January 3, 2024 • 32 mins
Are you ready to have your perspective on organizations fundamentally transformed? This episode promises to do just that as we traverse through cosmic evolution to the intricate dynamics of modern organizations. Our guest, Kati Livingston, brings her expertise in adult development and psychology, to unravel the intriguing concept of organizations as living systems, potentially the pinnacle of emergence in nature. We'll challenge your perception of organizations as a mere web of individuals and propose an alternative view of them as organic entities.
Diving deeper, we unpack the profound implications of viewing organizations as living systems, illustrating its impact on corporate strategy and leadership behavior. This perspective embraces the internal dynamics and external influences on an organization, shifting the focus from stabilization to adaptation. We also venture into thought-provoking philosophical debates, comparing the machine model of organizations with the living system model. Moreover, we touch on how understanding the complexities of the physical world matters in organizational management and explore the influence of the Protestant work ethic on American culture. Don't miss this enlightening exploration that pushes the boundaries of traditional organizational understanding.
Kathrine (Kati) Livingston [Guest], M.A., Ed.M., Adult Development and Psychology, has worked in several leadership positions at Harvard University, including the Assistant Director of the Change Leadership Group at the Graduate School of Education. Presently Kati focuses on executive coaching, team dynamics, and adult development, delivering team and leadership initiatives to clients in the pharmaceutical, biotech, healthcare, communication, and finance sectors, and teaches in the graduate Management Program (MLA) at the Harvard University Extension School. She is also a certified yoga instructor, mindfulness meditation facilitator, and augments her work with somatic practices and principles from the neuroscience of change.
Travis C. Mallett [Host], is a Masters of Liberal Arts (ALM) candidate at Harvard University Extension School, where he has also earned Professional Graduate Certificates in both Organizational Behavior and Strategic Management. Travis previously received undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering, General Mathematics, and Music from Washington State University. He also served as an Engineering Manager at Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, where he led a team responsible for developing and maintaining SEL's highest-selling product line. An innovative force in engineering, Travis holds numerous patents and has authored papers and books across diverse subjects. His passion for continuous learning and organizational excellence propels him to explore and illuminate the intricacies of management theories. Through his podcast, "The Management Theory Toolbox", he offers valuable insights on effective leadership, business innovation, and strategic methodologies.
Want to dive in even deeper? Visit the full show notes for this episode.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kati Livingston (00:01):
Almost like these amoebas that we're trying
to adapt together and figure outnot only what's coming but how
can we best adapt and thrive andstay alive.
Because that's the other thingtoo about the living system
model.
It's all about what is givinglife to the system.
Living things want to survive,and so they'll find ways to do
that.
Travis Mallett (00:22):
Welcome to another episode of the
Management Theory Toolbox, yourtop destination to understand
the behind the scenes theory ofthe management and business
world.
If you're an entrepreneur,manager or even just someone
interested in the business worldand you're always curious about
the why behind certainmanagement concepts, not just
(00:43):
the what, then you're in theright place.
I'm your host, travis Mallett,and today we'll be venturing
into the fascinating world oforganizations and emergence.
Let's start with a basic butcrucial question what is an
organization?
From your local corner bakeryto multinational tech giants
(01:05):
like Microsoft and Intel,organizations are a fundamental
part of modern society, so muchso that several commentators
from Harvard Universityexpressed it this way Modern
societies are not marketeconomies.
They are organizationaleconomies, in which companies
are the chief actors in creatingvalue and advancing economic
(01:29):
progress.
So here's a textbook definitionof an organization.
An organization is a network ofindividuals forming a
coordinated system ofspecialized activities.
They aim to achieve specificgoals over an extended period,
with continuity over time,regardless of changes in
individual membership.
Now, this definition might seemstraightforward, and you
(01:54):
probably could have taken a goodstab at guessing something
relatively close to it if I hadasked you out of the blue.
But at the management theorytoolbox.
We always want to look behindthe scenes.
Forget the boring textbookdefinition.
Let's develop a deeper view oforganizations, one which adds a
bit of intrigue and mystery tothe concept, in a way that just
(02:16):
might become a tool in yourmanagement toolbox.
You might recall from theintroductory episode that
studying management is likegazing at the stars, and
infinite number of data pointsand concepts are in our view.
Today, we're going to take thatperhaps a bit too literally.
Does this sound like it callsfor a philosophical tangent?
(02:39):
I wouldn't expect anything less.
So pack a lunch.
We might end up in someunexpected places.
The story of our universe, oftentermed cosmic evolution or
Darwinian cosmology, beganaround 13.8 billion years ago.
This narrative takes us from ahomogenous point of pure energy
(03:03):
to an explosion, or rather anexpansion.
The four fundamental forcesseparated electrons and nuclei
formed out of.
Hold on, we're getting a call.
Yeah, I had a question.
Are you sure this has somethingto do with management?
I wasn't expecting a scienceclass.
(03:24):
That's a good question.
Hang on, we're getting thereand we're going to end up with a
whole new way of understandingorganizations, one that just
might have a real impact on yourbusiness ventures.
So where were we.
Oh yeah, the Big Bang formedatoms, and those atoms clustered
(03:45):
, forming stars and planets.
Stars, through nuclear fusion,expanded the periodic table from
the original three elements toalmost a hundred naturally
occurring chemical elements.
They spread these elementsthroughout the universe through
supernovae explosions.
The dust of the Earth broughtforth single-celled life, which
eventually evolved into morecomplex organisms and societies.
(04:09):
The underlying unifiers in thistale are evolution and
complexity, interweavingphysical, biological and
cultural changes in a broad,inclusive cosmic evolutionary
scenario.
Together they produce aphenomenon known as emergence.
Emergence in its most basicform is a process where the
(04:30):
whole becomes more than just thesum of its parts.
It's the complexity that arisesfrom a collection of
interacting simpler elements.
Atoms combine to producemolecules which exhibit
characteristics and behaviorsignificantly different from
their underlying constituents.
Molecules combine together toproduce cells, which again
(04:52):
display emergent behavior quiteunlike their individual parts.
Single cells combine togetherto produce multicellular
organisms, and so on.
This story culminates in themost complex object currently
known to exist in the universe,the human brain, where cells and
neurons combine to produce acumulative, emergent behavior
(05:12):
that is absolutely wildlydifferent from any of the
underlying elements.
So what exactly does this haveto do with business and
organizations?
From a philosophical sense.
Organizations are one of thelatest developments in the
universe's continual unfoldingof emergent behavior.
Ever since humans began forminggroups to accomplish unified
(05:36):
goals, they've put on animpressive display of the latest
unfolding of emergence.
