2.0 management 2019 neo

2.1Management Approach
Classical approach
Contingency Theory
System Theory
1 2.0 Management 2019 neo - 18 September BE 2562

Classical approach

Management cybernetics
Sketch for a cybernetic factory, 1959[7]
According to Jackson (2000) "Beer was the first to apply cybernetics to management, defining cybernetics as the science of effective organization". In the 1960s and early 1970s
"Beer was a prolific writer and an influential practitioner" in management cybernetics. It was during that period that he developed the viable system model, to diagnose the faults in
any existing organizational system. In that time Forrester invented systems dynamics, which "held out the promise that the behavior of whole systems could be represented and
understood through modeling the dynamical feedback process going on within them".[8]
Classical approach

Viable System Model
Principal functions of the Viable System Model, 1975.
The Viable System Model (VSM) is a model of the
organisational structure of any viable or
autonomous system. A viable system is any system
organised in such a way as to meet the demands of
surviving in the changing environment. One of the
prime features of systems that survive is that they
are adaptable. The VSM expresses a model for a
viable system, which is an abstracted cybernetic
description that is applicable to any organisation
that is a viable system and capable of autonomy.
Classical approach

Classical approach

The Contingency Approach: Its Foundations and Relevance to Theory Building and Research in Marketing
by
Valarie A. Zeithaml .Duke University, Durham, North Carolina,
P. "Rajan" Varadarajan.Texas A&M University, and
Carl P. Zeithaml. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Theoretical Foundations
The open systems perspective views the complex organisation as a set of interdependent parts that, together, constitute a whole which, in tum, is interdependent with
some larger environment. The interactive nature of the elements within the organisation — and between the oi:ganisation and the environment — result in at least two
open system characteristics that are central to the contingency approach: adaptation and equifinality.
First, the principle of adaptation asserts that the elements within the system adapt to one another to preserve the basic character of the system.
Second, the principle of equifinality holdds that a system can reach the same final state from differing initial conditions and by a variety of paths.
The Simon-March-Cyert stream of work adds to the open systems perspective the view that organisations are problem-facing and problem-solving entities.
The organisation develops processes for searching, learning and deciding — processes that attempt to achieve a satisfactory level of performance under norms of
bounded rationality.
Organisational decision-makers undertake rational decision processes designed to cope with the complexity and uncertainty of their situations, all of which result in
deliberate decisions by using a satisficing criterion for performance.
Classical approach

2.Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967)

17
Joanne Woodward is an award-winning American actress best known for her roles in The Three Faces of Eve (1957), Rachel Rachel (1968) and
Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams (1973). Woodward is the widow of actor Paul Newman.
Contingency Theory

!18
Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967)

19
Contingency Theory

20
Contingency Theory

!21
Contingency Theory

22
Contingency Theory

23
Contingency Theory

24
Contingency Approach

!25
Contingency Theory

!26
Contingency Theory

!27
Contingency Theory

Contingency Theory
1. Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A general contingency theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 2(2),
181-195.
2. Fry, L. W., & Smith, D. A. (1987). Congruence, contingency, and theory building. Academy of Management Review, 12(1),
117-132.
3. Mikes, A., & Kaplan, R. S. (2014, October). Towards a contingency theory of enterprise risk management. AAA.
4. Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative science quarterly,
514-539.
5. Van de Ven, A. H., & Drazin, R. (1984). The concept of fit in contingency theory (No. SMRC-DP-19). MINNESOTA UNIV
MINNEAPOLIS STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH CENTER.
6. Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1987). Toward a contingency theory of compensation strategy. Strategic management
journal, 8(2), 169-182.
7. Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R., & Shenhar, A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights–A
comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 665-679.
8. Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational
change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381-398.
9. Irma Becerra-Fernandez, R. S. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A contingency perspective. Journal of
management information systems, 18(1), 23-55.
10.Boyd, B. K., Takacs Haynes, K., Hitt, M. A., Bergh, D. D., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2012). Contingency hypotheses in strategic
management research: Use, disuse, or misuse?. Journal of Management, 38(1), 278-313.
11.Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Management
accounting research, 10(4), 363-382.
12.Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4),
301-312.
13.Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of
management review, 3(3), 439-449.
14.Hoque, Z. (2004). A contingency model of the association between strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance
28

