Back • Return Home
COHESIVENESS IN LIVING SYSTEMS
Lane Tracy
Department of Management Systems
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Abstract
Living systems that are components of a higher-level (host) living system pose a problem for the host system. Living components are capable of independent choice and may be able to survive outside the host system. In order to maintain cohesiveness with and among living components, the template of the host system must establish commonalities of interests and values with the components, and guide the development of system processes and structures that are compatible and synergistic. There must also be mutually beneficial exchange between the host system and its living components, based on differences in values. This paper discusses ways in which social systems, particularly organizations, attempt to increase their cohesiveness through management of their template and their exchange relationships. Keywords: cohesiveness, template, values, components, exchange, living systems.
Introduction
Living systems above the level of the cell are composed largely of other living systems. Each level of living systems is built on the levels below it. Indeed, each level evolved from the lower levels, In the process of evolution, each level copied or adapted the essential characteristics of life that had sustained the lower level(s), but with more components of greater complexity. That is the essence of Miller's shred-out or fray-out process [7:1-4].
Components that are, themselves, living systems are the source of a problem for the host system. Living components are capable of independent choice and may be able to survive outside the host system. Thus, a basic question of living systems theory is: What binds living systems together?
This question is particularly important at the social system levels. Many cells and most organs cannot survive independently, but the basic living component of all social systems, the organism, usually can. Most adult human beings can separate themselves from their family or employer or nation and continue to live, albeit with difficulty. Indeed, the ability to function independently is one of the criteria of adulthood. Yet families, business organizations, political parties, and many other social systems cannot survive without maintaining ties to their members. How does a social system retain its living members?
The boundary subsystem is charged with the responsibility of holding a living system together in a physical sense [7:56]. With the exception of a few institutions such as prisons, however, the physical boundaries of social systems do not prevent members from leaving the system. What we are looking for is forces that cause members to remain in the system voluntarily. I suggest that such forces derive (a) from the template of the host system and (b) from establishment of mutually beneficial exchange relationships.
The template is important because it can establish commonalities of interests and values. One of the ties that binds a family, for instance, is the sharing of genetic information. Each member's template contains copies of many of the genes that comprise the family gene pool. Similarly, members of a political party or religious sect share parts of the social system's template. That is, members hold many of the same values that guide the party or sect.
The host system's template is important for another reason, as well. It guides the development of system processes and structures that are compatible and synergistic. For example, an organism's genes direct the growth of organs that support each other, such as a "circulatory system" to bring oxygen and nutrients to all the cells and organs and a "nervous system" to enable coordination of subsystem processes. Similarly, the template of a business firm guides the establishment of separate functional departments, a physical infrastructure to support the flow of resources between departments, an "information system" to coordinate activities of departments and individuals, and a boundary subsystem to hold the components together physically.
To the degree that living components, such as departments, are built to specification to fit a particular slot within the system, they may lack the ability to live independently or, at the least, may function more efficiently within the system than anywhere else. But human individuals are not built to social-system specifications. Families try to teach family values to their offspring, but these values are often overwhelmed by values from other sources. Human organisms are generalists, capable of filling a variety of slots.
Something else is needed to hold social systems together. The living components must each benefit from their association with the system. Families tend to stay together so long as the members are supportive of each other. Business firms and employees maintain association when the firm offers wages and benefits that the employees cannot easily duplicate elsewhere, and when the employees work efficiently and creatively. Nations remain united when they provide protection, education, and other benefits to the diverse individuals and groups that compose the citizenry, and when citizens do their part by voting, paying taxes, and participating in civic affairs.
Conversely, when heirs start to squabble over an inheritance, even shared genes are often insufficient to hold the family together. And when competition forces a business firm to reduce wages and benefits, employees may seek other employment. Likewise, when employees loaf on the job, the firm may discharge them. At the societal level, when one ethnic group dominates the politics of a nation and reaps most of the benefits, other ethnic groups may revolt or emigrate. Immigrants who engage in criminal activities may be deported. Only when all of the component systems are deriving benefits from association with the host system, and the host is likewise obtaining benefits from its members, is there likely to be stability within the host system.