And when we participate in thebusiness world, we are
participating in the greatestshow on earth, to repurpose the
phrase from Dawkins, a show thathas produced wonders of
unimaginable complexitycomputers, the internet, asphalt
(05:57):
, space travel and Snapchat.
This is the essence of emergentbehavior.
Okay, let's come back to earth.
After that philosophicaltangent, you might be wondering
if there are any practicalapplications for this idea.
In fact, I think this idea thatorganizations are a spectacular
(06:17):
example of emergence, perhapseven the pinnacle of emergence,
in nature, this idea ofemergence leads us to a
management theory with profoundimplications for our day-to-day
activities in the business world.
It's a view of organizations asliving systems rather than as
machines.
To help us explore this idea,we're joined by Katie Livingston
(06:41):
.
Hi, katie, and thanks forjoining us.
Kati Livingston (06:44):
Yeah, Travis, thanks for having me on.
Travis Mallett (06:47):
Before we get started, go ahead and introduce
yourself and tell us a bit aboutyour background and work.
Kati Livingston (06:53):
I'm Katie Livingston.
I am an instructor in thegraduate management program at
the Harvard Extension School.
I've been doing that for about12 years now.
I also have a consultingpractice.
It's called CMS Associates.
That stands for coachingmind-able systems.
We're all about systems and thehuman messiness of systems.
My background is in adultdevelopment and psychology, and
(07:15):
so that's what brings me to thiswork.
Travis Mallett (07:18):
Thanks, katie, and just to say we're thrilled
to have you on the show Today.
We're just exploring theconcept of emergence in nature
and discussing how organizationsfit into that story that's been
unfolding.
A question that comes up is areorganizations more than just a
fixed web of individuals?
Maybe we should be thinkingabout them as living systems.
(07:41):
Before we get into that, Ithink we should first talk about
an all-too-common counterviewthe model of organizations as
machines.
Could you tell us a bit aboutthat idea, the idea of
organizations as machines, andmaybe tell us where that idea
comes from?
Kati Livingston (08:01):
Yeah, sure, this idea of organizations as
machines has been around for awhile.
It really got codified in theearly 1900s.
The basic idea is thatorganizations exist to produce
something and the activity ofproducing that something can be
broken into parts and roles andprocesses can be created that
(08:24):
make production happen asefficiently and seamlessly as
possible.
The term really comes fromFrederick Taylor.
He was an American engineer whopublished the Principles of
Scientific Management back in1912.
That was really the beginningof companies using these series
of rules that are verydisciplined and routinized to
organize human behavior.
Travis Mallett (08:46):
Thanks, giddy.
I come from an engineeringbackground.
Engineering is all aboutabstraction, modeling and
control.
The process is to abstract fromthe complex details of a system
, circuit or product and dialinto the kernel of functionality
(09:06):
and model it.
Once you can model a system,then you can control it.
Now, when you apply thatmindset to organizations,
imagining them as machines andsetting aside the intricate
human dynamics, it seems like itgives clarity on how
information and materials flowthrough the various processes.
(09:28):
It's not surprising to hearthat this approach played a
pivotal role during theIndustrial Revolution and in
tackling certain businesschallenges.
Could you shed some light onwhich problems this model fits
best?
Kati Livingston (09:45):
The engineering context that you just
introduced is quite relevanthere.
This metaphor is useful whenthere's one best way of doing
something, or you can figure outwhat's the best option of many.
You know what your startingpoint is, you know what endpoint
you're after, and then fromthat you can build a system
that's linear and predictable.
For example, I work a lot infinancial services and there are
(10:07):
some processes that need to bepredictable and linear.
There are clear rules to follow, there needs to be a process,
there have to be timelines.
Building a system that's linearand predictable allows everybody
on the team to know what thesteps are, they know what their
roles are and they know what theend result looks like.
In a highly compliantenvironment like financial
(10:28):
services, you do not wantmistakes.
I would assume the same thingin a lot of engineering
processes where people going offthe rails is going to introduce
potential harm not only to theworkers themselves, but also to
the end user.
This idea of the machine modelis when you've got highly
predictable results that youwant to get after and you're
(10:49):
trying to produce somethingagain that predictable.
Travis Mallett (10:52):
So it seems that viewing organizations as
machines aligns closely with thenotion of predictable linear
systems.
But when we think aboutorganizations and the concept of
emergence, we realize prettyquickly that organizations might
be much more intricate thanthat, maybe resisting the neat
(11:14):
boxes and boundaries that themachine model might try to
impose.
So where does this organization, as machines approach, start to
break down?
Kati Livingston (11:26):
Yeah, and this will lead into the other model
we're going to talk about livingsystems.
The machine model reallyencourages predictability, and
in organizations where humanactivity is involved, that same
predictability can often promoteboredom.
I come in, I do the same thingevery day.
I know what's going to happen,and from that the brain starts
to build patterns and habits,which the brain loves because it
(11:48):
helps us be efficient.
And those same patterns andhabits can often lead us to stop
paying attention when thingschange, which change is always
happening in organizations.
Or you may find that thisprocess or model we built needs
some updating and innovating.
It's this double-edged swordwhere the benefits of the
machine model actually canhinder us, because we can either
(12:10):
get bored or we stop payingattention to things.
There's a couple other commoncriticisms of the model, and
those include that it places astory in the hands of a manager
or a leader and that the workersjust follow instructions, that
human workers become just partsof the machine, and then, when
the processes or humans don'twork according to plan, they can
(12:31):
often get framed as problems,and often humans get lumped into
that category of problem.
That's when this starts to notwork in our favor.
Travis Mallett (12:41):
So let's shift gears to the alternative
perspective, the idea oforganizations as living human
systems.
Can you tell us what it entailsto view organizations through
this lens and perhaps some ofthe ramifications of adopting
such a mindset?
Kati Livingston (12:58):
Yeah, so it's a different way of looking at
what organizations are.
Organizations in this sense arenot an entity in and of
themselves, but they're thecreation of the people within
them.
The other principle of theliving system model is that
humans are bringing their ownpast experiences and
expectations to organizationalactivity.
(13:19):
So there might be a dictatedone right way, but in the minds
and hearts of the people comingto work there are many different
ways of doing something.
There's a book that we actuallyuse in our class, the
Appreciative Inquiry for ChangeManagement, and the authors, I
think, put it really nicely injust calling this kind of
organization as a humanphenomenon.
It really puts humaninteraction and interactivity at
(13:42):
the heart and soul of whatorganizations are.
Some of the underlyingassumptions of the living system
model are that humans are notalways rational.
Organizing human activity isgoing to be chaotic at times.
It's going to be naturallymessy and that's not actually a
bad thing.
