we can only see the world that we are able to name… ‖ (2001). Thus, it is necessary to use a set of axioms different from those used by the conventional sciences.
__________
1 Combination in the same syntactic structure of two words or expressions of opposite meaning, which originate a new meaning.
The third difficulty has to do with finding in or from development a tool for organizational analysis. In other words, convert a set of ideas into something with which to operate on social organizations. Some type of tool, without falling into the simplifications that abound in the administrative bibliography of the type "How to be a successful entrepreneur?", Recipes that do not take into account the uniqueness of each of the systems in which it operates. The dilemma has to do with how we are used to making diagnoses on which to propose solutions. For this we measure, we count, we describe, in short we take a photo that allows us to describe the state of the object, as Deming said -… what is not measurable is not known… ‖ (Walton, 1994) Doubt is, in general,the same for all complex systems and has to do with how to find a way to operate in a constantly changing system? If when measuring it and in return, how to describe it?
Well, then it is not an easy path to walk, but neither is operating on social organizations, and yet it is the path I chose, which I intend to walk after choosing this profession.
Therefore, in order to solve the third problem, I will try to satisfy one of the main activities (difficulties?) Of the organizational analysis, ―change‖. The planned change, but approached from the organizational design, specifically from the design of its structure, which I believe will allow them to be predisposed to this condition. Structures are the initial conditions that people encounter in an organization. This is not only at the coordination level, it also defines by inference the framework in which the relationships (internal and external) and with it the “possibilities of evolution” of the system will occur.
HYPOTHESIS
Structure design as an instrument of organizational change.
Organizations operate in turbulent, changing, “chaotic” environments, with rigid structures and processes, which try to be predictable. This environment, both external and internal, generates in all the participants of the organization a strong tension due to the uncertainty and the difficulty of predicting the consequences, in the long and medium term, of the actions they carry out in the present. In other words, for complex environments and organizations, operating at the limits of chaos, an unsuccessful search for order is carried out that gives meaning to their daily activities, a meaning that it is not necessary to search for.
This type of action is supported in linear or simplistic paradigms, which are the basis for the design of the organizations in which they operate. Simple and simple solutions to complex problems are sought. However, in daily operation the systems “get out of hand”.
The different alternatives to remedy this uncertainty range from the association of the problem to issues such as leadership, organizational redesign, processes or reengineering, motivational analysis, etc., in short, the search for ―organizational change‖, which allows them to have correct forecasts, already of the results, already of the behavior of the different variables and especially of the personnel. But in general in all these change strategies, and despite the use of new tools, they are supported by the same paradigms. The support of the ideas does not change and the results, in general, are disturbances that the same system is in charge of redirecting3. It is a continuous search for predictability that ends in traumatic implementations with similar results in the medium term.
Now, why is the existence of the “control paradigm” so strong? In principle, it is one of the resources that people use to restore order. We react in this way when the means provided by rationality and its instruments lose power in an order that no longer exists, due to -… nostalgia for a tradition that protects order, or partial impotence to think and govern the movement… - (Balandier, 1994).
Religion gives meaning to the human condition, hides the fear of death and nonsense, provides "closure of meaning". Thus, in organizations, the fear of losing, the unknown and the unpredictable is assimilated to similar doubts, hence control is a paradigm that gives "closure of meaning" when acting as an entrepreneur.
However the ideal state of complex systems is one that is in the transition between order and chaos, this transition state allows the system to emerge creative processes. This border will coincide with the point of maximum entropy and is the point of maximum complexity. But to allow this state of the system it is necessary to carry out an additional effort. The need that man has, in this case the shareholders and the managerial level, to have complete command and knowledge of the operation of the system, as a result of his need to know, to give meaning, to provide, closure of meaning is very strong. How then to achieve a paradigm shift? There are several ways, through crisis, education, etc. One of them and is part of the hypothesis of the present work,it is using the experience as a learning methodology and acceptance of the new paradigm. Therefore, starting from the same paradigm, from the prescriptive, from the normative, to design an organizational structure such that it facilitates the relationships that predispose to organizational change and its acceptance. Not to live with uncertainty and chaos, but to live in them. Not as a ―planned change‖, but as conditions that allow internal and environmental co-evolution.but as conditions that allow internal and environmental co-evolution.but as conditions that allow internal and environmental co-evolution.
___________
3 Homeostasis is one of the properties of systems, which tells us that they work in a dynamic equilibrium -… obtained through self-regulation… ‖ (Chiavenato, 1982) and which proposes that systems tend to keep the conditions of functioning. Tending towards a new equilibrium in which the variables stabilize, -… although these levels are changing… ‖ (Etkin / Schvarstein, 2000)
This does not mean that the organization will not change, in fact it is always evolving due to its own open system condition, but that the “possibilities” will be greater depending on its structural design.
In summary, the working hypothesis starts from the premise that the structural design characteristics of the organization predispose the system to change. In other words, the co-evolution between the system and the environment will depend on the original structural conditions, in such a way that the possible attractor states do not limit its development. The structure of the hypothesis proof is as follows:
Definitions of the new science. Point at which the concepts and bases of the new paradigm are developed. Topics such as complexity, chaos, autopoiesis, etc. are covered. These concepts originally came from sciences as diverse as quantum physics, fractal geometry, biology, which have nevertheless been adopted by the social sciences to explain these phenomena. The development and adoption of these concepts in administrative science is also very recent.
Characterization of the object. From the definitions seen in the previous chapter, achieve a different characterization of the object of study, social organizations and their dynamics. A new "descriptive" reality for the same phenomenon.
The organizational structure and change. Chapter in which an attempt is made to detail the functions and understanding of the organization's structure. Not only from the point of view of the design of the ―form‖, but also and as important as the above of the relationships it generates both internally and with the environment. In addition, what are the conditions that will help define a different organizational support.
Conclusion. The approval or disapproval of the hypothesis
I want to clarify that when I say discoveries it is not a matter of arrogance, but quite the opposite. I am referring to personal discoveries, revelations of something new that allow me to think of the organization in a different way than I understood it before the work was done. This does not mean that other people did not do it before, and in fact this is so, but it is a personal contribution to myself, worth the redundancy.
DEFINITIONS OF THE NEW SCIENCE. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STUDY OBJECT
The emergence of a new paradigm
―Thomas Khun states that paradigm shifts are the result of contradictions between theoretical predictions and experimental data. When this happens, a crisis occurs, a bifurcation from which a new paradigm emerges that circumvents contradictions.‖ (Schnitman, 1998). One more step is required which is "realizing" that it is a problem that resides in the observer and not in the object. What I will present in this chapter, misnamed by my new science, are actually properties of systems. These properties are not new to them, they always existed. This cannot be otherwise, because the qualities of the observed systems or objects do not reside in the objects, but are the observer's own computations.I mean by this that one of the first changes lies in the renewal of the concept of scientific objectivity. We usually think that reality is revealed to us if we use the correct analysis tools, if we follow the rules of research methodology, mechanical explanation, the Newtonian model. A systematic work of linear increase in knowledge of the conditions of the object of study that allows us to reveal and then extrapolate to other systems the qualities thus discovered and defined as facts, as fundamental laws.A systematic work of linear increase in knowledge of the conditions of the object of study that allows us to reveal and then extrapolate to other systems the qualities thus discovered and defined as facts, as fundamental laws.A systematic work of linear increase in knowledge of the conditions of the object of study that allows us to reveal and then extrapolate to other systems the qualities thus discovered and defined as facts, as fundamental laws.
We arrogantly explain that if we use the right set of basic concepts and can associate them with certain representations, then we simplify some variables, we use simple propositions, then we take those representations to be true. But these discoveries are true as long as -… when derived from the axioms… through that recognized method.‖ (Einstein, 1998) In this way the object is passive in relation to the observer and its meaning, its reality is prior only that It is objectively determined, ―The idea of laws of nature has a legalistic connotation: it would seem that nature is ―forced‖ to follow certain laws…
- (Schnitman DF, 1998)
Every look at reality is an act of selection, construction and interpretation that is made from a subject in a context, which is particular and proper for that observation at that time.
