Understanding Emergent Organisations - Semantic Scholar

CSRC

Page 1 of 11

Understanding Emergent Organisations Gurpreet Dhillon and James Backhouse

ABSTRACT

The paper discusses the effect of information systems on organisational structure. It argues that organisations can be effectively managed only if structures of power, authority, and responsibility are clearly understood. A conceptual framework for analysing these structures is proposed with examples drawn from a UK National Health Service case study.

Introduction We have sought to understand organisations as social systems for decades and increasingly organisations are also viewed as communication systems. In either case information plays a vital role in the success of the enterprise. With remarkable developments in information technology, the quality and efficacy of information has increased dramatically. Recent years have also seen information systems professionals shift the emphasis from technical to social considerations in designing information systems. However, the primary objective of incorporating social aspects of organisations in systems analysis and design remains unfulfilled. The main reason is that these research initiatives provide explanations based on the scientific view of reality, without adequate understanding of the social and organisational environment.

Information technology has changed the way in which business is done. As a consequence, information technology and information systems are viewed as strategic weapons, very important for the success of an enterprise (Tomlin, 1990; 1991; McFarlan and McKenny, 1983). They have profoundly affected the management structures of business organisation. Middle managers are the most concerned since information systems are 'flattening the middle management bulge' (Business Week, http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/People/BackhouseJ/emergentorganisations.htm

26/11/99

CSRC

Page 2 of 11

1983). Moreover, with the implementation of information systems, organisational structures, working methods, command and control procedures are also changing (Computing, 1992; Roach, 1992; Tomlin, 1991).

This paper discusses the effect of information systems on organisational structure. It evaluates the impact of a completely new formal structure on a predominantly informal one. The roles and responsibilities of individuals are regarded as central to such an evaluation. It introduces responsibility analysis and semantic analysis as techniques for understanding emergent forms of organisation. The discussion entails examples drawn from the UK National Health Services.

The Information Imperative

The increased availability of information, afforded by IT, means organisations must adapt accordingly. Management policy researchers have commented on the manner in which organisations alter their formal structures in order to achieve their goals (for example, Ansoff, 1991; 1987; Chandler, 1962). However as Buchanan and Linowes (1980) pointed out :

The relationship between structure and business plan has many dimensions. The key to a good design for an organisation is not only the match between strategy and structure but the more complex match involving strategy, structure, and other administrative systems.

Since computer based information systems are now widely used in administrative systems, it is important to see the manner in which they fit into the existing organisational structure. Only a proper fit facilitates strategy implementation (Bloomfield and Coombs, 1992; Mintzberg, 1983; Buchanan and Linowes, 1980; ).

In examining the influence of information systems on organisational structure, many researchers acknowledge the importance of social phenomena such as power, authority, and responsibility (for example, Bloomfield and Coombs, 1992; Roach, 1992; Fincham, 1992; Mintzberg, 1983; Buchanan and Linowes, 1980). Some theorists have even regarded designing information systems as similar to designing power systems (Boland, 1986). Others have viewed computer based information systems as social resources having little influence on power systems (Kling, 1991;

http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/People/BackhouseJ/emergentorganisations.htm

26/11/99

CSRC

Page 3 of 11

1980; Wynne and Otway, 1982). Mintzberg, while writing on the theory of management policy, highlights the concept of power in relation to influence, authority and control. He regards power to be central to all management activities. While he discusses the various issues related to this social phenomenon, he does not comment upon the manner in which the structures of power, authority, influence, control, and responsibility can be identified.

Whenever an organisation implements a new information system, it imposes a new formal structure on the existing informal environment, and this has profound consequences on the objectives, goals and the corporate strategy of an organisation. The effect can be multidimensional. The power and authority of one dominant group may shift to another; the influence of an existing player may be strengthened or the corporate mission and objectives of the management may even be legitimised. Whatever the impact of a new information system, the responsibilities shift. In order to understand, the shifts and the responsibilities in formal and informal context, it is important to identify the responsible agents. This allows us to comment on the influences the agents are subjected to, the range of conduct open to them and the communications into which they enter.

Thus it becomes very important to understand the relationship between power, authority and responsibility, which will help in the evaluation of managerial decision-making and of the lateral relationships amongst different interest groups. Bell (1975) views these phenomena as forms of human relations. He analyses power, influence and authority in terms of communication acts. Lukes (1974) on the other hand broadly classifies authority into two categories: when there is a conflict of interests and when not. According to him the forces of power generally come into play when there is a conflict of interests. Fincham (1992) looks into classic approaches such as that of Weber (1964), and highlights the importance of understanding power in terms of 'ruling groups' and 'rationales of action' which give rise to dominant forms of knowledge.

