Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Steven H. Appelbaum
Professor of Management, Faculty of Commerce & Administration, Concordia
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
south of England to determine the extent to After carefully analysing her findings,
which classical principles such as unity of Woodward[11] concluded that specific struc-
command and span of control were related to tures were associated with each of the three
firm success. She was unable to derive any categories and that successful firms met the
consistent pattern from her data until she requirements of their technology by adopting
segmented her firms into three categories the proper structural arrangements. She
based on the size of their production runs. found there was no one best way to organize a
The three categories, representing three manufacturing firm. Unit and process pro-
distinct technologies, had increasing levels of duction are most effective when matched
complexity and sophistication[11]. The first with an organic structure; mass production is
category, unit production, was composed of most effective when matched with a mecha-
unit or small-batch producers that manufac- nistic structure[12, p. 208]. A summary of
tured such custom products as tailor-made Woodward’s findings is shown in Table II.
suits and turbines for hydroelectric dams.
The second category, mass production, Charles Perrow
included large-batch or mass-production One of the major limitations of Woodward’s
manufacturers that made items like refriger- technological classification scheme[11] was
ators and automobiles. The third and most that it applied only to manufacturing organi-
complex group, process production, included zations. Since manufacturing firms repre-
continuous-process producers like oil and sented less than half of all organizations,
chemical refiners. technology needed to be operationalized in a
Woodward found that distinct relationships more generic way if the concept was to have
existed between these technology classifica- meaning across all organizations. Charles
tions and the subsequent structure of the Perrow suggested such an alternative.
firms and that the effectiveness of the organi- Perrow directed his attention to knowledge
zations was related to the “fit” between tech- technology rather than production technol-
nology and structure[12, p. 208]. ogy. He proposed that technology be viewed in
For example, the degree of vertical differen- terms of two dimensions:
tiation increased with technical complexity. 1 the number of exceptions individuals
But not all the relationships were linear. As a encountered in their work; and
case in point, the mass-production firms 2 the type of search procedures followed to
scored high in terms of overall complexity find successful methods for responding
and formalization, whereas the unit and adequately to these exceptions.
process firms rated low on these structural
dimensions. Imposing rules and regulations, The first dimension he termed task variabil-
for instance, was impossible with the non- ity; the second he called problem analysabil-
routine technology of unit production and ity[13].
unnecessary in the highly standardized The exceptions in task variability are few
process technology. when the job is high in routineness. Examples
[ 455 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum Table II
Socio-technical systems Woodward’s findings on technology, structure and effectiveness
theory: an intervention
strategy for organizational Unit production Mass production Process production
development
Structural Low vertical differentiation Moderate vertical differentiation High vertical differentiation
Management Decision
characteristics Low horizontal differentiation High horizontal differentiation Low horizontal differentiation
35/6 [1997] 452–463
Low formalization High formalization Low formalization
Most effective Organic Mechanistic Organic
structure
of jobs that normally have few exceptions in rational and systematized manner. Craft
their day-to-day practice include a worker on a technologies (cell 3) deal with relatively diffi-
manufacturing assembly line or a fry cook at cult problems, but with a limited set of excep-
McDonald’s. At the other end of the spectrum, tions. Shoemaking or furniture restoring fits
if a job has a great deal of variety, it will have a in this category. Finally, non-routine tech-
large number of exceptions. This would char- nologies (cell 4) are characterized by many
acterize top management positions, consulting exceptions and by difficult-to-analyse prob-
jobs, or jobs such as putting out fires on off- lems. This technology describes many aero-
shore oil platforms[12, p. 209]. space operations, such as Rockwell Interna-
The second dimension, problem analysabil- tional’s initial development of the space shut-
ity, assesses search procedures. The search tle[12, p. 210].