What happens then? It turns out that the operations we carry out as observers have their own reasoning given by the -… supralogical principles of organization of thought or paradigms, principles that govern our vision of things and the world without our being aware of it.‖ (Morín, 2000) What is questioned is objectivity.
Thanks to the work carried out by Maturana, related to the biology of knowledge, a break is born in the empiricist paradigm.
The observer / observed relationship does not generate a single reality, but there are many realities and have to do with those proposed by the observer. He suggests that there is no objective reality independent of the observer, but that the observer is constitutively participating and therefore active in what he observes (Maturana, 1996). Concluding, -… we cannot say how things really are, we can only say how “we” interpret or consider them ”(Echevarria, 1996).
One of the principles defined by Echevarría is -… that human beings create themselves in and through language‖, that is why the possibility of having a new vocabulary will allow us to access these, now “new realities”, that is, discovering properties of systems that, although they already existed, we could not yet describe (or discover?).
Concurrency of theories
As I said a little above, the set of theories developed from different sciences allows us to apprehend a new set of knowledge, which introduces us to a different vision of organizations. These assumptions converge in order to characterize the organization as a complex evolutionary system (CES), with particular characteristics that will be developed later.
Below I present, very briefly, the contributions of some of these developments.
The Chaos
According to the dictionary, chaos refers us to the following: m. I was confused that things were at the time of their creation, before God put them in the order they later had. // Confusion, disorder. (Ed Plaza & Janes, 1980) We see in this explanation two common signifiers to our understanding of the sense of chaos. On the one hand, according to the second meaning: disorder; the confusion; the unpredictable; Instability; lack of continuity. It sends us into the unknown, or the unloved. On the other hand we have the second representation that requires a slightly more extensive explanation. In principle we understand that through divine intervention, from a superior being, it is possible to generate order out of chaos.Why do I emphasize the divine intervention? It is common in social organizations to place this function on the managers of the organization, a saving leader. Now, contradictory to what we think, chaos is an original state of creation. It is the state that things have at birth. Although I did not think to find this concept in a dictionary, it is one of the properties and contributions of chaos theory to the social sciences, including that of organization. Additionally there is a relationship between order and disorder, recursively one precedes the other.Although I did not think to find this concept in a dictionary, it is one of the properties and contributions of chaos theory to the social sciences, including that of organization. Additionally there is a relationship between order and disorder, recursively one precedes the other.Although I did not think to find this concept in a dictionary, it is one of the properties and contributions of chaos theory to the social sciences, including that of organization. Additionally there is a relationship between order and disorder, recursively one precedes the other.
What is chaos theory?
Chaos theory is focused on those forms of complexity in which the emergent order coexists with disorder. When a system moves from a stage of order to a growing disorder, it can go through a transition phase in which new patterns of order emerge from the disorder, making sense of the paradox of understanding between these two concepts.
According to Hayles it is possible to recognize certain characteristics in chaotic systems. Nonlinearity is perhaps one of the most common. This function takes us away from the cause-effect model as a straight line reversible in time and implies -… often a surprising inconsistency between cause and effect, so that a small cause can give rise to a large effect.‖ (1993) Small Modifications in any of the variables involved in the system can generate unpredictable variations to the total. The classic example of this quality is the difficulty that exists in anticipating the "state of time." In economics, there are plenty of samples: the evolution of the stock market; the growth or decline of the economy in the countries; or financial cracks (tequila effect, tango and many others)
Another feature is given by the complex shapes that enhance the importance of scale. Specifically, objects are not independent of the scale chosen to measure them. A classic example of fractal geometry is that defined by Mandelbrot when he asks how long is the Brittany coast? It seems that it can be solved by looking for the answer in an encyclopedia. Well, this is totally removed from reality. The measurement depends on the accuracy and precision of the ruler that is used to measure it. So if you use a rule of 1 (one) meter you will have an approximation, but there are nooks that measure less than one meter so they will escape the measurement, therefore we have a new approximation. The same would happen if we use a rule of 1 (one) cm.,but as always a smaller scale can be used, the approximations would be, in principle, greater and with a tendency to infinity. This tells us about the irregularity and the difficulty of defining precisely something.
Another very important element of chaos is -… the shift of the focus of attention from the individual unit towards recursive symmetries between levels of scale niveles (Hayles, 1993) Symmetries are represented at different levels of scale and these levels are seeking harmonization of activities and check if things happen as planned / defined. (Chiavenato, 1982)
connected through coupling points. It is in these places where any small modification can cause the system to behave unpredictably. Chaos also has the particularity of having high sensitivity to initial conditions. For example, in golf, even if you try to predict the development that the ball will have in a stroke, two similar shots can have very different trajectories. This is a consequence of the circumstances existing at the moment of impact: the athlete at the moment of the blow (position, tremors in the blow, swing, club position); the ball (height of the ground, small interferences like the height of the grass, weight and irregularities of the ball) among others, unless -… the initial conditions can be specified with infinite precision,systems quickly become unpredictable.‖ (Hayles, 1993)
Finally, they all have a feedback mechanism. As in systems theory or cybernetics, part of the energy from the output of the system returns to it as input (feedback mechanism). This dynamic helps explain the emergence of organizational structures that adjust the output.
Although the application of these concepts to humanistic science is difficult, especially since the chaos is based on complex mathematical constructions, it provides us with epistemological foundations for the application in new paradigms.
Dissipative structures
According to Prigogine (1998) 10 when a system moves away from equilibrium, states arise whose properties are different from those of equilibrium, typical properties of non-equilibrium situations. The condition for these structures to appear is the existence of recurrence of the type X leads to Y, and Y leads to X. Together with the recurrence situation, the system, far from being isolated, is subjected to strong external conditioning. And these brand new properties are all it takes to understand the world around us.
The “dissipative structure” frames these new properties: sensitivity and therefore powerful coherent movements; possibility of multiple states and consequently ―historicity‖ of the choices made by the systems. They occur at the bifurcation points, from which new ramifications emerge. The branch points introduce a random element, which are very sensitive to small disturbances. This is a transition point between order and chaos (figure 1).
In equilibrium conditions only the near is seen. But when you are faced with a non-equilibrium structure, there must be signals that run through the entire system. It has to happen that the elements of matter begin to see "beyond" and that matter becomes sensitive. Under these conditions there are many possible properties, which are the various dissipative structures accessible. On the other hand, if we approach equilibrium, the situation is the opposite: everything is linear and there is only one solution.
However, chaotic systems are not totally random, usually they have well defined limits given by the field of occurrence and direction of these disturbances, only this field is very wide or totally probabilistic, hence the unpredictability of the evolution of these systems or structures..
_______________-
10 See also Prigogine in New Paradigms (Schnitman, 1998).
Figure 1. (from Prigogine, 1998)
Attractors
Pinpointing the attractor idea is not that simple. A definition could be: a set of limits towards which the different trajectories of a system are oriented. An ―tractor‖ is the visual pattern of the evolution of a system. There are four types of attractors:
Fixed point: the example is a pendulum that moves from one place to another, heading in the future towards a certain point. In this way the attractor is defined as a point in which case it gives a firm state and no change can be made in it. Friction dissipates the energy of the system, such dissipation being shown in the phase state as an impulse towards the center from the peripheral regions.
Limit Cycle: If you simply add a root cause to the pendulum to compensate for friction, the pendulum will now have a limited cycle in its phase space. The limit cycle attractor portrays the repeating processes.
Torus Attractor: it is a drawing that derives in a ―thread así, so evolution revolves around the frame, in circles with two independent oscillations, although it never repeats the exact same pattern. They are processes that, although they are not fixed, move, being confined in an area.
Unlike the last attractor, these three do not relate to chaos theory because they are fixed attractors (figure 2), that is, with their limited fields.