Whatever the perspective we adopt in understanding power, it becomes apparent that structures of power shape structures of authority which in turn determine responsibility (through legitimation of decisions) in an organisation. The interplay between these three social phenomena is determined by an intricate system of action. Each actor in the system exercises control over parts of the system. Interaction gives rise to an emergent form of behaviour, discussed in detail in the following section. Such interactions always take place in an organisation, but become more obvious when major changes, such as a new computer based information system, are initiated. As a consequence, the roles and responsibilities of actors get changed, leading to a shift in the structures of authority.


26/11/99

CSRC

Page 4 of 11

The Emergent Social Phenomenon First we shape our structures, and afterwards they shape us. (Winston Churchill as quoted by Ansoff, 1987, p. 203)

The issue raised in the previous section could be restated in a different manner, that is how does the norm system and the formal structure interact when any change in the existing organisation is brought about? As we have said when a new information system is implemented in an organisation, most social phenomena inside the organisation change. All the dimensions of responsibility are questioned by interacting individuals. The impact on the informal environment, primarily because of the institutionalised norms is such that individuals tend to examine the various levels of power, influence and authority in terms of different actions, contingent in the change.

In Chomskian sense of the term there is a "deep structure" underlying each of the actions (Chomsky, 1972). Rossi (1983) identifies four subsystems of action, in which the higher system transmits information and hence controls the lower system (see Fig. 1). The cultural system, in terms of information, controls the social system, which in the same manner, controls the personality system and subsequently the behavioural system. Rossi regards communication and information as central to all activities. In fact no system, be it organism or group, exists without proper coordination of activities. This coordination is possible only through communication and transmission of information. Since initially the messages are available only to the senders, communication implies a form of control.

Establishing control and transferring information down an organisational hierarchy are activities related to power, authority and responsibility. This further reinforces the need to evaluate the structure of actions. Chomsky sees a clear differentiation between the surface and the deep structure of an action. The surface structure develops through the interaction of the basic rules and the transformational rules. An opposing view appears in the writings of Parsons (1975), who does not advocate a deep structure of action but defines it as "the symbolic frame of reference within which meaningful utterances can be formulated".

In light of the above discussion on various dimensions of actions, structures of responsibility and processes of attribution can be viewed at http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/People/BackhouseJ/emergentorganisations.htm

26/11/99

CSRC

Page 5 of 11

two levels: in terms of the linkages between one subsystem of action and the other and by viewing actions as symbolic frame of reference at an individual subsystem level. Rossi (1983) proposed a paradigm for an action, which after modifications is shown below (Figure 1). It shows the processes underlying the four subsystems and correlates them with the various transformational linkages.

The four-function paradigm of Rossi is rooted in concepts generated by Chomsky (1972), Parsons (1975) and Lidz and Lidz (1976). It is assumed that the cultural system is based on a deep structure of symbolic codes and all the subsystems are isomorphically organised. The code linked with each subsystem is shown in column two (Figure 1), while the processes underlying changes in each subsystem are shown in column three. The transformational links between various subsystems, constituting the hierarchy of control, appear in column one. In the literature there is a controversy regarding the last two subsystems, (personality and behavioural). Both of these, according to Rossi, constitute the psychic system and it is not clear for Rossi if greater importance should be given to either one or the other. Since the study of the structure of organisational action requires an understanding of the hierarchy of control, it is the context and the hierarchy of context that is important rather than content.

It is interesting to see the application of Rossi's framework in a real setting, especially in a case where there are significant changes taking place. The changes in the structures of action and the hierarchy of control help in the understanding of various dimensions of responsibility. The UK National Health Service is one such organisation undergoing changes. Occasioned by the adoption of a general management model, there has been a remarkable shift in the management style of the health


26/11/99

CSRC

Page 6 of 11

service (Scrivens, 1987). This has given rise to an increased demand for information for management control, and hence the need for computer based information systems. One of the trusts of the UK National Health Service, which is the focus of study, is in the process of developing and implementing a computer based information systems. The main objective of this system is to provide decision support to the clinicians and the managers.