It's not a problem to solve,but rather it's a series of
(14:02):
conversations to work through,to have people make sense of
what they need to be doing, whatare the ways we want to be
working together and what arethe next steps we need to take.
One of the things aboutthinking of organizations in
this way is it takes thepressure off of trying to fix
and stabilize things and allowspeople to share what they're
seeing, contribute their ideas,reinforce the patterns of
(14:24):
interaction that are giving lifeto the system and producing
results that the organizationwants to see.
Travis Mallett (14:32):
The something that I'm hearing from your
description is that this modelrecognizes and embraces a whole
bunch of messy internalinteractions within an
organization, which makes sensewhen we think of something as
being alive.
But I think the living systemidea also has another important
(14:52):
implication.
When we think of livingorganisms, we also understand
that they're located within andare responsive to their
environment.
Can you tell us a bit moreabout the external influences in
the context of the living?
Kati Livingston (15:08):
system.
Yeah, so this model alsoassumes that the external
environment is part of thesystem, whether it be changes in
the industry maybe there's newinnovations by competitors,
changes in the marketplace,humans need to be able to
respond and adapt their activitythrough what they're picking up
.
The pandemic is a great example.
So there's a team and they allhave these different roles and
(15:31):
ways in which they're working.
They know what they need to do,they need to talk to each other
, they need to share informationand it got some sort of
root-nised way of going abouttheir day and getting things
done.
The pandemic was an externalenvironment force that came in
and really disrupted that systemthat they had in place, and
(15:51):
what I observed is that teamswho struggled the most wanted to
get back to those processesthat they knew they wanted to
lock down on.
Okay, here's what we need to do, here's how we need to do it.
Let's get back to work, let'snot be inefficient, and the
teams that thrived took on thatmore living system model, which
(16:12):
was whoa.
There's this thing that justcame out of the blue.
We do need to figure out how toget back online and work
together, but maybe our cartsneed to interact in different
ways that we hadn't been doingbefore.
An emergence, almost, of a newsystem, rather than trying to
stay so rigid at old roles likea machine.
Travis Mallett (16:31):
So the pandemic is a really interesting example
because it touches on so manydifferent aspects of an
organization employee health,psychology and, of course, the
economics of the businessenvironment.
And that makes me think thatthe living systems idea might
also be integral to corporatestrategy as well, since strategy
(16:53):
is fundamentally about findingthat strategic fit between an
organization and its environment.
But this seems like it adds awhole new dimension to strategy,
since the living system ideaimplies the organizations are
not just these static objectsthat you can pick up and move
through the business environmentper a strategic analysis,
(17:17):
Because they're also being actedupon by the business
environment as well.
Kati Livingston (17:22):
Yeah, and it's recognizing too that once you've
figured out your strategy, itdoesn't mean that that's going
to be it.
The external environment isgoing to continue to change and
there's got to be a dialoguebetween the organization and
what's happening in the externalenvironment.
And the dialogue also needs tobe happening within.
So it really is like theseanibas that we're trying to
(17:44):
adapt together and figure outnot only what's coming, but how
can we best adapt and thrive andstay alive.
Because that's the other thingtoo about the living system
model.
It's all about what is givinglife to the system.
Living things want to survive,and so they'll find ways to do
that.
Travis Mallett (17:59):
So how does thinking about organizations
this way change our behavior asmanagers or business owners?
Kati Livingston (18:07):
Yeah, what I find interesting about
understanding the contrast ofthese two models is that they
raise our awareness about habitsand the possibility of choice.
The scientific managementapproach has a long legacy in
business and management theoryand management study, and so
there can be a tendency forleaders to assume that business
(18:29):
activity can be controlled,rationalized and fixed.
It's something that's just beenin our vernacular for so long,
and I found that leaders oftenuse scientific management
language out of habit when theyactually might want something
different of their teams andtheir organizations.
So I'll give you a specificexample.
I once worked with a team whereI was brought in because the
(18:51):
team leader really hadaspirations of her teams being
collaborative and relying lesson her as the leader and more on
each other as resources.
In our initial conversation,just understanding what would
you like to see?
And she said I'd really likethem to be a well-oiled machine.
So in my mind I thought, ok,there's that scientific
management language one.
(19:12):
What she's describing to meisn't really fitting in that
metaphor.
But what was interesting is whenI interviewed all the team
members and I said listen, yourleaders expressed the desire to
have you all act as a well-oiledmachine.
I asked them what that lookedlike.
What would they be doing day today?
How would they be interactingwith each other?
And what I found were a coupleof predominant themes.
(19:34):
One is that people describetheir role as being well, I know
what my role is on the team.
I know what I'm supposed to dowhen I come in every day.
I know what our deadlines are.
I know what my part is on that,and it gets really frustrating
when somebody on the teamdoesn't meet the deadline, and
so they were already describingthemselves as machine parts.
I then asked the question aboutokay, so when that happens,
(19:58):
what's the next step, what tendsto happen next?
And they said well, we go tothe leader, we report to her
that somebody didn't followthrough or needs to be spoken
with, and that kind of thing.
What was interesting I found isthat the language that the
leader was describing was reallyprobably not even consciously
(20:18):
directing team members' conceptof what they were supposed to do
and how they were supposed tobe, and directed their behaviors
.
When we came together and had abig conversation about this,
what they decided is reallythat's not what they want,
that's definitely not what theteam leader wanted, and so they
scratched around and played withsome different metaphors, and
(20:40):
what they came up with insteadis we need this team to act more
like an aunt colony.
Now, none of us are scientists,so this may not even have been
100% accurate, but the spirit ofthe idea is that, yes, they
came in, they still had theirroles, but when something
happened, when somebody neededsome help, they were willing to
(21:00):
reallocate resources in time togo help that person.
So the aunt colony analogy islike listen, you can build an
aunt colony, you can build aperfect system of tunnels and
interconnections, but a stormcomes and it wrecks it.
Now you've got to start overand read it boy resources.
So it just gave them a morefluid way of thinking about
themselves and helped themunderstand the expectations a
(21:23):
little bit differently andhelped shift their understanding
about what the team leaderwanted and also what the
behavior would look like.
So that's the choice I'mtalking about.
I think that this is aninteresting model because it
gives people different choicesabout what it is they're looking
to create.
Travis Mallett (21:41):
So just dismantling the organization as
machines model seems like a goodstart because it opens our eyes
to a lot of the complexitiesthat are happening around us.
But and I'm sure some of ourlisteners can relate it feels
like we've cracked open the door, peeked behind the curtain, and
we might regret it.
I forget the clear,well-established principles of
(22:04):
scientific management as we getthrown into this messy, chaotic
water with only a vague ideaabout how to swim around.