Figure 2- Fixed attractors. (Lucas, 2003)
Strange attractor: Refers to complex movements that continue indefinitely, taking place in a part of space halfway between a surface and a body with volume. (Figure 3)
Figure 3 - Strange attractor. (Lucas, 2003)
Self-organization refers to the presence in the system of dynamic attractors. Each attractor will occupy a relatively small area in space. Thus, it is expected that the system contains multiple alternative attractors (areas of stable operation - concurrent choice options), providing a set of different possible behaviors for the same system. What currently occurs will depend on both initial conditions and subsequent shocks.
Autopoiesis
It is a theory born from biology derived from the works of Maturana and Varela. They define autopoiesis as a process through which a system produces its own organization, maintenance, and constitutes a space. This ability to self-produce is in contrast to the concept of reproduction.
There are similarities between the concept of autpoiesis with that of self-organization arising from complex thinking. The second considers the co-evolution with the environment 11 and therefore a structural dynamics, while for the first a change in structure is necessary for different behavior to develop.
Autopoiesis is actually a property of autopoietic systems, which is the ability they have to organize, so that the only resulting product is itself. There is no separation between producer and product. The being and doing of an autopoietic unit are inseparable and this constitutes its specific mode of organization.
_____________
11 Concept to be developed later.
How does this process work? An autopoietic organization is an autonomous and self-sustaining unit that contains component production processes. The components, through their interaction, recursively generate the same network of processes that produced them. An autopoietic system is operationally closed and the structural state determined without apparent inputs and outputs. Inlets and outlets with structural stability. It is a particular way of relating to the environment, since two qualities of complex systems emerge from this property. On the one hand, the limits of the system.These limits operate by ―operational closure‖, which is the property that the system has of generating its own limits to differentiate its organization from the environment, and recurrently this limit defines the organization that defines the structure that defines the system, that defines the limits, that define the organization, which defines the structure and so on. As a consequence of the above, the second property arises, which is the generation of identity, understood as the particularity that differentiates it from the environment.
In short, these systems generate their own environment because when defining their limits, what they do is distinguish themselves from it. It is important to note that systems do not exist without an environment, but can nevertheless operate only within their own limits.
According to this theory, only two types of structural changes are possible. The change of state that preserves identity or disintegration. As -… the organization defines the being of the system. Therefore, the specification of the organization of a system is practically equivalent to an ontological affirmation. preservation of identity involves preservation of the organization and preservation of the organization involves preservation of identity.‖ (1997)
Complexity - Complex thinking
Starting from cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, autopoiesis in biology and order from noise, Edgar Morín builds a paradigm of complexity, a method that is complex thinking.
Following Morín, in truth, complexity is a meta-science that proposes an epistemological set to allow us to describe complex phenomena such as, redundancy, complex systems. In other words, a new way of approaching reality, a philosophy of science, ultimately a method that is complex thinking.
It is a way of thinking that seeks to overcome the problem of scientific knowledge of reducing complex phenomena in order to reveal a simple order that they lack.
Complexity leads to the problem that we associate the term with uncertainty, chaos, and confusion. In such a way that what cannot be summarized in a law is called complex, - Complexity is a problem word and not a solution word‖ (2000) The best way to understand this thought is by refusal, so it is not. In principle, it is not a science that eliminates simplicity, but is used in those places where it fails. One mutilates, reduces and the other integrates. Neither is it one-dimensional knowledge or completeness. Although he aspires to the multidimensional, to articulate different disciplinary domains, he recognizes the impossibility of achieving something totalizing, -… one of the axioms of complexity is the impossibility, even theoretical, of an omniscience.2000 (2000) It is to recognize the existence and to accept the certain ambiguity in the relations subject / object, order / disorder, self / hetero-organization.
Following Morín, thinking about complexity can be helped by three principles:
1. Dialogical principle: the existence and necessity of antagonistic pairs between principles of the stability / instability type is inherent in complex systems. For instance, order and disorder are opposite pairs that cancel each other out, but collaborate for the production of organization and complexity.
2. Principle of organizational recursion. A recursive process is one in which producer and product are confused. For example, people through their interactions produce society, but once it is produced it retroactuates on people and produces them. It is a principle that gives ground to the paradigm of linearity, of the cause / effect relationship and opens the possibility to self-constituting, self-organizing and self-producing cycles.
In lay terms, we can resolve with this principle the doubt about which came first if "the chicken or the egg?".
3. Hologrammatic principle. Physically, at one point in the image of a hologram, almost all the information of the object it represents is contained. Thus, in a human cell all the genetic material (information) of the organism is contained. Overcome reductionist and holistic ideas.
In this way, progress can be made in the -… knowledge of the parts by the whole and of the whole by the parts, in the same movement that produces knowledge. (2000)
Complex systems
Well, complexity is developed as a way of thinking, of solving the difficulties of the reductionism of scientific knowledge. But is it a way of thinking that is always necessary? Fundamentally when faced with complex systems, YES, since complex phenomena emerge from it. In such a way that it is important to characterize them, not to realize that we are facing one of them but to know some of their peculiarities. I also hope that this disagreement with what has been explained so far is allowed, since I am embarking on a “reductionist” activity.
Evidences13:
Autonomous agents: They are generally made up of independent or autonomous agents, considered of equal value in the operations of the system. Therefore some control or leadership structure emerges by self-organization and cannot be imposed.
Connectivity: All parts of a affect each other even though they have no direct connection.
Nonlinear: The outputs are not proportional to the inputs, they do not depend on a function of type F (x), the whole is different from the sum of the parts.
Descending causality: It means that the existence and properties of the parts are affected by the emergent properties of the whole, which restrict the freedom of the elements.
Attractors: There are dynamic attractors in the systems. These occupy a relatively small area in the total. Thus the system has an important set of evolution possibilities. Which one will actually occur depends as much on the initial conditions as on the shocks and transitions.
Capacity: There is an open set of possibilities for systems and not just current realities.
Co-evolution: Capacities must be measured in terms of context and not in relation to statically imposed functions. Any structural portion has a correlate with the external environment. Additionally, the system modifies its parts or relationships allowing groupings and changes all the time, which makes its structure dynamic.
Self - organization: Constant and spontaneous tendency to generate global behavior patterns from the interactions between its constituent parts and from their interactions with their environment.
Emergency: The properties of the system cannot be described in terms of its parts. It includes forms of synergy or cooperation that goes beyond the simple idea of aggregation.
Non-uniform: each part evolves separately. The mix of learning domains depends on the co-evolution with the context.
Phased changes: The feed-back process guides changes through subtle positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
Unpredictable: Different evolutions can occur compared to similar (apparently similar) inputs. This can occur due to: a) a high dependence on initial conditions, b) high sensitivity to certain situations.
Instability: Sudden changes of attractors are possible when the system parameters approach the limits of the attractors.
Mutations: The occurrence of random internal changes or innovations is characteristic of these systems.
Self-reproduction: They have the ability to replicate, creating additional systems.
Self-modification: The parties can modify their associations or relationships freely thanks to learning procedures.
In this way the system can consider self-design over time.
Undefined variables: The meaning of the interface between the system and the context cannot be initially specified and must evolve.
For those who have interacted in social organizations, any feeling of having seen these concepts reflected in them will be understood.
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STUDY OBJECT
The set of contributions developed so far must be taken into account associated with the new contributions that the Social Sciences produce to the field of organizations, which are also part of the aforementioned developments. To define the concept of Organizational Analysis and thus delimit a field of professional work and a theory based on an object of study14 that is its own, in such a way as to be able to define its behavior and therefore its nature and field of action. As in the previous chapter, I will present a group of theses that come together so that the characterization of the object can emerge and thus define a common interpretive field.