can, at one extreme, be described as well In summary, Perrow[13] argued that if prob-
defined. Individuals can use logical and ana- lems can be systematically analysed, cells 1
lytical reasoning in the search for a solution. and 2 are appropriate. Problems that can be
They then will have to rely on their prior handled only by intuition, guesswork, or
experience, judgement and intuition to find a unanalysed experience require the technol-
solution. Through guesswork and trial and ogy of cells 3 or 4. Similarly, if new, unusual, or
error, they might find an acceptable choice. unfamiliar problems appear regularly, they
Perrow used these two dimensions, task would be in either cells 2 or 4. If problems are
variability and problem analysability, to familiar, then cells 10 or 3 are appropriate.
construct a two-by-two matrix, shown in Using the mechanistic-organic classification,
Figure 1. The four cells in this matrix repre- Perrow would suggest that cells 1 and 2 fit
sent four types of technology: routine, engi- with mechanistic structures and cells 3 and 4
neering, craft and non-routine. align with organic structures[13, p. 210].
Routine technologies (cell 1) have few
exceptions and have easy-to-analyse prob- James Thompson
lems. The mass-production processes used to Another approach to technology was pro-
make steel and automobiles or to refine petro- posed by James D. Thompson. His technology
leum belong in this category. Engineering categories, which he argued could be used to
technologies (cell 2) have a large number of classify all organizations, are long-linked,
exceptions, but they can be handled in a mediating and intensive.
Figure 1
Perrow’s two-by-two matrix
Routine Engineering
Well-defined
1 2
3 4
[ 456 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum If tasks or operations are sequentially inter- full-service management-consulting firms
Socio-technical systems dependent, Thompson called them long and military combat teams[12, p. 211].
theory: an intervention linked. This technology is characterized by a Thompson was not directly concerned with
strategy for organizational fixed sequence of repetitive steps, as shown in demonstrating a link between his technology
development
Figure 2(A). That is, activity A must be per- categories and structural options. Rather, he
Management Decision formed before activity B, activity B before was most recognized for suggesting that orga-
35/6 [1997] 452–463
activity C, and so forth. Examples of long- nizations arrange themselves to protect their
linked technology include mass-production technology from uncertainty. He proposed
assembly lines and are given in that technology determines the selection of a
Thompson[14]. strategy for reducing uncertainty and that
Thompson identified mediating technology specific structural arrangements can facili-
as one that links clients on both the input and tate uncertainty reduction. So, for example,
output side of the organization. Banks, tele- organizations using long-linked technology
phone utilities, security brokerage firms, might vertically integrate to ensure the avail-
most large retail stores, computer dating ability of inputs and the ability to dispose of
services, employment and welfare agencies, its outputs[8, p. 212].
and post offices are examples. As shown in While Thompson[14] did not directly
Figure 2(B), mediators perform an address structural options, it is not difficult
interchange function, linking units that are to make the connection. It seems logical that
otherwise independent. The linking unit long-linked and mediating technologies tend
responds by standardizing the organization’s to fit best with mechanistic structures, while
transactions and establishing conformity in intensive technology is best matched to the
clients’ behaviour. Banks, for instance, bring organic form.
together those who want to save (depositors)
with those who want to borrow. They do not
Eric Trist
know each other, but the bank’s success
Trist and his associates at the Tavistock Insti-
depends on attracting both.
tute in the UK are well known for conducting
Thompson’s third category – intensive
a series of studies that led to a new, insightful
technology – represents a customized
approach to understanding organizational
response to a diverse set of contingencies.
functions[15]. These studies, which focused
The exact response depends on the nature of
on the coal-mining industry in the UK, exam-
the problem and the variety of problems,
ined the interaction of technological systems
which cannot be predicted accurately (see
and social systems.
Figure 2(C)). This includes technologies dom-
As technology advanced, newly developed
inant in hospitals, universities, research labs,
mining equipment dictated a radically differ-
ent approach to coal mining. In this new long-
Figure 2 wall method, the miners were reorganized
Thompson’s technology categories into large shifts of specialized workers. Dur-
ing the first shift of the day, all miners per-
Input (A) (B) (C) (D) Output formed the same operation: cutting into the
coal wall. The second shift was responsible
A. Long-linked technology for shovelling coal into a new type of con-
veyor. The miners on the third shift worked
exclusively at advancing the face of the wall,
Transformation enlarging gateways and building roof sup-
Client A process Client B
ports (relatively low-prestige tasks)[16, p. 606].