Having presented the idea that two elements, the template and mutually beneficial exchange relationships, play a central role in holding social systems together, I would like now to focus on organizations in particular.
The Template
An organization is supported by two sets of template instructions. First, each member brings to the organization certain personal processes and structures that are determined by the individual's template. Second, the founder of the organization, or a founding group, has memes (i.e., ideas that generate systems) about the structure and processes of the new organization. Some of these memes may be written down in a formal charter; others are carried in the memory of the founder and may be taught to new members. This organizational template may include values and goals for the organization, instructions for decision-making processes, outlines of departmental structure, plans for growth, and guidelines for selecting members, for example. It may also include plans for buildings and grounds to house the organization.
Both sets of instructions, individual and organizational, together determine the processes and structures of the organization, and both may contribute to its cohesiveness. Let us examine in detail how this works.
Shared Values
The templates of an organization and its members help to hold the organization together to the degree that the members and organization share common characteristics and values. Two factors are at work. The first is the degree of similarity among the members, which reduces conflict and enables them to cohere more easily among themselves. For example, a workforce that shares the same language and ethnic characteristics is generally easier to hold together than one that consists of a mixture of languages and cultures.
The other factor is the degree of similarity between the values of the members and the values of the organization. Members who share a common concern for the environment will tend to cohere with each other and with an organization that espouses the same concern. Employees who learn to share values of high quality and service to the customer will tend to be loyal to a firm that emphasizes these values.
Sharing of values by an organization and its members may come about in several ways. First, members may join the organization on the basis of a perceived similarity of values. Membership in political and religious groups is often determined by such self selection. Business firms may also benefit from employees' self selection to the extent that the firm projects a clear image to the community from which it draws applicants for employment.
As another force working toward shared values, organizations may employ value criteria in the selection of members. Religious groups often require prospective members to swear allegiance to the doctrines of the sect. Some business firms reject applicants who have a criminal record, who are union members, or who smoke, on the grounds that these characteristics indicate a lack of adherence to such values as honesty, company loyalty, or health. It is also common for business firms and other organizations to have a probationary period during which the new member's behavior can be observed. If that behavior appears to deviate greatly from the values of the firm, the new employee can be summarily discharged.
Some organizations try to assure shared values by acculturating new employees through training programs, apprenticeships, and mentors. That is, the organization attempts to disseminate its key values to new members through a program of education. For instance, business firms employ techniques such as orientation lectures, speeches by the CEO or high-ranking members, and personal counselling and guidance by a fellow employee or work group. New employees who appear to resist such education may be discharged during the probationary period. Family groups, communities, and societies also employ educational methods to disseminate system values to new members.
An adjunct to education is the maintenance of a strong culture in the organization. In the past decade organization theorists have focused on corporate culture as an important aspect of effective business organizations [8,9]. Corporate values are frequently expressed and reinforced by means of rites and ceremonies, such as an annual awards banquet; stories and legends, such as the history of the founding of the firm; symbols, such as a logo or slogan that appears on all company documents and in advertising; and special terms that are known only by members of the firm and convey a shared experience.
Finally, there is a reverse socialization process by which members seek to influence the values of the organization. In democratic organizations this may consist of open advocacy of values in an appeal for consensus or majority acceptance. In more autocratic organizations the process tends either to be more subtle, wherein employee groups develop and enforce norms of their own that may contravene official corporate values, or more forceful, as in assertion of employee values through collective bargaining. To the degree that the firm is willing to accept and adopt strongly-held employee values, these too may add to the cohesiveness of the organization.
Integrated Processes and Structures
The template of a living system specifies not only values, but also instructions for the development of system processes and structures. Thus, the charter of a social system may contain the seeds of unity or divisiveness, depending on how well it provides for the integration of system functions.
A well-planned organization contains a variety of specialized groups or departments that carry out particular tasks required by the host system. These departments may or may not correspond to particular critical subsystems, but together they must provide (or give access to) all of the vital processes. For the sake of efficiency there should be relatively little overlap between departments in terms of the tasks that they take on, but the work of the departments should be closely coordinated.