The origins of these changes can be traced back to the Griffiths report of 1983 and the Community Care Act (1990) and this particular trust was addressing these new requirements with the induction of a new computer based information system. Users of the information system assigned responsibility for the various changes in a cause and effect mode. They analysed the changes in the health care delivery system in a systematic causal dimension attributing blame to the top management for its conscious effort to shift the power structures within the organisation. The top management on the other hand was making a deliberate effort to "change the culture of the organisation". For them the new information system could be viewed as a tool to legitimise their actions. The final organisational form, analysed on the basis of Rossi's paradigm, reveals that any new information system affects the 'deep structure' of an organisation. In the first instance the symbolic code of an action changes, which triggers off cultural innovations. This changes the norm structure of the organisation. The norms in turn have to be institutionalised for an organisation to be effective. Once that happens the structural code changes, leading to the development of a new structure. This leads to the creation of new roles and responsibilities. These have to be internalised to bring about the psychological growth of the individuals and of the organisation as a whole.

We can therefore see the manner in which the organisational structures change with the introduction of a new information system. An understanding of the structures of an action becomes of paramount importance in studying the shift in power, authority and responsibility. It facilitates the identification of the structures of responsibility and hence in bringing some form of consistency between the old and the new. This assures the effective growth of the enterprise.

A Semantic Framework For Understanding Emergent Organisations With the application of information technology to the management information systems in the NHS, the central authorities (such as the NHS Management Board and the Health Authorities) are increasing their visibility in exercising control over the various operations of the NHS (Bloomfield and Coombs, 1992). It is also the endeavour to change the role of doctors in determining the goals of the service (Coombs and http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/People/BackhouseJ/emergentorganisations.htm

26/11/99

CSRC

Page 7 of 11

Cooper, 1992). Information systems are a means of achieving these objectives. They privilege particular kinds of information and accumulate knowledge with certain agents. These agents are generally the main beneficiaries of information systems in terms of centralisation of information. This leads to the creation of new power structures within the organisation. Our research revealed that there was a conflict in the systems of ideology (the organisational and professional ideologies) among the different participants of the organisation. The doctors and nurses (the professionals) believed in the profession and its norms more than the new goals and objectives being enforced by the information system.

The new information system is changing the basic symbolic code of the actions (refer the four-function paradigm of Rossi, figure 1). A typical example of this is when managers refer to 'patients' as 'clients' as part of the attempt to change the way in which doctors and nurses 'see' their own work. These symbolic codes have been institutionalised to a substantial degree by the top level managers and the middle ranking administrators. However the operational staff (e.g. the nurses) were more concerned in providing care to the patients and in their own professional development. The information system is also affecting the structural code of the actions (figure 1). Various activities have been combined and different roles allow the role holders to exert influence by virtue of their expertise. It still remains to be seen the extent to which these changes will be internalised. There is certainly a marked conflict between different interest groups which hinders a smooth transition and the intellectual growth of the organisation.

The notion of underlying repertoires of behaviour lies embedded in the concept of structure of action. These repertoires of behaviour are afforded by the environment to certain responsible agents. It is important to identify these responsible agents in order to understand the manner in which they exercise authority, control, influence and exert power. One means of identifying actions and responsible agents is by semantic analysis (Backhouse 1991). Using ontology charting, we can map agents in existence-dependent relationships (Fig. 2).


26/11/99

CSRC

Page 8 of 11

Figure 2 shows the ontology chart that brings out the underlying repertoires of behaviour in an action. Any change in the organisational environment becomes evident from this semantic chart representing the domain of the responsible agents. An agent is the owner of the knowledge and within a particular sphere of discourse, has several affordances. These aggregate to the behaviours that are afforded by an environment. The agents have roles to play, these are occupied by different persons, but are not dependent upon them. In fact they are the constituents of the organisational structure, i.e. agents as organisational groups, which derive their authority from some higher body. Figure 2 shows the role of the administration manager, hospital manager and the chief executive as a part of a particular NHS Trust. These three different roles are incumbent on different persons. The roles in themselves draw the authority for their action from someone at a higher level, for example, the administration manager draws authority from the hospital manager who in turn draws authority from the chief executive of the trust. By virtue of a person having expertise, it places him in a privileged position. Being in such a position allows him to exert influence on other roles. In this example, the administration manager by virtue of having expertise in the designated area, exerts influence on the chief executive to act in a predetermined manner. The social phenomenon of influence is a very complicated notion. According to Lukes (1974) an agent exerts influence either because of a conflict of interests or otherwise. Here the administration manager has no conflict of interest with the chief executive, but because of the expertise in the person, there is a 'system of inducement' in operation. This leads to exerting influence on the chief executive and by that gaining more authority. Since the computer based information system formalises the authority and subsequently the responsibility structure, it leads to reinforcement of power.