B. Mediating technology In addition, the miners on each shift were
spread out along the face of the wall at such
distances that they could not easily communi-
cate with one another. Similarly, the single
Resources
supervisor of an entire shift group, consisting
A of 40 to 50 miners, was not able to monitor the
Transformation activities of each miner because of the man-
B Output ner in which the men were dispersed.
process
C Although the long-wall method had
promised to raise productivity, a norm of low
D productivity emerged. With reduced variety
and challenge, the miners found the
Feedback redesigned work to be unpleasant. They
preferred to operate autonomously and to
C. Intensive technology
perform all tasks rather than to be solely
[ 457 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum performing the tasks of cutting, shovelling or embedded in and affected by the external
Socio-technical systems filling. environment as previously discussed. This
theory: an intervention While the Tavistock researchers eventually interdependent relationship can affect the
strategy for organizational helped to ameliorate the negative attainment of any one of the systems goals[9,
development
consequences of the long-wall method, the p. 269]. This fact, clearly recognized by Emery
Management Decision
message was clear: a technological change and Trist[18] stresses the importance that
35/6 [1997] 452–463
that appears quite rational from a purely organizations are “open socio-technical sys-
engineering perspective can disrupt the exist- tems”[9, p. 265]. Changes arising in the exter-
ing social system so as to reduce greatly the nal environment exert influence and must be
anticipated benefits of the new technology. Of accommodated by the organization in the
more fundamental importance is the insight least disruptive manner. Emery and Trist
gained by the Tavistock researchers[15] on suggest that detailed attention to the require-
the interplay of technical and social systems ments of both the social and technical sys-
or the notion of a socio-technical system. tems are required if the organization is to
Attempts to change the technological and/or maximize its total production system. Given
social system must be mindful of the relation- a particular task and an available technologi-
ship between the two systems[16, p. 607]. cal system, certain social systems are more
The socio-technical approach had much to apt at coping to meet these demands.
suggest to job redesign. In fact, the approach
had been employed in numerous job redesign
efforts. Some of the better-publicized redesign Self-regulating work groups
efforts had been attempted at General Foods, within socio-technical systems
Rushton Mining, and General Motors. At the
An important outcome of Emery and
Kalmar plant of Volvo, automobile assembly
Trist’s early work is that developing
procedures were radically altered from
semi-autonomous work groups in organiza-
traditional technological systems. By and
tions can lead to greater productivity and to
large, the results of these efforts have netted
worker satisfaction[9, p. 268; 19]. They
reduced turnover, absenteeism, and accident
revealed that improvements in the technical
rates and superior product quality and effi-
system do not always result in higher produc-
ciency[17, p. 24].
tivity or effectiveness if the social system is
not supportive and able to cope with any
stresses it places on its members[9, p. 287].
Socio-technical theory as a
The use of work groups as the basic building
technique for OD
block for work design can give the organiza-
Organizational development can be defined tion the ability to meet the demands stem-
as a “long-term, system-wide application of ming form either the environment or the
behavioural science techniques to increase interdependent social and technical compo-
systems” but “neither system should operate nents.
at the expense of the other. Co-ordinated and Probably the most popular application of
integrated human and technical activities are STS theory has been the development of self-
possible when one system is supportive of the regulating work groups[19]. Alternatively
other”[2, p. 62]. Because all subsystems are referred to as self-leading or self-managing
interdependent, changes in one area affect teams, self-regulating work groups include
and influence other system elements[8, p. 49]. members performing interrelated tasks[20].
