Written
By: Dr. Russ K Decker
To better
understand the contextual framework about the present state of organizational
development, I will utilize information found on systems theory that shapes
organizations as a relational field influenced by theory, research, and
practice.
Theoretical
Framework For Change
Theory is utilized to better understand the
process of why and how beyond the what, as theorists begin to understand
organizations regarding the ways they perform and relate through observations
and experiences. Theory is a kind of discourse that seeks to generalize
information into a certain framework to compare similarities and differences
(Bengtson, 2005). From a positivist (first-order thinking) perspective, theory
is basically a set of concepts used to explain social phenomena. Therefore, a
theory should explain why different individuals with the same stressors have
different outcomes at different times over the course of their career. It is
within the interaction between two entities (age, culture, society, etc.) that
develops a better understanding of group phenomenon. Within this paradigm,
systems theory integrates multiple frameworks to form ideologies and
perspectives. Through the components of systems relations perspective, two
sociological theoretical constructs are discussed: 1) structural functionism;
and 2) symbolic interaction. I will briefly explain these two theories and show
how they are integrated with one another.
Structural
Functionism
Structural functionalism views the organization as a
structure of related parts or multiple subsystems, with each part carrying out
various functions. It regards to organizations as systems and subsystems
by examining (1) how the organization organizes itself for survival and (2)
what functions it performs for its members (Strong, 1993). From this lens,
there must be structure and roles for the organization. As values, norms,
roles, and rules take shape, the functionality of the organizational system
conforms to the greater system of society. Likewise, organizations need
structure, hierarchical lineage, and standards. Managers must follow
guidelines, meet deadlines, and be held accountable. According to this theory,
there is greater function within the organization when the whole shares a set
of beliefs, preferences, and attitudes (Bengtson, 2005).
Symbolic
Interaction
Symbolic
Interaction theory is the second layer, and adds an additional dimension to
understanding organizational systems. This theory posits that individuals gain
meaning about the world by their interactions (communication, language) between
their social and physical environment. Moreover, the interactions are important
by understanding beliefs, rules, and roles people adopt (Rank, 1983). As these
interactions occur, individuals have the opportunity to both expand and
strengthen their relational bonds with one another. Not surprisingly, negative
interactions hold power as well and can be viral while decreasing productivity
and compromising organizational culture. Through this interaction, individuals
respond to the processes according to their social environment, which in turn
defines value and meaning. These values become symbolic, as the individual
develops meaning around human behavior. As the individual seeks meaning through
relationships and other social constructs, the process of defining self becomes
fluid. Furthermore, it is clear that all aspects of life are fluid, meaning;
the world around us is continuously changing. For organizations to be effective
and profitable, they must understand this concept and act accordingly.
Based on these two theories, system theory integrates
structural functionalism and symbolic interaction to solve problems, make
decisions, maintain balance, and achieve goals (Day, 1995). Organizations
collaborate to construct their own realities and form alliances to support and
empower. Madden-Derdich (1999) described organizational systems emphasizing the
importance of renegotiating relational interactions as an ongoing process. This
process involves shifts in interpersonal closeness, emotional support, and
relationships. The crux of system theory is conceptualized by two major
influences described by Bengtson (2005): 1) All organizational systems are made
up of smaller subsystems; and 2) The system is more than the sum of its parts.
The analogy of a clock can be demonstrated to show the importance of a system.
If one tiny spring is not attached properly to the clock, it will not function.
From a systems perspective, all members of the organization need to be active
participants for the team to function properly.
Lastly, an organization has great power to resolve, mediate, restructure,
and use language as a changing agent. In addition, the organization is
comprised of a network of people who bring meaning and intentional interactions
to the “team.” Team is recognized as a concept, which incessantly changes and
adjusts overtime (hence, the ever-changing system).
If you are interested in maximizing
team efficiency and effectiveness while increasing profitability, please
contact Dr. Russ K Decker.