29
System theory

System theory

Von Bertalanffy

!32
Fremont E. Kast (Ph.D.—University of Washington)
System theory

System theory

35
System theory

!36
Viable System Model
Principal functions of the Viable System Model, 1975.
The Viable System Model (VSM) is a model of the organisational structure of any viable or autonomous system. A viable system is any system
organised in such a way as to meet the demands of surviving in the changing environment. One of the prime features of systems that survive is that they
are adaptable. The VSM expresses a model for a viable system, which is an abstracted cybernetic description that is applicable to any organisation that is
a viable system and capable of autonomy.
System theory

!37
Stafford Beer (1926 – 2002)
System theory

38
Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model [VSM]:
sensorimotor tasks - the action / sense / feedback loop
action-shaping tasks – the tasks to coordinate the action across the system as a whole.
Sensorimotor tasks and action-shaping tasks System theory

39
Theory of Complexity
System theory

System theory

41
https://youtu.be/UUgwx8GEJMs
System theory

42
System theory

System theory

44
System theory

45
What is a system? System theory

46
System theory

47
System theory

!48
LEAN MANAGEMENT: A SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH TO CHANGE

2.2 Management Issues
Bounded Rationality
Socio technical Theory
Theory of Complexity
Theory of Constraints

!50
Socio -Technical System

51

!52
Low Technical Interdependence High
HighTechnicalUncertaintyLow
Self-Regulating
Work Groups
Traditional
Work Groups
Traditional
Job Design
Enriched Jobs

!53
Trist concluded that the following principles were involved in the success:
1 The work system, a functioning whole, now became the basic unit of focus rather
than single tasks and jobs. 
2 The work group was central rather than the individual job-holder. 
3 Internal regulation of the work system by the work group was possible and effective,
rather than the external regulation of individuals by supervisors. 
4 Work teams developed members who were multi-skilled, therefore more flexible and
capable of self-regulation. 
5 The discretionary, rather than the prescribed, aspect of the work was valued. 
6 The team structure increased the variety of work done by individuals, thereby
increasing intrinsic motivation. 
From these observations emerged the theory and practice of socio-technical systems.
The theory expanded to include not only the immediate work system, but the whole organizational system
and the macro-social system that inevitably impacts the work of the organization and the behavior of its
members.
The theory recognized that every system is a sub-system of a larger system and no system can be
understood without understanding its interaction with both the larger system and parallel
systems.

!54
What is the Socio-Technical System Approach?
February 10, 2011
The Socio-technical System approach is about harnessing the people aspects and technical aspects
of organizational structure and processes to achieve joint optimization, with a focused emphasis on
achieving excellence in both the technical performance and the quality in people’s work. The term socio-
technical system was coined in the 1960s by Eric Trist and Fred Emery who were working as
consultants at the Tavistock Institute in London.
Trist noted in his book “Organizational Choice” that “Inherent in the socio-technical approach is
the notion that the attainment of optimum conditions in any one dimension does not necessarily
result in a set of conditions optimum for the system as a whole….The optimization of the whole
tends to require a less than optimum state for each separate dimension”.
The work of Trist and Emery provide the basic foundation for High Performance Work Team
Organization (HPWO) and the empowerment of teams in the following:
Responsible autonomy. Shifting work to teams or groups with internal supervision and leadership,
but avoiding the “silo thinking” by engaging the whole system
Adaptability, agility. In an environment of increasing complexity, giving groups responsibility for
solving local problems
Whole tasks. Specifying the objective to be completed, with a minimum of regulation of how it is to
be done
Meaningfulness of tasks. In the words of Trist et al: “For each participant the task has total
significance and dynamic closure.”
From the works of Eric Trist and Fred Emery, Centre for Performance Transformation define High
Performance Work Team as:
1 People working together to produce a product or services;
2 They are focus on meeting or exceeding customers’ requirements;
3 They have a clear understanding of their mission, roles, measures and operating guidelines;
4 They demonstrate a high level of trust and interdependence skills that results in effective
communication, team meetings and handling of differences;
5 They seek continuous improvement by monitoring their performance, setting goals,
analyzing their processes and identifying and solving problem on a regular basis; and
6 They are empowered to plan, control, coordinate and improve their work

55
High Performance Team Socio -Technical System

56Technical
Requirements
Social
Requirements
Socio-technical Design
Traditional Design

Team Task Design & Development
Team Process Intervention
Organization Support Systems
Self Managed Teams 
Application Stages
Designing Work for 
Technical and Personal
Low Technical Interdependence High
HighTechnicalUncertaintyLow
Self-Regulating
Work Groups
Traditional
Work Groups
Traditional
Job Design
Enriched Jobs
Work Designs That 
Optimize Technology