Now given the foregoing, we can see the manner in which a new information system changes the character of an organisation. Since the impact is so profound, it is important to have a means to understand emergent organisations. The approach introduced above allows us to comment on the complex interplay between the technical, formal and the informal sub-systems of an organisation. The understanding so developed ought to allow us to develop better management practices and smoother systems implementation.


26/11/99

CSRC

Page 9 of 11

Conclusion

An emergent organisation should be understood in terms of relationships between its members (power, authority and responsibility) and not in terms of the technical superstructure that appears to characterise it. This is so because an organisation is predominantly a communication systems. In order to understand the complex communication processes in an organisation, we need analytical tools that give us access to these fundamental organisational behaviours. Models like that of Rossi and analytical techniques like semantic analysis are taking us in the right direction. However more work is needed to fully appreciate the content and context of these organisational actions. This will help us to overcome the limitations of the traditional models and techniques, which deal with trivial aspects of organisational information systems. Bibliography

ANSOFF, H. I. 1987. Corporate Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

strategy.

--------. 1991. Strategic management in a historical perspective. In International review of strategic management. Editors D. E. HUSSEY, 3-69. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. BACKHOUSE, J. 1991. The use of semantic analysis in the development of information systems. Ph.D. diss., London School of Economics, University of London, London. BELL, D. 1975. Power, influence, and authority. New York: Oxford University Press. BLOOMFIELD, B., and R. COOMBS. July 1992. Information technology, control and power: the centralisation and decentralisation debate revisited. Journal of Management Studies 29 (4): 459-484. BOLAND, R. 1986. Fantasies of information . Advances in Public Interest Accounting (1): 49-65. BUCHANAN, J., and R. LINOWES. July 1980. Understanding distributed data processing. Harvard Business Review 143-153. Business Week. 25 April 1983. A new era for management . 34-58. CHANDLER, A. D. J. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


26/11/99

CSRC

Page 10 of 11

CHOMSKY, N. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Computing. 12 November 1992. In dispute. 34-35. COOMBS, R., and D. COOPER. 1992. Accounting for patients?: information technology and implementation of the NHS white paper. in Continuity and crisis in the NHS. Editors R. LOVERIDGE, and K. STARKEY, 118-125. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. FINCHAM, R. 1992. Perspectives on power: processual, institutional and 'internal' forms of organisational power. Journal of Management Studies 29 (6): 741-759. KLING, R. 1991. Computerisation and social transformation. Science, Technology and Human Values 16 (3): 342-367. --------. 1980. Social analysis of computing: theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. Computing Surveys (12): 61-103. LIDZ, C. W., and V. M. LIDZ. 1976. Piaget's psychology of intelligence and theory of action. In Explorations on general theory in social sciences: essays in honour of Talcott Parsons. Editors J. J. LOUBSER et al., 195-239. New York: Free Press. LUKES, S. 1974. Power: a radical view. London: Macmillan. McFARLAN, F. W., and J. L. McKENNY. 1983. Corporate information systems management: the issues facing senior executives. Homewood, Ill.: Dow Jones Irwin, Inc. MINTZBERG, H. 1983. Power in and organisations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

around

PARSONS, T. 1975. The present status of structuralfunctional theory in sociology. In The idea of social structure: papers in honour of Robert K. Merton. Editor L. A. COSER, 67-84. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ROACH, T. W. 1992. Effective systems development in complex organisations: a field study of systems development and use in the United States Army Medical Department (Army Medical Department). Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin, USA. ROSSI, I. 1983. From the sociology of symbols to the sociology of signs. New York: Columbia University Press. SCRIVENS, E. 1987. The information needs of district general managers in the English National Health Service. International Journal of Information Management (7): 147-157.


26/11/99

CSRC

Page 11 of 11

SHAVER, K. G. ,. 1985. The Attribution of Blame: causality, responsibility and blameworthiness. New York: Spinger-Verlag. TOMLIN, R. 1990. Clues to success: a corporate culture for information technology. Amdahl Executive Institute, Hampshire, UK, European Education. --------. 1991. Developing a management culture in which information technology will flourish: how the UK can benefit. Journal of Information Technology (6): 45-55. WEBER, M. 1964. The theory of social and economic organisation. New York: Free Press. WYNNE, B., and H. J. OTWAY. 1982. Information technology, power and managers. In Information technology: for richer, for poorer. Editors N. BJORNANDERSEN et al., Amsterdam: North-Holland. Copyright © Computer Security Research Centre 1999


26/11/99