The social system aims to design a work Such groups can control members’ task
structure that is responsive to the psychologi- behaviours. They have responsibility for a
cal needs of the employees[9, p. 269]. It sup- whole product or service and can make deci-
plies a sense of belonging, meaningfulness to sions about task assignments and work meth-
the work and responsibility for outcomes[2, p. ods. In many cases, the group sets its own
82]. The social system is experienced through production goals, within broader organiza-
the organization’s culture, norms, roles and tion limits, and may be responsible for sup-
communication patterns as well as through a port services, such as maintenance, purchas-
network of social relationships and behav- ing, and quality control. Team members are
iour patterns that develop[8, p. 50]. generally expected to learn all of the jobs
The result is a work structure that relates within the control of the group and
people to the organization’s technology. The frequently are paid on the basis of knowledge
technical system includes the equipment and and skills, rather than seniority. When pay is
methods used to transform raw materials based on performance, group rather than
into products or services[9, p. 268]. individual performance is used.
Another important feature for socio- Self-regulating work groups are being
technical design is that the organization is implemented at a rapid rate in such
[ 458 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum organizations as Sherwin-Williams, General pairs, both by team members and by upper-
Socio-technical systems Foods, General Mills, Procter & Gamble, and level managers. Participants in self-manag-
theory: an intervention Motorola. A 1990 survey of Fortune 1000 com- ing groups evaluated them more highly in
strategy for organizational panies found that 47 per cent of these firms outcomes related to quality of work life, such
development
were using self-managing work teams, up as growth satisfaction, social satisfaction and
Management Decision from only 28 per cent in 1987[21]. trust, than the participants in traditionally
35/6 [1997] 452–463
Self-managing work teams are most fre- managed groups rated their own groups[26].
quently found in manufacturing settings, No significant differences were found in
although this team design is applicable to any absenteeism. In general, the findings form
situation in which people in groups are inter- this study are consistent with Goodman
dependent and thus can be made collectively et al.’s conclusions[27].
responsible for producing a product or pro- Managers of self-managing work teams may
viding a service to an external or internal need assistance in understanding their new
customer. Examples include production role. Simply telling managers to become
teams, assembly teams, administrative sup- coaches or facilitators, rather than bosses,
port teams, customer sales and service teams, may not be sufficient to support behavioural
professional support teams, and management change[28]. Instead, managers may need help
teams. An executive team, whose members understanding the specific requirements of
are collectively responsible for the internal their new roles, as well as training to improve
operations of the company and have shared their participation and delegation skills. If
performance goals, is a self-managing team. the role of the manager is to encourage self-
Self-managing work teams have been management, then the manager must have
implemented by organizations that use a the skills to perform the requisite
socio-technical or a job enrichment approach. behaviours, such as encouraging goal setting
Their design is intended to optimize the or self-evaluation[29]. Training can help
organization’s social and technical systems managers support self-managing work teams
jointly[9]. They work because this way of more effectively.
organizing work is intrinsically motivating Using the work group is often necessary
and satisfying and increases the level of given that the technologies require co-opera-
effort, knowledge and appropriateness of tion, mutual adjustment and sharing of
strategies of task performance, as applied to equipment and information to complete a
the collective task[22], as well as helping to task (as discussed in [10,11,13] or [14] concern-
reduce unnecessary overhead costs. Both ing technology and organizational structure).
socio-technical approaches and job design A mid-point study was presented in Cum-
theory suggest the same causal mechanisms, mings[9], in which three conditions that
and some researchers have argued for a syn- affect a group’s capacity for self-regulation
thesis of the two approaches[9,23,24]. High- were outlined. If certain factors are present,
commitment organizations, interested in designing an effective work group can
maximizing the level of employee involve- increase the likelihood of goal attainment
ment, tend to use self-managing work teams. through the group’s ability to “respond to
One recent study found that 46 per cent of technical and environmental variances”[9, p.
Fortune 1000 companies use self-managing 271]. The first condition is related to the
teams[9]. Where they have been implemented, nature of the task itself. A less differentiated
the vast majority of such teams have been task “facilitates technically required co-oper-
limited to involving less than 20 per cent of ation by bounding interdependent tasks into
the workforce. Most of these applications a common unit”[9, p. 270]. The second condi-
have been in manufacturing and involve first- tion for self-regulation is if the group can
level employees; 25 per cent of the service control and influence the boundaries of the
companies in the sample (compared with 36 task environment. Groups who have their
per cent of the manufacturing firms) use self- own territory, possess a repertoire of skills
managing team designs. A historical study of and are responsible for the quality of their
the Fortune Service 500 and Industrial 500 work are able to “protect their work bound-
revealed that 25 per cent of these companies aries from external intrusions and perform
used executive-level teams between 1980 and selective environmental transactions”[9, p.