!58

!59
Eric Trist and his colleagues from the Tavistock institute (1963)
identified two principles for work design:
• Interaction of technical and social factors: Work is
influenced by two systems of variables. The technical system
concerns the tasks involved, any tools, the location, etc. while
the social system concerns the social and psychological needs
of the employees. Both systems always influence the work,
whether designed or not;
• Joint optimization: When designing work, both systems need
to be addressed equally as they continuously interact and
influence each other. Failure to design both, will certainly result
in loss of productivity;
Following an important case study in production-oriented
environments, Trist (1951) identified a number of principals that
improve the fit between social and technical systems:
• Teams as ‘unit of work’: The focus should be on teams that
perform work rather than on individuals;
• Whole tasks in small teams: Small teams should take on
whole tasks and be made responsible to complete them. They
should all the required expertise to do so;
• Increase autonomy: Teams are responsible for organizing
and controlling their work. Managers and supervisors become
advisors rather than overseers. They control the process, not
the tasks;
• Self-organize and adapt continuously to deal with
complexity: Teams self-organize to adapt to the continuously
changing complexities of the organizational reality and the work
they are performing;

60

!61
lean production

!62
lean production

!63
From socio-technical systems to Scrum
• Built-in instability: management sets challenging goals and gives the team the freedom to achieve these goals;
• Self-organizing project teams: A team is allowed to self-organize to achieve the goal in the most optimal way. This requires teams to have a lot of autonomy, a very strong desire to continuously improve (to ‘self-
transcend’) and to cross-fertilize knowledge within the team;
• Overlapping development phases: Development requires certain phases, but these should overlap to absorb vibration or changing requirements;
• Multi-learning: Members of a team learn in multiple ways. They learn from each other and by rotating roles (cross functional learning) and by learning across multiple organizational levels (multilevel learning);
• Subtle control: Rather than the traditional command-and-control authoritarian style of management, managers should subtly control the work process of the team. They can do this by creating the right climate for teams to
work effectively, select the right people for the jobs, managing the rhythm of the process and tolerating mistakes;
• Transfer of learning: To avoid losing valuable knowledge gained by teams throughout the process, learning should be facilitated throughout the organization in many ways.

!64
“What Toyota could do better than its rivals seems to be not so much rational calculations before the trials as systematization and institutionalization after the trials” (Fujimoto, 1995, p. 212, italics in
original).
Toyota’s meta-routine was important in continuing its dedication to a production system characterized by small lot sizes and multi-purpose machines, despite the disappearance of ﬁnancial bottlenecks in the
1960s (Gronning, 1997, p. 428).

The Architecture of complexity 
Hierarchical and near-decomposable systems for a faster
evolution
• Complex systems are build in hierarchical layers of
subsystems: “parts within parts”
• Examples are all over: biology, physics, society, computer science
• Nearly-Decomposition: Dependencies between subsystems
are taking to a minimum.
• Hierarchical nearly-decomposed complex-systems will
evolve more rapidly than single systems
• We can find dependencies on the width and span of these
systems
• Example for service provisioning: vertical vs horizontal
integrations
Source: Herbert A. Simon, 1962
Theory of complexity

Definition
• Ideas related to Complexity:

• Size: Egs “the size of a genome“; “the number of species in an
ecology”. Size is indication of difficulty in dealing with the
system. But for complexity, such parts need to be inter-related
• Ignorance: Eg”the brain is too complex for us to
understand“.Complexity is the cause of ignorance. Cannot
completely associate the two (other significant causes?)
• Minimum Description Length: Kolmogorov Complexity is the
minimum possible length of a description in some language
(usually that of a Turing machine)
• Variety: Eg “this species markings are complex due to their great
variety”. Variety is necessary for complexity but it is not
sufficient for it
• (Dis)Order: Complexity is mid-point between order and disorder
• Relationship to more specific definitions of complexity:

• Computational Complexity: amount of computational resources
needed to solve a class of problems. Lacks the difficulty of providing
the program itself
• Bennett's Logical Depth: computational resources to calculate the
results of a program of minimal length
• Löfgren's Interpretation and Descriptive Complexity: the
combined processes of interpretation and description. Eg:
interpretation: decoding of the DNA into the effective proteins;
description: process the result of reproduction and selection on the
information there encoded
• Kauffman's number of conflicting constraints: complexity is the
number of conflicting constraints. This represents the difficulty of
specifying a successful evolutionary walk given the constraints
“…Complexity is that property of a language expression which makes it difficult to formulate
its overall behavior, even when given almost complete information about its atomic components
and their inter-relations…"