And I'm wondering are there anytools or frameworks that we
might use to help navigatebusiness life once we realize
we're working within livingsystems?
Kati Livingston (22:24):
So I think there's a couple of things that
come to mind.
One is the Kunevin model.
It's spelled C-Y-N-E-F-I-N, andwhat this does?
It does an interesting tool tohelp you discern what kind of
challenge or businessopportunity you're dealing with.
It's in a nutshell it's simple,complicated, complex and
chaotic.
What this model helps youunderstand is what you're
(22:47):
working on predictable.
Do you know all the parts?
Do you understand what the A toB is and how to get there?
And if so, the machine modelmight be very appropriate.
If you've got something more inthe complex and chaotic areas,
that's when this living systemmodel can be very helpful,
because the starting point isnot to lock down on a prescribed
(23:09):
route, is really to start withobserving the system, trying to
see what all the differentpatterns are that are emerging,
what's working, what do we wantmore of, what do we need to
attend to that we don't, andreally engage people in that
inquiry and questioning ratherthan directing and telling, and
(23:31):
both can be valuable and justdepends on what your challenge
is.
So that's where I think thatother tool, the appreciative
inquiry approach, comes in and abook you can go look at as
appreciative inquiry for changemanagement, using appreciative
inquiry to facilitateorganizational development and
that lays out an approach inwhich you are trying to
(23:51):
understand how people are makingsense of their environment, of
this chaos, of this challenge,of all the complexity, and then
from there what can emerge ispriorities.
Here's what we're gonna begin,here's what we're going to
experiment with, here's whatwe're gonna be looking to learn
and then iterate from there,because in complexity there's
just way too many variables,there's too many independent
(24:13):
parts that we don't quiteunderstand yet.
Travis Mallett (24:15):
Well, thank you very much for teaching us about
these concepts.
This was really enlighteningand it was a pleasure to have
you on the show.
Can you tell our listeners howthey can get touched with you?
Kati Livingston (24:26):
You can find me on LinkedIn K-A-T-I Livingston.
I'd be happy to connect andhear from you all and Travis, I
just want to say thanks againfor having me on.
Travis Mallett (24:35):
Thank you.
Wow, that was a lot.
If you're like me, you might bethinking.
Well, that escalated quickly.
We started off innocent andnaive, hoping to understand what
organizations are.
The textbook definition seemedsimple enough An organization is
a network of individualsforming a coordinated system of
(24:58):
specialized activities.
But rewind the clock a fewbillion years and we find that
organizations are deeplyconnected with one of the most
remarkable and mysteriousfeatures of the universe
emergence, connected with themystery of life itself, a stamp
of the divine, if you will.
And when we see organizationsin this way, in a way that is
(25:21):
similar to a colony of ants,where the cells of the human
body all working together toproduce the human phenomenon, we
expand our understanding ofwhat an organization is.
Organizations may be betterthought of as living systems.
And then we barely cracked openthe door of this idea and we're
(25:43):
drowned in a deluge of newinformation and ways of looking
at organizations.
But don't worry, we're going tobe diving into all these
different topics in futureepisodes.
Before we wrap up, I want tooffer two different perspectives
or dimensions on this topic, ananalogy to help provide some
(26:05):
structure to the organizationsas machines versus living
systems idea and implicationsfor where we should go next in
our study of organizations andmanagement.
Before entering the managementand business world, I got
degrees in electricalengineering, mathematics and
music and if I were asked whatis the one thing that is common
(26:27):
between all three topics, Iwould say categorically it's the
philosophical concept ofabstraction.
We're filtering out complexdetails to see higher order,
phenomenon which I think isclosely related to the idea of
emergence.
Does this sound like the startof another philosophical tangent
(26:47):
?
Well, if you insist, I'll giveyou a two for one, special, just
this once and only because it'sa special occasion the very
first episode of the managementtheory toolbox Plus.
As you probably alreadyrealized, I like philosophical
tangents.
So here we go.
Let's take Ohm's law, forexample.
(27:12):
If you aren't familiar withOhm's law, it's just the
relationship between voltage,current and resistance.
V equals I times r.
Electrical engineering would notbe possible if we didn't have
ways of simplifying thecomplexities of the physical
world.
Under the surface we have wavepropagation, quantum
(27:32):
electrodynamics and particlephysics.
Designing something as simpleas a voltage divider would be
difficult and certainly noteconomical if we had to take
into account everything, if wedidn't have some way of
simplifying the problem.
And if we didn't have any waysof simplifying the problem.
This would not just bedifficult, it would literally be
impossible, because we have notyet learned everything there is
(27:57):
to know about how the physicalworld works.
The ravel hole of science may beinfinitely deep for all we know
, but we have discovered thatunder certain conditions, say if
a circuit is small enoughcompared to the relevant signal
frequencies and if there's noenergy storage components in the
circuit, then we can use what'scalled the lumped circuit model
and the measurements andequations result in a simple,
(28:19):
predictable equation Ohm's law.
But here's the catch as soon aswe have a circuit that breaks
those constraints, we find thatour measurements do not match
the predictions of Ohm's law.
We need to start taking intoaccount the complex underlying
phenomena, otherwise we're goingto be left guessing and using
the wrong tools for the job.
(28:40):
This is just like theorganizations as machines versus
living systems.
Under certain conditions, ifthe problem to be solved is
linear and predictable and ifthe desired result is
well-defined, we can think ofour organization as a machine,
and this can be a powerful toolfor controlling our business
processes to achieve an optimaloutcome.
(29:02):
But, as Katie mentioned, evensuch predictable systems can
break the constraints of themachine's model, workers might
get bored.
Changes in the social orpolitical climate may affect
both workers and the businessenvironment, causing cracks to
appear in the so-calledorganizational machine.
And that's where we mustabandon the simplicity of the
(29:22):
machine model and realize thatwe're working with a living
system.
It's useful to zoom in and outof different levels of
abstraction to look at anorganization as a machine in one
moment, when the conditions areright, when the problem to be
solved fits the constraints ofthe predictable linear causality
, and the next moment to realizethe complexities of the living
(29:44):
system as soon as there aresigns there might be more going
on under the surface.
And there are always complexhuman interactions going on
under the surface.
We understand that the study oforganizations is like an
intricate tapestry.
Pulling on one thread can causethe whole pattern to shift, and
that leads us to where we'regoing next in the Management
(30:06):
Theory Toolbox, see, once weopen the door to the living
systems model of organizations,we find a whole host of
interactions rooted in humanbehavior.
The study of human behavior inorganizations is called
organizational behavior.