Before I begin, I want to make three considerations. On the one hand, what has been said in this chapter tries to reflect what ―organizations are‖, their conditions of creation and dynamics, ―not what they should be‖. In other words, it is not an attempt to seek improvements, rather an approximation to your knowledge. On the other hand, although many of the topics seen so far allow us to make analogies between different sciences (biology / social sciences, quantum physics / social sciences, etc.), it is necessary to put a certain filter on the drawing of parallels. According to Von Foerster, carrying out a correct evaluation and use of new developments will allow us to avoid falling into definitions of the type "A cell is subordinated to the convenience of the whole body, the individual is subordinate to the nation" (1986),without understanding the existence of the individual autonomy of each of the sciences and their objects of study. Finally, I expressly exclude the analysis of the productive problem, its efficiency, opportunity, etc. considering that it is the result of the rest of the properties.
EI field of operation - EI Language
There is a group of administration thinkers who determine an important relationship between social organizations and language. They define the latter as a constitutive, explanatory element and as Flores (the organization) says -… a phenomenon produced in language… ‖ (1997)
It has two characteristic elements, the “social people” 15 and the relations in the field of language (as characteristic types of conversations), which are defined recursively. Without delving into the social condition of the individual, I assume the postulate that based on linguistic constructions we can describe ourselves as people and generate a social practice based on communication16.
On the other hand, communication is constitutive for the following: the basic principle is that unlike other complex systems such as the human body or some social organizations such as ant hills, in which the relationship between the elements is given by chemical reactions, in organizations relationships are determined by language. This language, as Flores says, is not an instrumental and descriptive language but -… an articulating practice of futures. ”(Flores, 1997) that manifests itself through the constitution of reality and the acts of speech and history as revelation of the historicity, of its explanation, of a shared socialization.
_________________________
14 In principle, the object of study is social systems, and within the group, specifically humans, to differentiate them from other social systems such as ant hills or hives.
15 I say ―social people‖ because when we talk about organizations we are referring to groups of people that constitute some type of social organization, to differentiate it from a group of friends.
16 To expand the concepts see Echevarria, in Language Ontology.
For this it is necessary to understand that communication is an act through which social commitments are made, therefore a constituent of the organization and not only a tool of people for the exchange of data and ideas, but as an exchange of senses. Language is ultimately the domain of existence of organizations, since from it we can "see" organizations and understand their evolution and behavior. Following Bronstein, Gaillard and Piscitelli, the domain of existence is given by two principles:
Every social organization is a form in the linguistic domain.
This means that the existence of the organization does not have to do with the physical space in which we can find it, but with the conversations that are particular to it, -… that created it and keep it alive.‖ (1995) A network of conversations and constitutive agreements that allow to “distinguish” the people and relationships that interact in the organization. In order to explain the interaction between them (couplings) and the environment, the second principle is necessary.
Every organization is a cognitive network.
The self-affirmation that organizations achieve by often replacing their original objective with that of survival without loss of identity is due to an organizational capacity that defines them as systems with “operational closure”.
(nineteen ninety five).
Operational closure is a circular process through which a system constituted by network related processes, which recursively depend on each other, self-generate and self-perform, being the producer and the product at the same level, as in the molecular domain (See Figure 4) In this way they achieve certain coherence by self-defining the limits of the organization's own operations and not depending on the intervention of contingencies in the organization environment. ―Fi operational closure is interrupted, the unit disappears as its limits disappear‖ (1995)
Figure N.4 Operational closure in the molecular domain (Bronstein, Gailard, Piscitelli, 1995)
As a corollary and paraphrasing Flores, -… nothing happens here without language. Fi we must understand this small part or any other of the organizational activity, we must understand the acts of speaking and listening that take place in organizations‖ (1997)
Self-organization, Co-evolution and Identity
As it can be deduced from the previous point, only two structural states of the systems are possible, the change to preserve the identity or the disintegration. But, although environmental disturbances trigger changes in the system, they are not determinants of it. Instead the system generates a new state using the self-organization process. The co-evolution18 between the social system and its environment refers to the fact that the elements of the system can change based on their interactions (couplings) with other elements of the system and with their environment. Thus if the medium or the system modify its operation or integration strategy, either of the two evolves towards a different organization that allows them to continue existing, -… either one reacts to the other on its own terms‖ (Lucas, 2000),mutually influencing each other in a continuous interactive process. This evolution is not a simple adaptation, but a higher concept. Self-organization has to do with organizational self-determination. In other words, social systems set their own rules, differing from the environment and independent of it.
According to Etkin and Schvarstein (2000), this capacity of social systems enables them to:
· Produce themselves to continue operating, choosing their objectives.
· Maintain your identity in front of the environment.
· Operate in conditions different from those of origin without losing continuity.
· Have autonomy.
· Have the existence of regulatory processes for operations.
· Enjoy structural renovation capacity.
Unlike a linear production scheme, social systems are no longer seen as a processing machine that feeds on inputs from the environment. We can see them as systems that use these means to self-generate persisting in time and whose product of the operation are themselves.
_______________
18 Co-evolution is also called self-eco-organization by Morín.
This quality is achieved by the constant and spontaneous tendency of a system to create global patterns of behavior from the interactions between its constituent parts. From their interactions with their environment, they provide the system with much more stability and flexibility than any other structure. Individual activity, both random and intentional, produces feedback by which the system organizes itself. In return, the emerging collective rules and restrict to some degree the individual rules.
In this way the global dynamics of the system cannot be reduced to the dynamics of its constituent units, it changes the sense of the approach. We stop seeing the organization from the organizational external regulation or the vision as a system of production of goods and services that guide the organization from reflex behaviors. What is important about this quality is that self-organization -… rescues the variety and fluctuations of the behavior of the whole. ”(Etkin and Schvarstein, 2000), against deterministic explanations and from which a spontaneous order arises.
The consequence of the operational closure is the definition of the Organizational Identity features defined by these authors. Concept that is related to organizational invariance in the sense of durability over time. When these identity traits are modified, it is because there was an organizational re-foundation through destructive / constructive changes, which show the end of the traits of continuity, -… when invariance is history‖ (2000) and from which a different Identity emerges, a new foundation.
The manifestation of identity is structures. Therefore Identity is the singularity and if there is a change, it is necessary to change its structure, that is, -… in its power relations, in the purposes and in the technology used. In this way, invariances are consolidated and it can be seen that although there are changes in individuals, they do not affect the identity of the organization. This process allows them to maintain their features, and differentiate themselves from the environment, despite the modification in both internal and external couplings. Hence the difference between refoundation, which is a change of identity and restructuring, which is a change in structure.
Organizational CuIture
In general, in the administration bibliography there is a lot of talk about cultural types, which allows whoever uses them, allows diagnoses and defines different forms of intervention. In this part, I will only refer to their emergence and function in social systems, ignoring taxonomies and the process of cultural intervention. Culture is a phenomenon in the social sphere, of all social systems, being a set of distinctive and shared features. These are intangible and / or informal values: management styles, value system, uses, history, personalities, power games, etc., that make up cultural factors that will directly influence communication circuits, the distribution of authority, in the efficiency of the procedures, in the content of the information,in coordination mechanisms, in short, people's behaviors. It has a logic and dynamics that are its own.
One of its functions is to assign an unequivocal meaning to the organizational movement, a referential framework of interpretation.
It arises from the dynamics of the system, in the construction of its history and it is a factual fact, for a certain moment in the organization.
It basically has three functions:
· Integration: which favors consensus.
· Cohesion: being the sense of belonging in its most genuine manifestation. It is also a self-regulating mechanism of power.
· Functional: by the involvement of people. It presents compatibility and correspondence between the value system of the company and that of the person.
Its formation is based on assumptions about something in particular (assumptions), and when faced with a specific fact, it transforms these into values. The set of values shapes beliefs that translate into:
· Habits (uses and customs), consecrated practices that have acquired the character of law.
· Myths and Rites. Tradition based on a real event. It is an established order for ceremonies. · Taboos, Signs, etc.
Observable entities of culture emerge from the formation process as manifestations or indicators of it that have underlying or unobservable assumptions (see Figure 5)
Custom
Presumptions
Figure 5. Organizational Culture
CULTURE AND IDENTITY
Although they have similarities, there are differences between these two concepts:
· Identity:
It is a condition of existence for the organization and it is self-sufficient. It is neither adaptable nor changeable.
