Informal Structure
In his book The Hidden Connections Fritjof Capra (2002) shows how life is interlinked by complex networks. The definition of a living system as a network means that the phenomenon of life has to be understood as a property of the system as a whole; life cannot be ascribed to any particular component, but only to the entire bounded network.
This fundamental understanding of living systems becomes particularly interesting when we consider the dominant metaphors prevalent within management theory. Essentially, the medium of organisation and management is metaphor. Management theory and practice is shaped by a metaphorical process that influences virtually everything we do. The main contrast is between viewing organisations as machines or as living systems.
The machine metaphor has been an integral part of a mechanistic paradigm that was formulated by Descartes and Newton and has dominated our culture for several hundred years. The first mechanistic theories of management were the classical theories of the early twentieth century, in which organisations were designed as assemblages of precisely interlocking parts, linked together through clearly defined lines of command and communication. This view of management as engineering was perfected by Frederick Taylor (1911) in his Principles of Scientific Management.
The principles of classical management theory have become so ingrained that for most managers the design of formal structures, linked by clear lines of communication, co-ordination and control, has become almost second nature. To appreciate the profound impact of the machine metaphor it is useful to contrast it with the metaphor of organisations of living systems.
To run properly, a machine must be controlled by its operators, so that it will function according to their instructions. Accordingly, the whole thrust of classical management theory is to achieve efficient operations through top down control.
Living beings, on the other hand, act autonomously. They can never be controlled like machines. To try to do so would be to deprive them of their aliveness. A machine can be controlled through instruction; a living system can only be disturbed, be influenced.
So, with the above in mind, the organisation will tend to view things systemically, through the lens of the 'living system' metaphor. This will also provide the basis for the management style.
McGregor (1987) argued that the style of management is a function of the managers’ attitude towards people and assumptions about human nature and behaviour.
Theory X assumes that people are generally lazy and have to be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment. A perspective largely shared by the ‘machines for making money’ metaphor.
Theory Y assumes that work is as natural as play and rest and that given the right conditions people will exercise self-control and self-direction. Theory Y is largely representative of the ‘living being’ metaphor. Influence and disturbance, not control, are seen as the key ways to motivate behaviour.
The organisation will tend towards the Theory Y view, with recognition that any model is likely to be restrictive and, being largely contextual, situations should be approached with an open mind.
People should be empowered by organisational forms, not restricted. This will require the organisation to be flexible and responsive to the needs of all of its stakeholders and will result in organic growth that is in tune with the needs of users.
The long-term organisational aim is participatory self-management. Participatory in that every actor is treated the same and welcomed into decision making by the norm. Self managing in that every actor has control over what impacts them in the same amount and manner as every other actor.
This approach utilises and calls forth full self-development from all actors, where each will be fully involved participants, not only in rote and tedious labour, but in decision-making processes.