If we only had the scientificmodel of management at our
disposal, we might think thatsquishy, fuzzy topics like
(30:28):
employee emotion, personality,motivation and communication are
not that important, but thatall changes under the living
systems model.
These become not just auxiliarytopics but central ones that
touch every aspect of ourbusiness in ways that we've only
barely scratched the surface.
It's going to be a long journeyand there are so many topics to
(30:52):
cover, but this idea of livingsystems provides the foundation,
the bedrock, even thejustification for the relevance
of organizational behavior.
As Katie said, organizationsare a human phenomenon and we're
going to revisit this concepttime and time again.
So bookmark this episode andperhaps listen to it more than
(31:15):
once, because we're going to becoming back and grounding
ourselves in this idea.
So that's it for our firstepisode of the Management Theory
Toolbox.
Stay tuned for part two, wherewe talk more about emergence, to
get a better grasp on the topic, as well as explore some
practical examples of the livingsystems idea.
(31:36):
As always, each episode isbased on the latest and most
robust management theory.
Check out the show notes, whichcontain citations, references
and links to the source materialfor every management theory
concept in the episode.
Until then, keep exploring,keep learning and keep building
your Management Theory Toolbox.
Almost like these amoebas that we're trying
to adapt together and figure outnot only what's coming but how
can we best adapt and thrive andstay alive.
Because that's the other thingtoo about the living system
model.
It's all about what is givinglife to the system.
Living things want to survive,and so they'll find ways to do
that.
Travis Mallett (00:22):
Welcome to another episode of the
Management Theory Toolbox, yourtop destination to understand
the behind the scenes theory ofthe management and business
world.
If you're an entrepreneur,manager or even just someone
interested in the business worldand you're always curious about
the why behind certainmanagement concepts, not just
(00:43):
the what, then you're in theright place.
I'm your host, travis Mallett,and today we'll be venturing
into the fascinating world oforganizations and emergence.
Let's start with a basic butcrucial question what is an
organization?
From your local corner bakeryto multinational tech giants
(01:05):
like Microsoft and Intel,organizations are a fundamental
part of modern society, so muchso that several commentators
from Harvard Universityexpressed it this way Modern
societies are not marketeconomies.
They are organizationaleconomies, in which companies
are the chief actors in creatingvalue and advancing economic
(01:29):
progress.
So here's a textbook definitionof an organization.
An organization is a network ofindividuals forming a
coordinated system ofspecialized activities.
They aim to achieve specificgoals over an extended period,
with continuity over time,regardless of changes in
individual membership.
Now, this definition might seemstraightforward, and you
(01:54):
probably could have taken a goodstab at guessing something
relatively close to it if I hadasked you out of the blue.
But at the management theorytoolbox.
We always want to look behindthe scenes.
Forget the boring textbookdefinition.
Let's develop a deeper view oforganizations, one which adds a
bit of intrigue and mystery tothe concept, in a way that just
(02:16):
might become a tool in yourmanagement toolbox.
You might recall from theintroductory episode that
studying management is likegazing at the stars, and
infinite number of data pointsand concepts are in our view.
Today, we're going to take thatperhaps a bit too literally.
Does this sound like it callsfor a philosophical tangent?
(02:39):
I wouldn't expect anything less.
So pack a lunch.
We might end up in someunexpected places.
The story of our universe, oftentermed cosmic evolution or
Darwinian cosmology, beganaround 13.8 billion years ago.
This narrative takes us from ahomogenous point of pure energy
(03:03):
to an explosion, or rather anexpansion.
The four fundamental forcesseparated electrons and nuclei
formed out of.
Hold on, we're getting a call.
Yeah, I had a question.
Are you sure this has somethingto do with management?
I wasn't expecting a scienceclass.
(03:24):
That's a good question.
Hang on, we're getting thereand we're going to end up with a
whole new way of understandingorganizations, one that just
might have a real impact on yourbusiness ventures.
So where were we.
Oh yeah, the Big Bang formedatoms, and those atoms clustered
(03:45):
, forming stars and planets.
Stars, through nuclear fusion,expanded the periodic table from
the original three elements toalmost a hundred naturally
occurring chemical elements.
They spread these elementsthroughout the universe through
supernovae explosions.
The dust of the Earth broughtforth single-celled life, which
eventually evolved into morecomplex organisms and societies.
(04:09):
The underlying unifiers in thistale are evolution and
complexity, interweavingphysical, biological and
cultural changes in a broad,inclusive cosmic evolutionary
scenario.
Together they produce aphenomenon known as emergence.
Emergence in its most basicform is a process where the
(04:30):
whole becomes more than just thesum of its parts.
It's the complexity that arisesfrom a collection of
interacting simpler elements.
Atoms combine to producemolecules which exhibit
characteristics and behaviorsignificantly different from
their underlying constituents.
Molecules combine together toproduce cells, which again
(04:52):
display emergent behavior quiteunlike their individual parts.
Single cells combine togetherto produce multicellular
organisms, and so on.
This story culminates in themost complex object currently
known to exist in the universe,the human brain, where cells and
neurons combine to produce acumulative, emergent behavior
(05:12):
that is absolutely wildlydifferent from any of the
underlying elements.
So what exactly does this haveto do with business and
organizations?
From a philosophical sense.
Organizations are one of thelatest developments in the
universe's continual unfoldingof emergent behavior.
Ever since humans began forminggroups to accomplish unified
(05:36):
goals, they've put on animpressive display of the latest
unfolding of emergence.
And when we participate in thebusiness world, we are
participating in the greatestshow on earth, to repurpose the
phrase from Dawkins, a show thathas produced wonders of
unimaginable complexitycomputers, the internet, asphalt
(05:57):
, space travel and Snapchat.
This is the essence of emergentbehavior.
Okay, let's come back to earth.
After that philosophicaltangent, you might be wondering
if there are any practicalapplications for this idea.
In fact, I think this idea thatorganizations are a spectacular
(06:17):
example of emergence, perhapseven the pinnacle of emergence,
in nature, this idea ofemergence leads us to a
management theory with profoundimplications for our day-to-day
activities in the business world.
It's a view of organizations asliving systems rather than as
machines.
To help us explore this idea,we're joined by Katie Livingston
(06:41):
.
Hi, katie, and thanks forjoining us.
Kati Livingston (06:44):
Yeah, Travis, thanks for having me on.
Travis Mallett (06:47):
Before we get started, go ahead and introduce
yourself and tell us a bit aboutyour background and work.
Kati Livingston (06:53):
I'm Katie Livingston.
I am an instructor in thegraduate management program at
the Harvard Extension School.
I've been doing that for about12 years now.
I also have a consultingpractice.