1984[25]. 270]. The final condition contributing to self-
In a recent study comparing 63 matched regulation is when workers can choose how
pairs of self-managing teams to traditionally the work is done, have the freedom to modify
managed teams that perform the same work work procedures as necessary and are given
in a telephone company, it was found that self- feedback on the group’s performance so they
managing teams were rated higher in effec- can develop goal-directed behaviour[9, p. 271].
tiveness (productivity, costs, customer ser- Hackman and Oldman’s[2] theory of job
vice, quality and safety) than their matched design is another theoretical approach which
[ 459 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum is similar to and may strengthen socio-techni-
Socio-technical systems cal approaches to designing self-regulating Some pointers for executive and
theory: an intervention work teams. When work content is high on consultants in assessing STS
strategy for organizational core job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task interventions
development
identify, task significance, autonomy and Organization development professionals who
Management Decision feedback) outcomes such as work effective-
35/6 [1997] 452–463 are exposed to STS thinking as a planning
ness and job satisfaction result[2, p. 90]. The and decision-making tool quickly realize the
similarity between the two theories reveals strategic orientation of the approach. To use
that work variables can be designed to con- Ackoff ’s[30] terminology, they become “inter-
tribute to both motivation and self-regula- activists”, that is, they begin to perceive plan-
tion. The point is made that individual psy- ning as the design of a desirable future and
chological needs can impact on a group’s the invention of ways to bring it about, rather
ability to develop a work structure for coping than accepting the future that appears to
with technical and environmental confront them.
demands[9, p. 273]. If we are convinced that STS thinking rep-
Designing self-regulating work teams must resents an appropriate basis for our strate-
be distinguished from job design/redesign. gies, an array of implications for practical
Individual jobs may be improved by tech- work results[31, p. 224]. The following ques-
niques such as job enrichment to affect tions are suggested for identifying interac-
employee’s motivation, satisfaction or work tions among elements of the STS. They may
effectiveness[2, p. 110]. On the other hand, be used for diagnostic purposes as well as an
designing work for self-regulating work intervention strategy:
teams becomes more of a process-oriented
task and “development of an effective social Environment:
system needs to be an explicit part of the 1 What are the major factors in the organiza-
design process”[9, p. 272]. Although the feasi- tion’s environment that influence the
bility of either individual or group design is work?
usually determined by the nature of the work 2 What characteristic environmental prob-
itself, Hackman and Oldman[2, p. 223] suggest lems arise?
that if there is room for choice and both seem 3 In which elements of the system are the
feasible, then group design favours over “the interactions with the environment most
best possible individual design”. visible?
Designing work groups requires examina- 4 What is the organization’s greatest
tion of the criteria for efficiency as well as an strength vis-à-vis the environment (com-
examination of organizational contexts that petitive advantage, labour market, produc-
are hospitable for self-regulating work tivity, etc.)?
groups. Hackman and Oldman[2, p. 170] have 5 What is the organization’s most obvious
developed a model for building an efficient weakness?
work group and indicate three key aspects in Goals/tasks:
the design of a group. An effectively function- 1 What factors within the system most influ-
ing group meets or exceeds organizational ence goal attainment (positively/nega-
standards of quality and quantity, provides a tively)?
group experience that satisfies members’
2 Which elements of the system are most
needs, and is able and willing to carry on
affected by changes in goals and tasks?
together on subsequent tasks.