It does not interact in its formation with the context.
It is a creation of the observer.
It is formed with the features that remain in time.
It does not depend on people's understanding
· Culture: It
can be “read” and be a reason for learning.
It is incremental or upgradeable.
Undergoing a process of understanding.
It may have contradictory elements (the formation of subcultures)
For the observer who describes the organization, although they are formed together, he places his particular elements in different domains.
A system with opposing interests
An important part of the dilemmas developed in organizations, as I raised in the introduction to this work, is the resolution of the conflict that generates the different needs within the organization and in dealing with its medium, creating dialogical relationships.
I am talking about opposition of interests since, although there are complementary needs, they are mutually conditioned. In general, the increase in satisfaction of one decreases satisfaction in the other.
By case, and allowing me to reduce it to only the economic aspect, different types of conflicts are generated from the interest of maximizing the benefit. A bid for higher income: shareholders rent it; employees and managers their income; suppliers increase the price of their supplies; the state the taxes; customers lower sales prices; and so society; competition; etc. The same is true of other types of needs such as status, relationships, breaks, work times, activities, freedom, etc., antagonistic objectives and purposes.
Some authors call the management of this conflict between the organization and the environment that is resolved through negotiation as a "strategy", and as the "internal" that is settled in the field of power as "policies". Flores calls it ―Organizations as a political phenomenon‖ (1997) since it is the field in which ―conversations‖ are held that open and close possibilities.
It is a phenomenon in ―the Language‖ with the existence of asymmetries of power and intentions in the exercise of it, whose resolution has an impact on the entire system. Satisfaction processes and policies have some coherence, therefore problems must be solved on a global scale, although the needs are variable and specific to each of the actors.
Going further, Schvarstein describes the activity of organizational design as a ―dynamic product of the dialectical resolution of contradictions…, in the context of a context of meanings.‖ (2000), that is, to solve the opposition of interests in particularity and dynamics of each organization and its context within its own interpretive framework.
People - Responses / Reaction to chaos
I want to deepen the principle outlined in the hypothesis about the response we have in organizations against chaos. I consider that it is a restrictive attitude for the organizational becoming.
Both in the sciences and in Management, an attempt has been made to describe organizational phenomena in terms of formulas and theories that reduce, simplify and generalize. Unpredictability and non-linearity, in short, complexity, is for most people very difficult to deal with emotionally. So they spend most of their time and energy spending trying to create order and control23.
The limitations for managing uncertainty have to do with physical, psychological and assumptions used in thinking. As for the human mind, it has certain limitations for the handling and analysis of large amounts of information.
For example, -… short-term memory can only dominate 7 bits of information at a time, to which the emotional charge is added… - (Kirshbaum, 1999) It is easier for us to see when the consequences of an action are immediate. Contrary to this, it is difficult for us to understand a phenomenon in which different causes intervene, including the same effect as a cause, out of time and from the feedback to be able to take actions.
The emergence of anxiety before the set of feelings caused by complexity, recognized as external, results in different reactions that render individual and group actions ineffective. Projecting as ―cause of all ills‖ to the exterior, without recognizing that one is a producer and a product, distorts knowledge of facts and reality. Then different defense mechanisms arise, one of them is social defense. De Board recognizes this device as one of the determinants of the organization's structure, culture and mode of operation, ―Xsta is the result of collusion between the members of the organization, in trying to put into practice its own mechanism of psychic defense‖ (1994) Defense activity requires a constant charge of energy,which means there will be less available for productive work. These mechanisms help us understand the difficulty of generating organizational changes, since by changing the organization, in contrast, defense mechanisms are restructured, with the possibility of increasing anxiety levels.
The consequences of group defense mechanisms are often as or more damaging than anxiety itself. Thus Balandier acknowledges that the response takes one of the forms outlined below.
_____________
23 There are studies that have shown how uncertainty and complexity increase the level of stress.
The total answer, totalitarianism. Systems of domination and total control that makes use of weapons (in terms of power), techniques, the media and staging. It is the definition of an order imposed on the beneficiaries, even against their will, unquestionable and excluding what is strange. A world obsessed with the search for coherence, which suppresses the risks resulting from social movements and history.
The person's response, the order of the sacred. The search for meaning multiplies and is situated at two poles:
to. Versatility, aimless search, the enjoyment of the immediate replaces the project. Fashion becomes a system by which personal fulfillment progresses.
b. Anchorage, withdrawal into the past and tradition (things were always done this way). It is the return of the sacred.
· Pragmatic. The order by movement, often without meaning or objective. Put everything under the influence of the movement and consecrate the figures that embody it. Critical attention is focused on what paralyzes movement. Recommend the constant and opportunistic movement of adaptation to reality.
· There is a fourth model, inspired by autonomy. It is not similar to a project, it aims at the realization of an effective possibility of man linked to a new philosophy. It appeals to creativism, to critical efficiency, to responsibility. It invites to rediscover the strength of the emancipatory tradition in order to use it in the construction of a self-governed society, where individual autonomy and collective autonomy sustain and nurture each other.
At these points we will find easily identifiable associations in organizations. On the one hand, progress towards total control; of actions, expected behaviors, the use of rewards and punishments to achieve those results. On the other hand, the appearance of administration gurus, successful people in an organization and for a given context who define or design (and buy) magic management and development recipes ("10 steps to be a company of excellence"), with a continuous search for simplification, practical application and generalization of solutions (ISO9000) that do not attend to particularities (cultural, social, economic, technological, etc.)
COMPLEX EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEM
To finish characterizing the organizations, I will draw on the work of Mitleton Kelly. He uses the concept of Evolutionary System and its implications to understand the behavior of complex social systems. Consequently, it defines a set of generic, but not exhaustive, principles that approach a better approach to the problem.
Although part of his work aims to "simplify complexity", there are some of the principles that are valid within the thesis that I present.
Dissipative structures, equilibrium distance and history:
The behavior of individuals is not a matter of chance, but the result of a finite selection of options, perceptible by him, of choice and his past choices. Once the decision is made we enter the historical dimension and consequently the field of evolution, which depends on the critical choices that have been made in the past. It is said to be historical because it is through it that the “path” of alternatives can be seen.
When we speak of social groups, we see that they find new ways of operating since, being far from equilibrium (equilibrium as the set of established norms), they are forced to experiment and explore spaces of possibilities, in order to discover and create new patterns of relationship and different structures. The same is true for organizations with emerging consequences. This action can be very innovative if the choice breaks with the established symmetries. In such a way that if the choice is made in this way, a new organization arises that will be unique for that option, but within a world of equilibrium possibilities. This explains why it is so difficult to predict the future behavior of a system.
Feedback
The feedback mechanism is related to mechanical systems and indicates the adjustment mechanisms they perform. In social systems when conditions move the system away from equilibrium, from established norms or from “ways of doing”, a critical point is reached in the disorder from which a different order or organization arises, creating a new coherence. The process is the foundation of transformation and provides a starting point for understanding the constant movement between change and stability in complex systems.
One of the reasons for intervention creating “out of balance” conditions may be that current feedback processes no longer work. For example, when the negative feedback that once adjusted or influenced the evolution of the system no longer produces the desired outputs and needs intervention to generate radical changes. If the intervention does not give results, the organization can remain in an ineffective restructuring cycle due to the replication in the application of solutions that have worked in the past. New behavior patterns and new structures must appear and that depends on new positive feedback processes.
Chaos and Complexity
There are differences between these two theories, which although they have already been discussed, I am going to delve a little deeper into them.
In chaos theory, based on mathematical formulations and the use of computers, interactive formulas remain constant, while complex systems are able to adapt and evolve through changes in their interaction rules. Furthermore, chaos by itself does not explain the structure, coherence, coherent self-organization of complex systems. Therefore, applying chaos theory to human systems may not always be appropriate, because human behavior often does not copy mathematical algorithms. People have cognitive powers that enable them to change their rules of interaction.