It's called CMS Associates.
That stands for coachingmind-able systems.
We're all about systems and thehuman messiness of systems.
My background is in adultdevelopment and psychology, and
(07:15):
so that's what brings me to thiswork.
Travis Mallett (07:18):
Thanks, katie, and just to say we're thrilled
to have you on the show Today.
We're just exploring theconcept of emergence in nature
and discussing how organizationsfit into that story that's been
unfolding.
A question that comes up is areorganizations more than just a
fixed web of individuals?
Maybe we should be thinkingabout them as living systems.
(07:41):
Before we get into that, Ithink we should first talk about
an all-too-common counterviewthe model of organizations as
machines.
Could you tell us a bit aboutthat idea, the idea of
organizations as machines, andmaybe tell us where that idea
comes from?
Kati Livingston (08:01):
Yeah, sure, this idea of organizations as
machines has been around for awhile.
It really got codified in theearly 1900s.
The basic idea is thatorganizations exist to produce
something and the activity ofproducing that something can be
broken into parts and roles andprocesses can be created that
(08:24):
make production happen asefficiently and seamlessly as
possible.
The term really comes fromFrederick Taylor.
He was an American engineer whopublished the Principles of
Scientific Management back in1912.
That was really the beginningof companies using these series
of rules that are verydisciplined and routinized to
organize human behavior.
Travis Mallett (08:46):
Thanks, giddy.
I come from an engineeringbackground.
Engineering is all aboutabstraction, modeling and
control.
The process is to abstract fromthe complex details of a system
, circuit or product and dialinto the kernel of functionality
(09:06):
and model it.
Once you can model a system,then you can control it.
Now, when you apply thatmindset to organizations,
imagining them as machines andsetting aside the intricate
human dynamics, it seems like itgives clarity on how
information and materials flowthrough the various processes.
(09:28):
It's not surprising to hearthat this approach played a
pivotal role during theIndustrial Revolution and in
tackling certain businesschallenges.
Could you shed some light onwhich problems this model fits
best?
Kati Livingston (09:45):
The engineering context that you just
introduced is quite relevanthere.
This metaphor is useful whenthere's one best way of doing
something, or you can figure outwhat's the best option of many.
You know what your startingpoint is, you know what endpoint
you're after, and then fromthat you can build a system
that's linear and predictable.
For example, I work a lot infinancial services and there are
(10:07):
some processes that need to bepredictable and linear.
There are clear rules to follow, there needs to be a process,
there have to be timelines.
Building a system that's linearand predictable allows everybody
on the team to know what thesteps are, they know what their
roles are and they know what theend result looks like.
In a highly compliantenvironment like financial
(10:28):
services, you do not wantmistakes.
I would assume the same thingin a lot of engineering
processes where people going offthe rails is going to introduce
potential harm not only to theworkers themselves, but also to
the end user.
This idea of the machine modelis when you've got highly
predictable results that youwant to get after and you're
(10:49):
trying to produce somethingagain that predictable.
Travis Mallett (10:52):
So it seems that viewing organizations as
machines aligns closely with thenotion of predictable linear
systems.
But when we think aboutorganizations and the concept of
emergence, we realize prettyquickly that organizations might
be much more intricate thanthat, maybe resisting the neat
(11:14):
boxes and boundaries that themachine model might try to
impose.
So where does this organization, as machines approach, start to
break down?
Kati Livingston (11:26):
Yeah, and this will lead into the other model
we're going to talk about livingsystems.
The machine model reallyencourages predictability, and
in organizations where humanactivity is involved, that same
predictability can often promoteboredom.
I come in, I do the same thingevery day.
I know what's going to happen,and from that the brain starts
to build patterns and habits,which the brain loves because it
(11:48):
helps us be efficient.
And those same patterns andhabits can often lead us to stop
paying attention when thingschange, which change is always
happening in organizations.
Or you may find that thisprocess or model we built needs
some updating and innovating.
It's this double-edged swordwhere the benefits of the
machine model actually canhinder us, because we can either
(12:10):
get bored or we stop payingattention to things.
There's a couple other commoncriticisms of the model, and
those include that it places astory in the hands of a manager
or a leader and that the workersjust follow instructions, that
human workers become just partsof the machine, and then, when
the processes or humans don'twork according to plan, they can
(12:31):
often get framed as problems,and often humans get lumped into
that category of problem.
That's when this starts to notwork in our favor.
Travis Mallett (12:41):
So let's shift gears to the alternative
perspective, the idea oforganizations as living human
systems.
Can you tell us what it entailsto view organizations through
this lens and perhaps some ofthe ramifications of adopting
such a mindset?
Kati Livingston (12:58):
Yeah, so it's a different way of looking at
what organizations are.
Organizations in this sense arenot an entity in and of
themselves, but they're thecreation of the people within
them.
The other principle of theliving system model is that
humans are bringing their ownpast experiences and
expectations to organizationalactivity.
(13:19):
So there might be a dictatedone right way, but in the minds
and hearts of the people comingto work there are many different
ways of doing something.
There's a book that we actuallyuse in our class, the
Appreciative Inquiry for ChangeManagement, and the authors, I
think, put it really nicely injust calling this kind of
organization as a humanphenomenon.
It really puts humaninteraction and interactivity at
(13:42):
the heart and soul of whatorganizations are.
Some of the underlyingassumptions of the living system
model are that humans are notalways rational.
Organizing human activity isgoing to be chaotic at times.
It's going to be naturallymessy and that's not actually a
bad thing.
It's not a problem to solve,but rather it's a series of
(14:02):
conversations to work through,to have people make sense of
what they need to be doing, whatare the ways we want to be
working together and what arethe next steps we need to take.
One of the things aboutthinking of organizations in
this way is it takes thepressure off of trying to fix
and stabilize things and allowspeople to share what they're
seeing, contribute their ideas,reinforce the patterns of
(14:24):
interaction that are giving lifeto the system and producing
results that the organizationwants to see.
Travis Mallett (14:32):
The something that I'm hearing from your
description is that this modelrecognizes and embraces a whole
bunch of messy internalinteractions within an
organization, which makes sensewhen we think of something as
being alive.
But I think the living systemidea also has another important
(14:52):
implication.
When we think of livingorganisms, we also understand
that they're located within andare responsive to their
environment.
Can you tell us a bit moreabout the external influences in
the context of the living?
Kati Livingston (15:08):
system.
Yeah, so this model alsoassumes that the external
environment is part of thesystem, whether it be changes in
the industry maybe there's newinnovations by competitors,
changes in the marketplace,humans need to be able to
respond and adapt their activitythrough what they're picking up
.
The pandemic is a great example.
