3.4 SYSTEMS THEORY
3.4.1 Organizational Theory and Systems Thinking
In using organizational theory and creativity in the management of organizations, Morgan (2011) uses metaphors to unpack organizational behaviour. The researcher supports this approach and adds that this perspective can include social theory, as organizations can also be construed as social entities. The researcher’s expansion of Morgan’s view is premised on the earlier exposition of organizations, in this case youth development academies, as social organizations that have a duty and purpose to impart values, culture and skills development within the context of societal expectations. The use of metaphors in organizational theory is enriched by Ortenblad (2016), Pinto (2016), McCabe (2016) and relatedly Kemp (2016), who use imagery to evaluate, critique and conduct empirical and experiential observations to build fantasy and conceptual development out of the images created. They argue for the use of metaphors to gain a better understanding of organizations and view the metaphors described below as critical.
Organizations as machines – this view is based on the notion of organizations achieving their owners’ objectives and on linear approaches. It emphasises achieving efficiencies. This metaphor is diametrically opposed to the earlier definitions of systems theory and approaches that emphasize non-linearity.
Organizations as organisms – looks at organizations as the wholes that are made up of various intricately interconnected parts. It views organizations as open systems that are constantly in touch with their environments through the exchange of energies. This characterization of organizations firmly supports the notion of systems thinking illustrated earlier by several scholars placing emphasis on interrelations, interconnections and interdependencies.
Organizations as brains –emphasises control and decision-making. Continuous learning is promoted by this metaphor. The systems thinking and approach
requires abstract mental models and by assumption, this requires continuous learning and acquisition of knowledge and skills.
Flux and transformation – calls for managers to understand and interact with the negative and positive feedback loops as they pursue better understanding of their environments. This metaphor is congruent with the properties of the feedback and control within the complex adaptive system.
Culture – according to this metaphor people are valuable assets in their organizations. The manner in which they perceive the world has a significant role in the manner in which they respond to certain dynamics within organizations.
Political metaphor – looks at the power relationships within organizations and the ways in which these manifest themselves in these organizations’ management.
The source of this power determines how individuals within organizations relate and compete with one another. Competition could also be the source of conflict.
Depending on how the conflict is managed, it can become either functional or dysfunctional conflict.
According to Senge (1990), system dynamics is concerned with the feedback loops and looks at the bigger picture of structures that form the complex systems. The various layers of an organization are related through the feedback loops, whether positive or negative.
System dynamics is concerned with drawing boundaries that enclose all that has a relationship with the system and keep those that do not have any relationships with the system out.
According to several scholars, namely Beer (1974), Edwards (1992), Cooper (1998), Anderson (1999) and Perez (2010), organizational cybernetics is concerned with organizational control. The various parts of the organization have a locus of control that determine the way in which the various parts respond and behave under different conditions. The risk is when the various parts assume lives of their own. The viable systems model (VSM) prescribes the organizational designs that are adaptive and focused on achieving goals (Espejo, 1990; Jackson, 2003; Schwaninger, 2006;
Hoverstadt, 2011; Reyes, 2011). VSM advocates for the establishment of organizational identity and purpose from which the various business units find meaning and relationships
with others are established. It deals with the challenges of centralization and decentralization by allowing the autonomy of various parts to achieve complementary relationships that mutually benefit each component and the organization as a whole.
Wherein there are weaknesses in governance and management controls, deficiencies in the achievement of objectives, the organization is bound to suffer inefficiencies. It can therefore be concluded that even in instances where there are good organizational designs with well-defined functional decompositions through cybernetic controls, the absence of capable and skilled individuals at leadership, management and production levels will be counter-productive.
The strictly stratified and hierarchical organizations that are rule and procedure bound are stifled and denied innovation and creativity. Jackson (2003) calls for creative holism, where organizations are viewed as a holistic system made up of several interconnected parts that are relevant for the functional existence of the others. This argument is supported by Senge et al., (1992), who call for greater flexibility for organizational management, as they are becoming increasingly more complex. He calls for recognition of the sprawl of organizations as they naturally evolve to create more efficiencies and relevance in the face of rapid economic, social, technological, environmental and legal changes at any given time. This could be achieved, he argues, through innovations with regard to the reward systems, redesigning structures to reduce hierarchy and too many layers and increasing decentralized decision-making to a local level.
The methodologies that assume a pluralistic approach to the management of organizations and understanding the significantly complex environments in which they operate would seem more viable. This is often referred to as a soft systems approach, as opposed to a hard systems approach. This could hold true for the youth development academies given their complex operational environments.
Jackson (2003) holds that looking at organizations’ predetermined goals and objectives in an attempt to understand the organizations’ purpose cannot work. Jackson (2003) holds that this approach ignores the complexity, dynamism and multitude of levels that exist in organizations, the beliefs, politics, power and cultures (Senge, 1990).
Organizations display various characteristics at their various levels, depending on the size of the organization, the various hierarchical layers and its spread across the country.
If the organization is multinational, the level of complexity increases, as it has to deal with its internal politics, power relationships, culture and the operating environment in the home country (Khanyile, 2015). This is compounded by the complex nature of operating environments in the host countries. When analysing such organizations, the vertical hierarchical complexities, the horizontal complexities and the spatial complexities should be taken into account to fully appreciate the environmental issues with which such organizations must contend (Khanyile, Mkhonta & Xaba, 2014). For smaller organizations such as the NPOs, as outlined earlier, they display characteristics of leadership and management deficits, unable to attract adequate funding and skilled leaders, managers and staff, dichotomous trajectories between the NPO and funders, local contestation for control and access to resources.