3 Are the rest of the elements co-ordinated
Designing the group task is the first key
with respect to the goals/objectives and
design feature. The technological system
tasks?
changes can be used to create conditions for
4 Where are the strengths and weaknesses
high work motivation by removing boring
in the interactions among elements?
and frustrating or unpleasant tasks. A second
5 What are the sensitive points that repeat-
key design feature is the composition of
edly cause friction, problems, or conflicts?
group members who have task-relevant
knowledge and interpersonal skills, the right Structures:
“mix” of group members can be selected 1 Are the existing structures useful for the
given that the organization has the appropri- attainment of the goals and tasks?
ate personnel policies and resources to do so. 2 How do people adapt to or cope with these
Well-composed teams often are involved in structures?
the selection and training of subsequent 3 Are the structures supportive of the needs
group members. A third key design feature to and capabilities of the leadership (manage-
help the group development is to devise and ment) and the workforce?
implement performance strategies appropri- 4 Do the structures encourage co-operation
ate for the work[2, p. 179]. and collaboration?
[ 460 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum 5 Do the structures facilitate a rational use with a behavioural-science focal point, the
Socio-technical systems of resources and technologies? consultant must be acquainted with the influ-
theory: an intervention 6 What major strengths/weaknesses result ences and dependencies of all processes. Only
strategy for organizational from the structures interacting with other
development then is he or she likely to be successful in
elements in the system? avoiding the following mistakes:
Management Decision
35/6 [1997] 452–463 Leadership procedures: • Creating new problems while attempting to
1 Are the existing leadership procedures solve others.
and processes focused on the specific • Enhancing, rather than reducing, the bias
goals/objectives and tasks? of those with whom he or she engages in
2 Do these procedures fit the organization’s debate and conversation.
specific social and technical realities (tech-
• Looking for problems in areas in which the
nologies, other procedures, composition of
consultant feels competent instead of where
workforce, etc.)?
they actually exist.
3 Are managers sufficiently trained in using
the procedures (e.g. performance evalua- • Developing patient remedies and marketing
tion)? them, rather than facing the challenges of a
4 What influences and changes from the continuous learning process and living
outside are expected? What re- examina- with the uncertainty such growth
tion of the present procedures might these entails[31, p. 224].
changes entail?
5 What are the most significant strengths It would be a mistake to assign to the profes-
and weaknesses in the leadership proce- sional all the responsibility for the success of
dures and their application? STS approaches. The most essential prerequi-
site appears to be the readiness – oriented to
People:
past, present, and future – to wrestle continu-
1 What is the basic attitude of various
ally with reality and to refrain from attempt-
employee groups towards the organiza-
tion? ing to project Utopia on to reality.
2 What are the effects of these attitudes on In order to be able to solve concrete prob-
performance and teamwork? lems arising from an ineffective interplay
3 How do managers and their subordinates among the elements in a socio-technical sys-
adapt to the existing structures? tem – or between the system and the environ-
4 Do the employees feel that the structures, ment – one must define the premisses that are
technologies and procedures serve as an amenable to analysis. According to a study by
incentive to full involvement (motivational von Clare Graves (quoted in Mitchell[32]),
effectiveness)?
stress is indispensable for change and devel-
5 Where are the biggest obstacles, problem
opment. A primary task of the consultant is
areas and sources of conflict?
to help the client learn how to cope with
Technologies: stress and uncertainties.
1 How do changes in procedures and sup- Three prerequisites must exist for this to be
port systems affect people and structures possible:
in the organization?
1 Dissatisfaction with the present state (i.e.
2 Do changes produce resistance?
stress) as a motivational basis for change.
3 When technological changes occur, are the
structures and processes adapted or modi- 2 Energy and courage as positive forces to
fied accordingly? initiate the development of a proactive and
4 Is there a timely attempt to prepare people reactive mode.
for technological and organizational 3 A conscious and insightful motive that is
changes, e.g. through personnel manage- based in reality, to achieve concrete,
ment, training or participatory decision planned changes.
making?
5 What and where are the most important When one of these three conditions is lacking,
strengths and weaknesses between tech- there is little chance for development or for
nology (including processes and proce- solving existing problems. The necessary
dures) and the other elements of the sys- diagnostic work to examine the existence or
tem? absence of these conditions is an important
The OD professional (executive or consul- part of the start-up of an OD (STS) project. It
tant) must measure his or her competence in requires expertise, well-established diagnos-
the field in terms of the requirements of the tic instruments (e.g. Figure 2), and the devel-
socio-technical system. In order to conceptu- opment of a workable relationship between
alize intervention and interaction strategies the client and the consultant[31, p. 225].