Cruise
control
Electronic ignition
Temperature control
Electronic fuel injection
Anti-lock brakes
Electronic
transmission
Electric power
steering (PAS)
Air bags
Active
suspension
EGR control
Organized
Complexity
chaocritical complexity and Organized complexity are opposites, but can be viewed in this unified framework
• chaocritical complexity celebrates fragility VS. Organized seeks to manage robustness/fragility . These two views are opposite in many respects. A source of considerable confusion…

85
AN APPROACH TO COLLABORATIVE SENSEMAKING PROCESS

86
The Agile Sensemaking Model (2018)
“Research shows that teams will organize themselves in different ways in response to how different types of
complexity strains their sensemaking capacities. In order to increase their sensemaking potential, teams
will reorganize their relationships in recognizable ways. We can think of these as emergent patterns of
collective sensemaking.” —Bonnitta Roy

87
Sensemaking in a networked world
We need to organize our workplaces better

88
Chapter Two of Sensemaking in Organizations contains what is perhaps Weick’s most cited sentence, the recipe for sensemaking: “How can I know what I think until I see what I say?” This rubric
captures the seven constituent ideas of sensemaking as emergent interpretation, which I’ve put into my own words below. I’ve italicized the key terms that Weick uses to represent his heuristics:
• Sensemaking is matter of identity: it is who we understand ourselves to be in relation to the world around us.
• Sensemaking is retrospective: we shape experience into meaningful patterns according to our memory of experience.
• How and what becomes sensible depends on our socialization: where we grew up in the world, how we were taught to be in the world, where we are located now in the world, the people with
whom we are currently interacting.
• Sensemaking is a continuous flow; it is ongoing, because the world, our interactions with the world, and our understandings of the world are constantly changing. You might also think of
sensemaking as perpetually emergent meaning and awareness.
• Sensemaking builds on extracted cues that we apprehend from sense and perception. Cognition is the meaningful internal embellishment of these cues. We articulate these embellishments
through speaking and writing – the “what I say” part of Weick’s recipe. In doing so, we reify and reinforce cues and their meaning, and add to our repertoire of retrospective experience.
• Sensemaking is less a matter of accuracy and completeness than plausibility and sufficiency. We simply have neither the perceptual nor cognitive resources to know everything exhaustively, so
we have to move forward as best as we can. Plausibility and sufficiency enable action-in-context.
by LAURA A. MCNAMARA, Sandia National Laboratories
Sensemaking in Organizations: Reflections on Karl Weick and Social Theory

89
Madsbjerg sees these pendulum shifts, and the abstractions on which they are built as “eroding our sense of the human world.” He offers
five “principles of sensemaking” to help you contribute to the rebuilding of that world. Briefly they are:
1. Focus on cultures, not individuals: You need to receive messages through their social context, and to see a room of people as a
cultural happening rather than a collection of individuals.
2. Use thick data not thin data: Anthropologists use the term “thick data” to reflect the depth to which individual data can be understood in
its wider cultural context, rather than being simply observed.
3. See the savannah, not the zoo: The metaphor is largely self-explanatory. You need to ask not only who’s here, but where have they
come from, and how do they sustain themselves.
4. Engage with creativity not manufacturing. This one invites you to leave behind the primary assumptions of the industrial age. Look
beyond what’s familiar, take on what’s messy, and let creativity happen.
5. Finally, be guided by The North Star rather than GPS. People in the present time are persistently looking for detail, and developing
new algorithms to provide it. In previous times, a single reference point worked remarkably well, and to everyone’s advantage.
Christian Madsbjerg SØREN HASSEL
Sensemaking, written by philosopher/political-scientist Christian Madsbjerg. He doesn’t directly reference Weick. Instead, he describes
sensemaking as “an ancient practice of cultural inquiry, a process based on a set of values we are in great danger of forgetting.” It is a
practice that is sensitive toward “meaningful differences” in what matters to yourself and other people.

90

Theory of constraint

THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS 104: BALANCE FLOW, NOT CAPACITY

2.0 management 2019 neo

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2.0 management 2019 neo

Similar to 2.0 management 2019 neo (20)

More from thammasat university

More from thammasat university (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2.0 management 2019 neo