Summary: Organizations Social
Systems Conducting
Experiments
Second Revised Edition
Jan Achterbergh & Dirk Vriens
Springer
,Inhoud
Chapter 1 – Introducing Organization as Social Systems Conducting Experiments.......................... 3
Chapter 2 – The Experimental Arche: Ashby’s Cybernetics ............................................................. 15
Chapter 3 – The Experimental Arche Continued: Von Foerster on Observing Systems ................. 36
Chapter 4 – The Social ‘Arche’, Organizations as Social Systems: Luhmann ................................. 41
Chapter 5 – Epilogue to Part I: The Two ‘Archai’ Combined ............................................................ 60
Chapter 6 – Beer: Functional Design Principles for Viable Infrastructures ...................................... 65
Chapter 7 – Specific Design Principles: de Sitter’s Organizational Structures................................. 82
Chapter 8 – Epilogue to Part II: Functional and Specific Design Principles ................................... 104
Chapter 9 – Poor Survival: Disciplining Organizational Behaviour ................................................. 108
2
,Chapter 1 – Introducing Organization as Social Systems Conducting Experiments
1.1. Introduction
The aim of this book is to describe organizations as social systems conducting experiments with
their survival. We want to explain what we mean by this description, and based on this explanation,
we want to formulate principles for the design of organizations, enabling them to survive, to
continue to conduct these experiments.
The main topic of the book: organizations as social systems conducting experiments and finding
principles to improve their design.
1.2. Making Sense of Organizations: From ‘Phenomena’ to ‘Key Features’
Organizations are social systems conducting experiments. This concurs with our everyday
experience with them. The procedure of starting with everyday experiences to end up with a theory
allowing to understand them as a large tradition, was already a part of Aristotle’s Method of study.
Aristotle’s Method starts with phenomena, things as they present themselves in our experience. He
collected commonly held opinions about it (endoxa). He analyzed these opinions to arrive at key
features of the phenomenon: its archai. Finally, he related these archai into a theory allowing for an
understanding of the phenomenon. By reasoning from the phenomenon, the thing as it presents
itself in our experience, to its (related) archai, Aristotle wanted to both remain as true as possible to
the phenomenon and penetrate to its intelligible core; to that which is characteristic of it, and
cannot be negated without negating the phenomenon altogether.
To explain our perspective on organization, we take as point of departure that we are already
entangled with the phenomenon we call organization. This seems a reasonable thing to do, for
organizations pervade almost every aspect of our lives (born into, schooled in, worked for,
purchase from, rely on, depend on, fear, need). We definitely know them because they are such an
important part of our world.
1.2.1. Situation 1: Strategy Formulation
Imagine a group of managers selected to formulate a new strategy, specifying the organization’s
medium-term goals.
Strategy formulation is a task of particular difficulty – choosing the wrong goals obviously has an
effect on the organization’s chances for survival. At the same time, there is no way to determine
with certainty the right strategy – it depends on many uncertain factors.
Relevant activities in strategy formulation are also social activities: they are carried out by means
of communication. Strategic issues are discussed and brought about in social interaction – in
communication.
Not only are strategic goals defined by means of communications, the discussion about them also
depends on and builds upon ideas, viewpoints and choices that are the result of previous
communication. Communication about strategic issues depends on earlier communication about
them. The same holds for choices resulting from previous social interaction. Choices that have
already been made with respect to strategic issues prior to the meeting structure the discussion,
for they determine, to a degree, the object of discussion and the way it is discussed.
In sum, with reference to the first situation, two relevant aspects can be highlighted:
1. It describes a stage in a more encompassing activity (strategy formulation) in which an
organization under conditions of uncertainty commits itself to goals that affect its survival.
2. It describes a social activity consisting of communication referring to communication.
By means of social interaction or communication, specific organizational members have
been selected to participate in the strategy formulation process.
The strategy formulation process itself consists of communication referring to
communication. Members of the strategy group express their ideas and viewpoints,
reacting to and trying to convince each other. They negotiate and compromise to
3
, safeguard their own position and/or what they perceive as the organization’s chances of
survival.
The communication of the managers refers to prior communications and the selections
communicated by them.
The resulting strategy communicates the selection of particular goals that function as a
point of departure for future communication.
Formulating a strategy is an activity aimed at the selection of goals. Dependent on the selected
goals and their realization, the organization’s chances of survival in its environment will be
affected. However, at the same time of selection, it is uncertain how the selected goal will affect the
organization’s survival. This makes the activity of selecting goals both difficult and risky.
1.2.2. Situation 2: A Worker in Trouble
Imagine an individual worker, operating a machine as part of producing some product.
For every task in an organization – at any organizational, strategic of operational level – it is
relevant to deal with disturbances in order to realize its goal. To deal with disturbances, we
regulate. Regulation is not easy, for most of the time it is impossible to predict when a disturbance
will occur and which disturbance will occur. One reason for this is that tasks in organizations
depend on the output of many other tasks, and each of these outputs may contain errors. Even if
the input for a task is ok, many things can go wrong when performing it.
Given the unpredictability of disturbances it is hard to determine a priori which regulatory actions
are needed. Therefore, instead of building a set of fixed regulatory actions into a task, it often
seems to be a better idea to equip workers with the potential to generate regulatory actions, given
the disturbing circumstances. But this also introduces uncertainty: since no a priori certain
regulatory activity can be given, regulatory actions have to be implemented per hypothesis: one
has to make a judgment about what will work in particular circumstances and try it out, even
though one cannot be sure about its effect.
Performing and regulating tasks is also always socially embedded. It always involves
communication and this communication includes negotiation, making compromises, exercising
power.
Performing tasks is also tied to communication in two other ways:
1. Everything we do in the context of our job can be seen as conveying some message. And,
if interpreted as conveying some message, it may trigger further interaction.
2. Almost every aspect of our job results from organizational decisions, i.e. results from
communicative processes.
So, the tasks we perform are socially embedded in at least three ways:
1. They depend on (the outcomes of organizational) communication.
2. Their performance and regulation involves communication.
3. Our (task-related) actions can always be interpreted as communicative acts.
With respect to this second situation, the following aspects can be distinguished:
1. It describes a worker selecting a regulatory activity under conditions of uncertainty.
Dealing with the disturbances is a case of operational regulation.
It is unclear what effects the selected act of regulation will have, both for the worker and
the organization’s chances of survival.
2. It describes regulation in organizations as a socially embedded activity.
The worker’s task is specified by means of prior communication.
The disturbance he faces can appear as such, because of prior communicatively
established norms.
The worker is inclined to regulate because he is socially expected to do so. Deviating
from this expectation may be socially construed as negligence, triggering a
conversation with the boss.
4