[ 461 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum accomplishing work in the rest of the organi-
Socio-technical systems Concluding remarks zation. Organizations must continually initi-
theory: an intervention Whatever the future may hold, the basic chal- ate, disband and modify project teams and
strategy for organizational
development lenge of STS design is still relevant: human- networked designs. Handling the changing
ism and effectiveness must be linked together configurations of flexible structures is the
Management Decision
35/6 [1997] 452–463 in the design of work and work systems[33, p. greatest challenge that management faces.
16]. STS theory as an intervention strategy STS provides the required technique and
has many strong points, but must be utilized intervention to actualize this challenge[34].
within a strategic change plan for organiza-
tional development rather than an isolated References
strategy for organizational development. 1 Thach, L. and Woodman, R., “Organizational
Self-managed teams are not easy to imple- change and information technology: managing
ment. They require organizational changes on the edge of cyberspace”, Organizational
and investments of time and resources in Dynamics, Vol. 23, Summer 1994, pp. 30-46.
order to make them work. Without changes in 2 Hackman, R.J. and Oldham, G.R., Work
job design, work may not be organized so that Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
a team is collectively responsible for a prod- 3 Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., Organiza-
tional Development and Change, 5th ed., West
uct or service. Without changes in manage-
Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN, 1993,
ment philosophy, a team may not be given the
pp. 352-6.
authority to make decisions about how to
4 Cherns, A., “Principles of socio-technical
execute its task. Without additional training, design revisited”, Human Relations, Vol. 40,
managers may not be able to provide coach- 1986, pp. 153-62.
ing to a self-managing team and may under- 5 Trist, E., Higgin, B., Murray, J. and Pollack, A.,
mine its efforts. The reward, education and Organizational Choice, Tavistock, London,
information systems may have to be modified 1963.
to support effective teamwork. These changes 6 Barko, W. and Pasmore, W., “Socio-technical
and contextual supports require organiza- systems: innovations in designing high-per-
tional commitment and investment. Without forming systems”, Journal of Applied Behav-
the willingness to make this investment, an ioural Science, Vol. 22 Special Issue 1, 1986,
organization is unlikely to sustain the perfor- pp. 195-360.
mance and quality benefits that can arise 7 Cherns, A., “The principles of socio-technical
from the implementation of work teams. design”, Human Relations, Vol. 29, 1976,
Once self-managing teams are implemented pp. 783-92.
and supported by the organization’s reward, 8 Harvey, D.F. and Brown, R., An Experiential
Approach to Organization Development, 4th
education and information systems, they
ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
become relatively easy to sustain. They cre-
1992.
ate a momentum of their own. This strength,
9 Cummings, T., “Self-regulating work groups: a
however, can become a weakness, if change socio-technical synthesis”, in French, Bell and
has to occur. The mature self-managing team Zawacki (Eds), Organizational Development
is a relatively self-contained unit with a team and Transformation, 4th ed., Irwin Publishing,
identity and modus operandi. Members may Burr Ridge, IL, 1994, pp. 268-77.
be unwilling to transfer to other teams, even 10 Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M., The Management
if marketplace demands require different of Innovation, Tavistock, London, 1961,
assignment of resources. They may be unwill- pp. 120-2.
ing to apply different methods to team tasks 11 Woodward, J., Industrial Organization: Theory
once habitual patterns have been established. and Practice, Oxford University Press, London,
This can be managed, to some extent, by pro- 1965.
viding teams with ongoing performance and 12 Robbins, S.P., Essentials of Organizational
customer feedback, by making sure that team Behavior, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
representatives participate in forums with Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
13 Perrow, C., “A framework for the comparative
representatives of other teams, and by provid-
analysis of organizations”, American Sociolog-
ing rotational opportunities.
ical Review, Vol. 32, April 1967, pp. 194-208.