Self - Similarity
One of the features of complex systems is that the same characteristics can be applied at different levels and scales. In the organizational context, the generic characteristics of complex systems can be found within a company at different levels (people, teams, corporation) as well as with related businesses and institutions, including direct and indirect competitors, client suppliers, and also in legal and economic systems. Fractal is the term usually used to describe the repetition of self-similarity patterns between different levels of scale.
The concept of fractal is related to the concept of "hierarchy" in systems theory, but in a different way. The hierarchy in the context of systems is not related to the vertical relations of the organizational structure or to power, but it is very close to the notion of subsystems, from which a scale of systems is deduced. It is the interpretation of subsystems that differs between the two theories. A fractal element reflects and represents the characteristics of the set. Essentially similar patterns of behavior that are found at different levels. Whereas in systems theory a subsystem is a "part" of the whole, just as it is a whole in itself. It is equivalent to the system, but contained in a larger system.Hierarchy is the principle that entities are treated as a significant whole and are constructed of small entities that are a whole in themselves… and so on. In the hierarchy, the emergent properties denote levels. In fractals, repeated properties denote multiple levels of a system. It is a subtle but interesting difference.
Operating conditions
There are, we might call them that, certain restrictions on the basis of which social systems operate. These conditions are not restrictions in the exact sense of the word, but the system must have certain qualities that allow it, above all, to self-generate and self-maintain, ultimately to endure.
Perhaps through the analysis of different definitions of the notion of organization the idea can be explained a little better.
―Organization is… the set of relationships that provide cohesion, permanence and continuity in a random environment.‖ (Etkin and Schvarstein, 2000) -… semi-autonomous operational units‖ (Schlemenson, 1988)
―Every system has two characteristics, on the one hand an organization that are the necessary relationships that define it and on the other hand a structure, which are the relationships between the components.‖ (Bronstein, Gaillard & Piscitelli, 1995)
-… people who collaborate within defined limits to achieve a common goal.‖ (Hodge, 1998)
-… 1) social entities, 2) directed towards goals, 3) designed with a deliberate structure and with coordinated activity systems, and 4) linked to the external environment. (Daft, 1998) -… something “organized”… a structure to achieve some specific result… Faith achieves when individuals have adopted collective beliefs and goals, making them their own, or when they have agreed to act according to organizational beliefs and goals as if they were their own.‖ (Flores, 1997).
Discarding the obvious, which is the participation of individuals and therefore a ―great‖ restriction and its conformation in an environment that is its own and from which it differs (as we saw above), some of the necessary conditions can be identified. In principle there must be some kind of objective. By this I do not mean that organizations are teleonomic productions, but rather that different types of objectives guide the actions of individuals. It is ultimately in terms of the existence of purposes as a set of ideas from which the organization achieves a certain cohesion, a set that emerges from the interrelation of individual objectives. As a consequence, this “affinity” in the objectives includes the loss of a certain individual autonomy.It implies that people must resign freedom and self-determination in the adjudication process - assumption of the different organizational roles for the achievement of objectives as a whole.
It must also have some kind of organization in terms of the phenomenal field of ordering or distribution. Thus a structure is formed through which individual actions can be articulated. This is determining, in part, of the nature of the relationships between individuals. Although the structural scheme will be discussed in greater depth later, there is a dynamic in the stability and continuity of the structure, which is defined recursively by the couplings between the roles and between the organization and the environment. In this way, it allows the organization to conserve certain features that give it continuity and uniqueness together with the loss of autonomy.
Finally, it has a group of resources or capacities depending on the objectives. These capacities accumulate, in utilitarian terms, as means for the ― achievement of ‖ the various functions.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE CHANGE
The joint approach of structure and change responds to the dialogical and recursive belonging of these two elements. I say dialogic since the first needs some stability to be operational as we saw above, and the other is the constructive-destructive movement. But on the other hand I refer to recursive because between the continuous organization-change-organization structural stability arises. They reproduce mutually, which guides the birth of the oxymoron, dynamic balance.
There are several dimensions of organizational analysis. The fact of choosing for this work the structure design has to do with two arguments that point to the same objective. Since predictive activity is very difficult, "creation" must function as a dissipative structure that does not have a limited range of possibilities. The first selection argument, then, is that since systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions, structure will then be the origin of the system's evolution, hence its importance. And the second question has to do with the dynamics of the system, dynamics that will be marked by the assumptions that the people who participate in the organization will assume. The structural type defines in a certain sense the types of conversations that will be held in the system,limiting or facilitating connections inside and with the environment, thus defining a cultural issue, a frame of reference.
To finish this work we will see some of the types of "pure" structural designs to discover which of them has better conditions to adopt the new requirements. In addition to a work by Mintzberg from which it will be possible to see in which models organizations become when power asymmetries are very strong, understanding them as attractors of the system. This will allow us to define other of the design conditions, which is the possibility of having the facilitation of a different way of talking as design parameters. understanding
I will not work on the topic of ―change‖ as understood by various authors in the administration; conceived as a particular phenomenon, as an object of study in itself. The fact of studying it separately is due to the fact that the environment is recognized as a source of disruption (external regulation) and a disturber of the ―stability‖ of the system, therefore the problem of change is focused on the need for ―adaptation‖. The planned change assumes the knowledge of a future, of the conditions in which the system must operate in relation to the environment that it "touches". On the contrary sensu, in this work I assume that since the environment is not given but is a construction between the system and the environment, a framework in which co-evolution must emerge, it can be worked on from the structure design,a structure that promotes learning capacity and co-evolution. The idea is to generate a dynamic in which the “traumas” of change are limited, leaving access open to both restructuring and refoundation.
Pressures of the function
Mintzberg (S / D) performs a taxonomy of the set of organizational functions or basic components of the organization from which the activities of the system are integrated. These components, when the power asymmetries are strong, exert pressures that drag the system towards one of the configurations defined by it and before which the component's typical coordination mechanism will dominate.
It is necessary to comment that Mintzberg calls them pure types, clarifying that they do not exist in organizational reality, but are models or approximations.
Organizational components
I will briefly comment on what are the structural parts defined by Mintzberg (Figure 6), what are their functions and coordination mechanisms to understand the concept of “emerging types”.
Figure 6. The parts of the Organization. Mintzber (S / D)
Configurations
From the attributes of the parts, as I mentioned above, and in the play of forces some of the configurations emerge (Mintzberg, 1991)
In the following table we can see which sector exerts the pressure, towards what objective and what configuration it determines.
Structural types
The definition of the structural type implies the resolution of a set of parameters that are what will ultimately give the type of "drawing" of the organization. Thus, the result will not only be the “organizational chart” but differentiation (the degree of specialization) and integration (coordination, the set of relationships) will be defined. These parameters are limited by other decisions such as the level of formalization / standardization27, the degree of centralization28 and the control systems.
One of the objectives sought is to achieve the correspondence between the 4 (four) structures defined by Elliot Jaques, coexisting in the organizations, thus seeking internal cohesion. These are: a) Formal or official structure; b) presumed structure, which is what the members perceive as real; c) the existing one, the one that actually operates and d) the required one, which is the necessary one for the correct operation of the system. (Schlemenson, 1988). As in the previous point, I will expose from the work of Daft (1998) a group of pure configurations from which, and defining certain conditioning factors to the design, one will emerge that meets the conditions that allow the emergence of complex evolutionary systems, as the set of operating variables that must be able to emerge from the system.
_________________
27 Of the activities, of the behaviors, of those who have access to the information, etc.
28 Decision, definition of strategies, objectives, policies, etc.
Functional
In this type of structure (Figure 7) the integration task is by common functions, by affinity in work streams and from the activities carried out in the operations core. So that the production activities are in the production department, the sales in the sales department and so on. Figure 7. Functional structure
characteristics
It performs well in low uncertainty environments with routine technology and the goal is internal efficiency with an emphasis on functional goals. The authority resides in the functional heads.