So there's a team and they allhave these different roles and
(15:31):
ways in which they're working.
They know what they need to do,they need to talk to each other
, they need to share informationand it got some sort of
root-nised way of going abouttheir day and getting things
done.
The pandemic was an externalenvironment force that came in
and really disrupted that systemthat they had in place, and
(15:51):
what I observed is that teamswho struggled the most wanted to
get back to those processesthat they knew they wanted to
lock down on.
Okay, here's what we need to do, here's how we need to do it.
Let's get back to work, let'snot be inefficient, and the
teams that thrived took on thatmore living system model, which
(16:12):
was whoa.
There's this thing that justcame out of the blue.
We do need to figure out how toget back online and work
together, but maybe our cartsneed to interact in different
ways that we hadn't been doingbefore.
An emergence, almost, of a newsystem, rather than trying to
stay so rigid at old roles likea machine.
Travis Mallett (16:31):
So the pandemic is a really interesting example
because it touches on so manydifferent aspects of an
organization employee health,psychology and, of course, the
economics of the businessenvironment.
And that makes me think thatthe living systems idea might
also be integral to corporatestrategy as well, since strategy
(16:53):
is fundamentally about findingthat strategic fit between an
organization and its environment.
But this seems like it adds awhole new dimension to strategy,
since the living system ideaimplies the organizations are
not just these static objectsthat you can pick up and move
through the business environmentper a strategic analysis,
(17:17):
Because they're also being actedupon by the business
environment as well.
Kati Livingston (17:22):
Yeah, and it's recognizing too that once you've
figured out your strategy, itdoesn't mean that that's going
to be it.
The external environment isgoing to continue to change and
there's got to be a dialoguebetween the organization and
what's happening in the externalenvironment.
And the dialogue also needs tobe happening within.
So it really is like theseanibas that we're trying to
(17:44):
adapt together and figure outnot only what's coming, but how
can we best adapt and thrive andstay alive.
Because that's the other thingtoo about the living system
model.
It's all about what is givinglife to the system.
Living things want to survive,and so they'll find ways to do
that.
Travis Mallett (17:59):
So how does thinking about organizations
this way change our behavior asmanagers or business owners?
Kati Livingston (18:07):
Yeah, what I find interesting about
understanding the contrast ofthese two models is that they
raise our awareness about habitsand the possibility of choice.
The scientific managementapproach has a long legacy in
business and management theoryand management study, and so
there can be a tendency forleaders to assume that business
(18:29):
activity can be controlled,rationalized and fixed.
It's something that's just beenin our vernacular for so long,
and I found that leaders oftenuse scientific management
language out of habit when theyactually might want something
different of their teams andtheir organizations.
So I'll give you a specificexample.
I once worked with a team whereI was brought in because the
(18:51):
team leader really hadaspirations of her teams being
collaborative and relying lesson her as the leader and more on
each other as resources.
In our initial conversation,just understanding what would
you like to see?
And she said I'd really likethem to be a well-oiled machine.
So in my mind I thought, ok,there's that scientific
management language one.
(19:12):
What she's describing to meisn't really fitting in that
metaphor.
But what was interesting is whenI interviewed all the team
members and I said listen, yourleaders expressed the desire to
have you all act as a well-oiledmachine.
I asked them what that lookedlike.
What would they be doing day today?
How would they be interactingwith each other?
And what I found were a coupleof predominant themes.
(19:34):
One is that people describetheir role as being well, I know
what my role is on the team.
I know what I'm supposed to dowhen I come in every day.
I know what our deadlines are.
I know what my part is on that,and it gets really frustrating
when somebody on the teamdoesn't meet the deadline, and
so they were already describingthemselves as machine parts.
I then asked the question aboutokay, so when that happens,
(19:58):
what's the next step, what tendsto happen next?
And they said well, we go tothe leader, we report to her
that somebody didn't followthrough or needs to be spoken
with, and that kind of thing.
What was interesting I found isthat the language that the
leader was describing was reallyprobably not even consciously
(20:18):
directing team members' conceptof what they were supposed to do
and how they were supposed tobe, and directed their behaviors
.
When we came together and had abig conversation about this,
what they decided is reallythat's not what they want,
that's definitely not what theteam leader wanted, and so they
scratched around and played withsome different metaphors, and
(20:40):
what they came up with insteadis we need this team to act more
like an aunt colony.
Now, none of us are scientists,so this may not even have been
100% accurate, but the spirit ofthe idea is that, yes, they
came in, they still had theirroles, but when something
happened, when somebody neededsome help, they were willing to
(21:00):
reallocate resources in time togo help that person.
So the aunt colony analogy islike listen, you can build an
aunt colony, you can build aperfect system of tunnels and
interconnections, but a stormcomes and it wrecks it.
Now you've got to start overand read it boy resources.
So it just gave them a morefluid way of thinking about
themselves and helped themunderstand the expectations a
(21:23):
little bit differently andhelped shift their understanding
about what the team leaderwanted and also what the
behavior would look like.
So that's the choice I'mtalking about.
I think that this is aninteresting model because it
gives people different choicesabout what it is they're looking
to create.
Travis Mallett (21:41):
So just dismantling the organization as
machines model seems like a goodstart because it opens our eyes
to a lot of the complexitiesthat are happening around us.
But and I'm sure some of ourlisteners can relate it feels
like we've cracked open the door, peeked behind the curtain, and
we might regret it.
I forget the clear,well-established principles of
(22:04):
scientific management as we getthrown into this messy, chaotic
water with only a vague ideaabout how to swim around.
And I'm wondering are there anytools or frameworks that we
might use to help navigatebusiness life once we realize
we're working within livingsystems?
Kati Livingston (22:24):
So I think there's a couple of things that
come to mind.
One is the Kunevin model.
It's spelled C-Y-N-E-F-I-N, andwhat this does?
It does an interesting tool tohelp you discern what kind of
challenge or businessopportunity you're dealing with.
It's in a nutshell it's simple,complicated, complex and
chaotic.
What this model helps youunderstand is what you're
(22:47):
working on predictable.
Do you know all the parts?
Do you understand what the A toB is and how to get there?
And if so, the machine modelmight be very appropriate.
If you've got something more inthe complex and chaotic areas,
that's when this living systemmodel can be very helpful,
because the starting point isnot to lock down on a prescribed
(23:09):
route, is really to start withobserving the system, trying to
see what all the differentpatterns are that are emerging,
what's working, what do we wantmore of, what do we need to
attend to that we don't, andreally engage people in that
inquiry and questioning ratherthan directing and telling, and
(23:31):
both can be valuable and justdepends on what your challenge
is.