Because the future will demand empower-
14 Thompson, J.D., Organization in Action,
ment and flexibility, participants in teams
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1967.
and networks must have decision-making 15 Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W., “Some social
authority. Future team and networked and psychological consequences of the long-
designs must be self-managing. Temporary wall method of goalsetting”, Human Relations,
and fluid designs should be used more. Orga- Vol. 4, 1951, pp. 1-38.
nizations should use work teams where tasks 16 Vecchio, R.P. and Appelbaum, S.H., Managing
can be self-contained. Project teams and Organizational Behavior: A Canadian Perspec-
internal networks should be responsible for tive, Dryden-Harcourt Brace, Toronto, 1995.
[ 462 ]
Steven H. Appelbaum 17 Cohen, D.S., “The quality of work life move- 26 Cohen, S. and Ledford, G.E. Jr, “The effective-
Socio-technical systems ment”, Training HRD, Vol. 30, January 1979, ness of self-managing teams in service and
theory: an intervention p. 24. support functions: a field experiment”,
strategy for organizational 18 Emery, R.E. and Trist, E.L., “The causal tex- paper presented at The Academy of Manage-
development ture of organizational environments”, Human ment Annual Meeting, San Francisco, August
Management Decision Relations, Vol. 18, 1965, pp. 21-32. 1990.
35/6 [1997] 452–463 19 Cummings, T., “Designing effective work 27 Goodman, P.S., Davadas, R. and Hughson, T.G.,
groups”, in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. “Groups and productivity: analysing the effec-
(Eds), Handbook of Organizational Design: tiveness of self-managing teams”, in Campbell,
Remodelling Organizations and Their Environ- J.P., Campbell, R.J. and Associates (Eds), Pro-
ments, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, ductivity in Organizations: New Perspectives
1981, pp. 250-71. from Organizational Psychology, Jossey-Bass,
20 Manz, C., “Beyond self-managing teams: San Francisco, CA, 1988.
towards self-leading teams in the workplace”, 28 Rosow, J.M., New Roles for Managers: Employee
in Pasmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds), Involvement and the Supervisor’s Job, Work in
Research in Organizational Change and Devel- America Institute, Scarsdale, NY, 1989.
opment, Vol. 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CO, 1990, 29 Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P., “Leading workers to
pp. 273-99. lead themselves: the external leadership of
21 Lawler, E., Mohrman, S. and Ledford, G., self-managing work teams”, Administrative
Employee Involvement and Total Quality Man- Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, 1987, pp. 106-28.
agement: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 30 Ackoff, R.L., Creating the Corporate Future,
Companies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1981.
1992. 31 Zobrist, A. and Enggist, R., “Social technical
22 Hackman, J.R., “The design of work teams”, in systems thinking in management consulting: a
Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational holistic concept for organization develop-
Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, ment”, The 1984 Annual: Developing Human
1987. Resources, University Associates, San Diego,
23 Rousseau, D.M., “Technological differences in CA, pp. 216-26.
job characteristics, employee satisfaction and 32 Mitchell, A., The Effects of Stress on Individu-
motivation: a synthesis of job design research als and Society, Stanford Research Institute,
and socio-technical systems theory”, Menlo Park, CA, 1977.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Perfor- 33 Pasmore, W.A., “Social science transformed:
mance, Vol. 19, 1977, pp. 18-42. the socio-technical perspective”, Human
24 Dennison, D.R., “Socio-technical design and Relations (HRL), Vol. 48, January 1995,
self-managing work groups: the impact of pp. 1-21.
control”, Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 34 Interviews/Consultation with Jennifer Kelly,
Vol. 3, 1982, pp. 297-314. participant in Master of Science (Administra-
25 Vancil, R.F., Passing the Baton: Managing the tion) Program in Faculty of Commerce and
Process of CEO Succession, Harvard Business Administration, Concordia University, April
School Press, Boston, MA, 1987. 1996.
Application questions
1 Think of an organization you know well list of priorities? Where does it come in
using the Socio-Technical Systems Theory reality? What are the one or two most
frameworks. What is its applied use? crucial areas for attention of leaders in
2 As a senior manager, where should atten- orgnizations?
tion to organizational design come on your
[ 463 ]