Its main strengths are: economy of scale and high specialization.
Its weaknesses: Slow response (few internal and external couplings), very centralized, poor coordination between departments, low creativity and innovation, few products or services.
DivisionaI
The name is generic, referring to both the structure by product and the strategic business units. (Figure 8) In this type, the coordination base is the product or service. Within each division are the different functions. Figure 8. Divisional structure
characteristics
It works well in environments of moderate uncertainty because each line is a small organization with direct contact with the environment. There is a high departmental interdependence due to the little routine technology. The goals are product line oriented and the authority is with the product manager.
Its main strengths are: adequate for rapid changes29; the connections with the environment are strong; At the Business Unit level it has the same advantages as the functional one, decentralized decision making at the Business Unit Management level.
Its weak points are: it eliminates the economy of scale in the functional departments; poor coordination between product lines; eliminates competition and hinders internal interaction.
Geographic
The grouping is determined based on the market (Figure 9), to the location of the clients. It is very similar to the previous one, except that instead of product lines there are areas, provinces, countries, continents, etc.
Figure 9. Geographical structure
MatriciaI
It is a strong form of horizontal bonding. Its main feature is the co-existence of two matrices, on the one hand the functional and on the other the divisional (Figure 10). Figure 10. Matrix structure
characteristics
It works well in conditions of high uncertainty with little routine technology and allows to pursue both innovation and specialization objectives. In its pure conception, there is joint authority (employees with two bosses).
Its strengths are: good level of coordination with both internal and external couplings; flexible participation of resources; adapted for complex decisions and unstable environments; opportunity for functional development and skill in products; best in midsize organizations.
Its weak points are: dual authority that can lead to frustration and confusion; need for interpersonal skills; time in conflict resolution; collegial rather than vertical relationships should be adopted; requires double environmental pressure to maintain the balance of power.
Horizontal structure
It is based on the use of dynamic networks, which is a different form of coordination of people (Figure 11). This form practically eliminates the vertical hierarchy and the departmental limits.
Figure 11. Horizontal structure
characteristics
The structure is created against work flows or processes, departmental limits are canceled. The vertical hierarchy is flattened. Administrative tasks are delegated to self-directed multidisciplinary teams. Clients are in direct contact, sometimes being part of the teams.
Self-directed teams have access to resources (materials, information, equipment, supplies, etc.). They are multidisciplinary because they include all the skills (production, sales, finance, etc.) with the capacity and ability to perform in different positions. They are fully decentralized, the team has decision-making powers. Autonomy is their main means.
Advantages: offers radical improvements quickly and efficiently; barriers between departments are lowered so you cooperate with the whole task in mind; improves staff mood by increasing participation and reducing administrative overhead. Disadvantages: requires major changes in the design of: positions; management philosophy and information systems. Executives become facilitators rather than supervisors; more time for coordination and consensus building is required; it requires a good definition of the key processes around which the teams will work.
Design conditions
When in the beginning I was referring to ―living the chaos‖ it has to do with what are the descriptive characteristics, the first degree agreements, with which the people in the organization will find themselves. For example, the pyramid-shaped structural design has control in itself as a guarantee of achieving the ―objectives‖, not only of the system, but of those who hold power in the organizations. This is also associated with the fact that some people are considered to have the quality or ability to organize, to direct, ultimately to perform managerial tasks and those who only have the quality to perform operational tasks. "Living in chaos" must necessarily guide the organization in a different direction than the example. For this, not only the parts of the system must be defined,but also their relationships in such a way that creativity and innovation can flow in the organization. The challenge is to match the different visions that people have about the structure (see in structural types).
The changes arise from small fluctuations that are then amplified by the system through a process that initially attempts to dissolve the "riot". But if you pass this step the disturbance increases through iterative processes in a positive feed-back mechanism, until it is installed throughout the system. If in an open system it seeks to establish balance and stability through obstructions of creativity and local changes, the conditions that threaten its survival are created. Therefore, the possibility of generating a fluid and open communication, on the one hand, will allow the generation of basic structures that support the development of the system, protecting it from constant and reactive changes, but not from those necessary for co-evolution.
Imbalance is a necessary condition for the emergence of change. A dissipative structure that allows energy to dissipate (export entropy) in order to create themselves. If the field of operation of organizations is language and I say that they are systems with opposing interests, the possibility of the existence of conflicts that are resolved in spaces in which asymmetries of power do not arise must necessarily be generated. This does not mean “anarchy” 30 of opinions or objectives, but rather that the different participants should not be excluded.
Habermas calls communicative action the types of interaction in which language is used as a source of social integration. It then becomes a force generating consensus of linguistic understanding, effective for coordinating actions. Actors should try to cooperatively tune into their action plans on the horizon of a shared world based on common interpretations, by way of unreserved persecution for illocutionary purposes31. It is distinguished from strategic action (success-oriented, utilitarian, teleonomic communication) by the rationally motivating force that understanding operations have and which enables a communicatively reached agreement (Business Ethics-UFLO, 1999).Assuming communicative action as an adequate means of interaction also implies a restriction on the organization's prescriptive and proscriptive activities. In other words, the processes for the allocation of roles and the formalization of the expected activities and behaviors must be more “free”, they must allow internal integration behaviors to emerge and foster relationships with the environment (couplings) When design activities are oriented towards high degree of formalization limit the enriching game of opposition of interestsinternal integration behaviors must emerge and foster relationships with the environment (couplings) When design activities are oriented towards a high degree of formalization, they limit the enriching game of opposition of interestsinternal integration behaviors must emerge and foster relationships with the environment (couplings) When design activities are oriented towards a high degree of formalization, they limit the enriching game of opposition of interests
On the other hand, the communicative and conflict resolution style, added to the structural type, generate the frame of reference for the conformation of the organizational culture, they are "signs" from which people make inferences and begin to think assumptions. Thus the structure is a sign, the shaping and proving / disproving action of presumptions, shaping the cultural birth. The coherence between these two symbols is generating stability which enables the formation of Identity.
Finally, the frames of reference generated by a structure open to change and interaction contain the anxiety produced by the dissonances of the control paradigm32. People interacting in these types of structures can produce -… new creative results,… if they are allowed to organize themselves into what appears to be an amorphous mass incapable of containing within itself an implied order.‖ (Stacey, S / D)
CoroIary
The first three structural designs seen (functional, divisional, and geographic) have several limitations to meet operating design conditions in turbulent environments, managing complexity. They were structures according to the time in which they were developed, as well as the management schools, it is not possible to judge them as good or bad without taking into account the context in which they were developed. Need for improvement and productive optimization, limited supply with growing demand, markets and comparatively ―predictable‖ context, under technological development and information management. These conditions are not current, organizations have to have new capacities to operate in the current scenarios marked by globalization, openness, an era of knowledge,of technological change.
__________
30 The anarchic extreme does not allow operational closure and therefore Identity formation.
31 The illocutionary force expresses the speaker's intentions. To achieve this, the signs used must be adequate, sincere and consistent with the beliefs and behavior of the speaker, and they must also be recognizable by the listener and have meaning for him.
32 Determined, in part, by the circle search for predictability - increased control - unexpected results - search for
The last two structures (matrix and horizontal) have the advantages to be able to do it. Paradoxically, the disadvantages defined by Daft, and which is the sensation of many detractors of these designs, are its main wealth. Dual authority generates the necessary space for negotiation based on the wealth of different points of view supported by teamwork. The time “spent” in conflict resolution is not unproductive, it is generative, it keeps the organization on the “edge of chaos” generating innovation. The balance of power will be maintained by the double environmental pressure allowing the existence of internal and external couplings, generating states that facilitate co-evolution.
It is true that strong changes are required in the job design activity, we have to change the paradigms and management philosophies. But this should not scare those of us who try to operate in systems, what has always existed is change and not a way of doing things, it is a matter of scale. Current information systems can accompany change.
The definition of the key processes, as a critical point of the design, although it is not a simple task; It will mark the bases for the emergence of organizational identity, but they are not impossible jobs.