So that's where I think thatother tool, the appreciative
inquiry approach, comes in and abook you can go look at as
appreciative inquiry for changemanagement, using appreciative
inquiry to facilitateorganizational development and
that lays out an approach inwhich you are trying to
(23:51):
understand how people are makingsense of their environment, of
this chaos, of this challenge,of all the complexity, and then
from there what can emerge ispriorities.
Here's what we're gonna begin,here's what we're going to
experiment with, here's whatwe're gonna be looking to learn
and then iterate from there,because in complexity there's
just way too many variables,there's too many independent
(24:13):
parts that we don't quiteunderstand yet.
Travis Mallett (24:15):
Well, thank you very much for teaching us about
these concepts.
This was really enlighteningand it was a pleasure to have
you on the show.
Can you tell our listeners howthey can get touched with you?
Kati Livingston (24:26):
You can find me on LinkedIn K-A-T-I Livingston.
I'd be happy to connect andhear from you all and Travis, I
just want to say thanks againfor having me on.
Travis Mallett (24:35):
Thank you.
Wow, that was a lot.
If you're like me, you might bethinking.
Well, that escalated quickly.
We started off innocent andnaive, hoping to understand what
organizations are.
The textbook definition seemedsimple enough An organization is
a network of individualsforming a coordinated system of
(24:58):
specialized activities.
But rewind the clock a fewbillion years and we find that
organizations are deeplyconnected with one of the most
remarkable and mysteriousfeatures of the universe
emergence, connected with themystery of life itself, a stamp
of the divine, if you will.
And when we see organizationsin this way, in a way that is
(25:21):
similar to a colony of ants,where the cells of the human
body all working together toproduce the human phenomenon, we
expand our understanding ofwhat an organization is.
Organizations may be betterthought of as living systems.
And then we barely cracked openthe door of this idea and we're
(25:43):
drowned in a deluge of newinformation and ways of looking
at organizations.
But don't worry, we're going tobe diving into all these
different topics in futureepisodes.
Before we wrap up, I want tooffer two different perspectives
or dimensions on this topic, ananalogy to help provide some
(26:05):
structure to the organizationsas machines versus living
systems idea and implicationsfor where we should go next in
our study of organizations andmanagement.
Before entering the managementand business world, I got
degrees in electricalengineering, mathematics and
music and if I were asked whatis the one thing that is common
(26:27):
between all three topics, Iwould say categorically it's the
philosophical concept ofabstraction.
We're filtering out complexdetails to see higher order,
phenomenon which I think isclosely related to the idea of
emergence.
Does this sound like the startof another philosophical tangent
(26:47):
?
Well, if you insist, I'll giveyou a two for one, special, just
this once and only because it'sa special occasion the very
first episode of the managementtheory toolbox Plus.
As you probably alreadyrealized, I like philosophical
tangents.
So here we go.
Let's take Ohm's law, forexample.
(27:12):
If you aren't familiar withOhm's law, it's just the
relationship between voltage,current and resistance.
V equals I times r.
Electrical engineering would notbe possible if we didn't have
ways of simplifying thecomplexities of the physical
world.
Under the surface we have wavepropagation, quantum
(27:32):
electrodynamics and particlephysics.
Designing something as simpleas a voltage divider would be
difficult and certainly noteconomical if we had to take
into account everything, if wedidn't have some way of
simplifying the problem.
And if we didn't have any waysof simplifying the problem.
This would not just bedifficult, it would literally be
impossible, because we have notyet learned everything there is
(27:57):
to know about how the physicalworld works.
The ravel hole of science may beinfinitely deep for all we know
, but we have discovered thatunder certain conditions, say if
a circuit is small enoughcompared to the relevant signal
frequencies and if there's noenergy storage components in the
circuit, then we can use what'scalled the lumped circuit model
and the measurements andequations result in a simple,
(28:19):
predictable equation Ohm's law.
But here's the catch as soon aswe have a circuit that breaks
those constraints, we find thatour measurements do not match
the predictions of Ohm's law.
We need to start taking intoaccount the complex underlying
phenomena, otherwise we're goingto be left guessing and using
the wrong tools for the job.
(28:40):
This is just like theorganizations as machines versus
living systems.
Under certain conditions, ifthe problem to be solved is
linear and predictable and ifthe desired result is
well-defined, we can think ofour organization as a machine,
and this can be a powerful toolfor controlling our business
processes to achieve an optimaloutcome.
(29:02):
But, as Katie mentioned, evensuch predictable systems can
break the constraints of themachine's model, workers might
get bored.
Changes in the social orpolitical climate may affect
both workers and the businessenvironment, causing cracks to
appear in the so-calledorganizational machine.
And that's where we mustabandon the simplicity of the
(29:22):
machine model and realize thatwe're working with a living
system.
It's useful to zoom in and outof different levels of
abstraction to look at anorganization as a machine in one
moment, when the conditions areright, when the problem to be
solved fits the constraints ofthe predictable linear causality
, and the next moment to realizethe complexities of the living
(29:44):
system as soon as there aresigns there might be more going
on under the surface.
And there are always complexhuman interactions going on
under the surface.
We understand that the study oforganizations is like an
intricate tapestry.
Pulling on one thread can causethe whole pattern to shift, and
that leads us to where we'regoing next in the Management
(30:06):
Theory Toolbox, see, once weopen the door to the living
systems model of organizations,we find a whole host of
interactions rooted in humanbehavior.
The study of human behavior inorganizations is called
organizational behavior.
If we only had the scientificmodel of management at our
disposal, we might think thatsquishy, fuzzy topics like
(30:28):
employee emotion, personality,motivation and communication are
not that important, but thatall changes under the living
systems model.
These become not just auxiliarytopics but central ones that
touch every aspect of ourbusiness in ways that we've only
barely scratched the surface.
It's going to be a long journeyand there are so many topics to
(30:52):
cover, but this idea of livingsystems provides the foundation,
the bedrock, even thejustification for the relevance
of organizational behavior.
As Katie said, organizationsare a human phenomenon and we're
going to revisit this concepttime and time again.
So bookmark this episode andperhaps listen to it more than
(31:15):
once, because we're going to becoming back and grounding
ourselves in this idea.
So that's it for our firstepisode of the Management Theory
Toolbox.
Stay tuned for part two, wherewe talk more about emergence, to
get a better grasp on the topic, as well as explore some
practical examples of the livingsystems idea.
(31:36):
As always, each episode isbased on the latest and most
robust management theory.
Check out the show notes, whichcontain citations, references
and links to the source materialfor every management theory
concept in the episode.
Until then, keep exploring,keep learning and keep building
your Management Theory Toolbox.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.