Finally, the skills required of those who lead organizations have to do with the latest trends in Leadership, Situational Blake and Mouton and Blancher, Empowerment, Management Behavior of Tannembaum and Schmidt and guide management skills to contingency management, in which the ability to generate spaces, facilitate communications and delegate power are part of these trends. The important thing is to assume the impossibility of solving organizational problems with current paradigms, recognize change as a creative activity and promote it, trying to manage anxiety and responses to the "chaos" (we already know how apparent) they encounter. organizations today.
CONCLUSION
It is possible, from the structural design, to generate the conditions to promote organizational change. The change not understood towards adaptation to the environment, but as a phenomenon typical of complex evolutionary systems.
I say that it is possible because the design conditions have implicit ―noxious‖ paradigms for the current conditions in which organizations must operate, with a conception of man quite far from reality.
The extreme organizational rigidity, the continuous search for predictability as a way to handle uncertainty and anxieties only causes more uncertainty to be generated in a vicious circle from which it is difficult to escape. Time cannot be wasted in control systems that limit the co-evolution of the system, on the contrary, the search is the generation of spaces for this to occur.
It is not possible to find “guilty” of the situation, there are multiple causes including the effects themselves. A reform is required in the models to see the complexity. There are structural models and paradigms that give guidelines to the possible relationships in the systems, which configure different types of attractors. Thus, the functional, divisional, geographic, added to a paradigm of control or power relations (initial conditions and disturbances respectively), will guide the system to a limited group of possible attractors, especially those with a fixed point.
I believe that there are different structural forms that pave the way towards the experience of the “break” that allows people, allows us, to realize how insufficient yesterday's management models are to solve today's problems.
I consider this of great importance because those who direct the organizations, those who administer; they are part of the system organized in such a way that they are not hierarchical organizations, but hetero-hierarchical, computational computations. Reducing degrees of freedom, as an objective of control, ignores this condition by assuming an objectivist representation of the system of which it is a part, making the systems even more unstable. It is not possible to manage chaos, not even deny it and not even live with it, but it is necessary to accept living in it, being part of its complexity. As Luhman says, social changes occur when -… societies reflect on themselves… (self-reference) ‖ (Balandier, 1994) To help us,Both the matrix structure and the horizontal one admit actions on the border between order and chaos, so they help us to solve part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is recognizing that there is no "charismatic leader" who will save the system. It is the social group that has the keys to success or failure, in the territory of organizational survival. But for the set to have the conditions, it is necessary that the events that make it possible, such as open communication to the contributions of each of the components of the system, form part of the design of the structure. It will define different frames of reference, from which the possibilities, possible futures, of the system are greater. The same is true in the face of the impossibility of achieving a complete specification and we have already seen the high sensitivity of the systems to the initial conditions, by which I mean that we will not be able to predict the future of the system just "we must" create conditions.It is not a waiting policy, but we have the possibility of perfecting the means of self-observation and self-description, calling into question the concepts of ―truth‖ that we have, without -… ever allowing the confused fear that it produces to be exploited… (the movement) ‖ (Balandier, 1994)
When people have the possibility to participate in the changes, they can influence the formation of the new social system, if not -… the result will be greater suspicions, hostilities and aggression.‖ (De Board, 1994). Complexity suggests that organizations need to explore their possibilities and generate variety, needing to have a set of micro-strategies that allow them to evolve, reducing the risk of not being able to co-evolve with a changing environment.
We must understand that an organization is an entity capable of creating new orders, of recreating itself.
-… When it comes to the long-term creative development of your organizations, let things happen. Fi stop trying to know what cannot be known and control what cannot be controlled, they will have more energy and feel more secure about participating in this self-organizing process that will produce new emerging results for your organizations. And this is not a New Age message from California, it is a deduction from the hard science of complex systems‖ (Stacey, S / D)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Balandier G.; Xl Disorder, Chaos Theory and the Social Sciences; Ed. Gedisa; Spain; 1994.Bronstein V., Gaillard JC and Piscitelli A.; The selfish organization. Operational closure and conversational networks; in Delgado, JM and Gutiérrez, J.; Qualitative methods and techniques of social science research; Editorial Synthesis; Spain; 1995. Capldi N.; How to win an argument; Ed. Gedisa; Spain; 2000.Chiavenato A.; Introduction to the general theory of Administration; Ed. Mc Graw Hill; Argentina; 1982. Daft R.; Organizational theory and design; Iternational Thomson editors; Mexico; 1998. De Board R.; Xl psychoanalysis of organizations; Ed. Paidos; Argentina; 1994.Editorial Plaza & Janes, Dictionary of the Spanish language; Spain; 1980. Echevarria R.; Language Ontology; Ed. Dolmen Editions; Chile; 1996. Einstein A.;About the theory of special and general relativity; Ed. Altaya; Spain; 1998. Etkin J. and Schvarstein L.; Identity of the organizations; Ed. Paidos; Argentina; 2000.Flores F.; Creating organizations for the future; Dolmen Editions; Chile; 1997. Hayles KN; The evolution of chaos; Ed. Gedisa; Spain; 1993. Habermás J.; Theory of communicative action, complements and previous studies; Professional Ethics Chair Sheet; UFLO subsection Comahue; 1999.Hodge BJ; Organization theory; Ed. Prentice Hall; Spain; 1998. Kofman F.; Metamanagement, Volume 1 - Principles; Ed. Granica; Argentina; 2001.Maturana H.; The objective or constructed reality II ?; Ed. Anthropos; Spain; 1996. Minztberg H.; The Structure of Organizations; Ed. Ariel; Barcelona, 1984 Mintzberg H.; Mintzberg and the Directorate; Ed. Díaz de Santos SA, Spain, 1991.Morín E.;Introduction to complex thinking; Ed. Gedisa; Spain; 2000. Prigogine I.; Xl birth of time; Ed.Tusquets Editores; Spain; 1998.Schvarstein L.; Organization Design. Tensions and paradoxes; Ed. Paidos, Argentina; 2000.Schlemenson A.; Organizational analysis and sole proprietorship; Ed. Paidos; Spain; 1988 Schnitman DF; New paradigms, culture and subjectivity; Ed. Paidos; Argentina; 1998. Von Foerster H.; Xl curious behavior of complex systems. Biology lessons; Fichas CEA, na 6, 1986.Walton M.; How to administer with the Deming method; Ed. Norma; Colombia; 1994. Wheatley MJ; Xl leadership and the new science; Ed. Granica; Spain; 1994.Tensions and paradoxes; Ed. Paidos, Argentina; 2000.Schlemenson A.; Organizational analysis and sole proprietorship; Ed. Paidos; Spain; 1988 Schnitman DF; New paradigms, culture and subjectivity; Ed. Paidos; Argentina; 1998. Von Foerster H.; Xl curious behavior of complex systems. Biology lessons; Fichas CEA, na 6, 1986.Walton M.; How to administer with the Deming method; Ed. Norma; Colombia; 1994. Wheatley MJ; Xl leadership and the new science; Ed. Granica; Spain; 1994.Tensions and paradoxes; Ed. Paidos, Argentina; 2000.Schlemenson A.; Organizational analysis and sole proprietorship; Ed. Paidos; Spain; 1988 Schnitman DF; New paradigms, culture and subjectivity; Ed. Paidos; Argentina; 1998. Von Foerster H.; Xl curious behavior of complex systems. Biology lessons; Fichas CEA, na 6, 1986.Walton M.; How to administer with the Deming method; Ed. Norma; Colombia; 1994. Wheatley MJ; Xl leadership and the new science; Ed. Granica; Spain; 1994.How to administer with the Deming method; Ed. Norma; Colombia; 1994. Wheatley MJ; Xl leadership and the new science; Ed. Granica; Spain; 1994.How to administer with the Deming method; Ed. Norma; Colombia; 1994. Wheatley MJ; Xl leadership and the new science; Ed. Granica; Spain; 1994.