For example, a manufacturing firm must be structured in such a way that the processes of procurement of raw materials, assembly of products, packaging, shipment, and sales are all accomplished efficiently. Usually this means that each of these processes is assigned to a different department. Salespeople specialize in selling, buyers specialize in procurement, machine operators specialize in production, and so forth.
Assuming that the template provides for such specialization within the social system, it must also provide means of coordinating the activities of the specialized groups [5]. The procuring department must know how much of what materials the production department is going to need, and must try to arrange that the required materials arrive on time. Production must coordinate with sales to produce on schedule the right amounts of the right products, as specified by customer orders. To the extent that coordination is effective, the organization is cohesive. All of the departments benefit from the organization's success by obtaining a continuing, and often expanding, flow of inputs and outputs. Individual members gain from security of employment and increasing wages and benefits.
One other matter that the template must specify is how decisions will be made for the system. Without a plan for the decider subsystem, decisions will be made chaotically. Different departments and individuals will make conflicting decisions about the same matter. Other questions will receive no decision at all. To avoid such chaos the template must define who has authority for what decisions. A hierarchy of authority and delegation of decision-making responsibility must be set up in order to assure the necessary coordination of activities between specialized departments.
Exchange Relationships
Living systems are open systems, requiring a steady flow of inputs and outputs. The sources of most inputs and the recipients of many outputs are other living systems. Thus, living systems exist in a complex web of exchange relationships with each other, and often the exchange is two-way or mutual.
Exchanges are guided by values. Values determine a system's input requirements or needs by specifying preferred Steady states for the system, against which the current states can be measured [10]. In the same way values determine what is excess to the system and available for output.
Dyadic Bonds
Although cohesiveness within a system is partly based on shared values, there must be value differences, as well. Differences in values provide opportunities for exchange. For example, a business firm may have a greater need for employees' labor than for money, and the employees may have a greater need for money than for their own time and effort. When such value differences occur, a mutually beneficial exchange of labor for money is possible, and the exchange creates a bond between the firm and its members.
At this point it is necessary to examine what sorts of values should be shared by an organization and its members, and what sorts should be different. Shared values for money, for instance, are a source of conflict in a business firm, because both the firm and its members wish to retain a larger share of the profits. When values pertain to scarce material or energy resources that are to be divided, similarity of values leads to conflict. When values pertain to shared resources (e.g. a common environment) or information, on the other hand, agreement on values usually leads to cooperation and cohesiveness. Thus, when an organization and its members jointly assign a high value to broad concepts such as quality, efficiency, service, legality, safety, loyalty, and environmental protection, a groundwork is set for cohesiveness. On the other hand, differences in values for resources such as time, human energy, materials, tools, and money provide the opportunity for a mutually beneficial exchange of resources.
Provided that the needs of employer and employee are relatively stable and continuing, a mutually beneficial exchange relationship creates a strong bond between them. It is similar to the bonds that join atoms into complex molecules, wherein the positive or negative charge on each atom "fits" opposite charges on its neighbors. Indeed, dyads built on mutually beneficial exchange relationships are the living systems equivalent of molecules.
Mutually beneficial exchange is also important at the levels of organs and organisms. Differentiated cells supply each other with specialized resources, such as enzymes, that other cells cannot produce. Specialized organs carry out processes that are required by other organs. Most cells and organs within organisms do not contain all of the twenty critical subsystems; they are partipotential. Some of the essential processes of these subsystems are dispersed upwardly to the organism or to other cells and organs. That is why most cells and organs die when the host organism dies.
Therein lies an important difference between most cells and organs, on the one hand, and most organisms on the other. Adult organisms generally are totipotential; they possess all of the critical subsystems. When the host group, organization, community, or society disintegrates, the member organisms do not usually die with it. Failure of a social system may make life harder for its members. They may not live as efficiently as before, and they may lack many amenities, but they do survive. Furthermore, they may seek membership in another social system or try to construct a new one.
Substitutability
The adaptability of organisms enables them to find alternative sources for the resources that they need. If one social group disbands, the members may seek another. If one family dissolves in divorce, the former Partners may seek new mates. If an employee is discharged from one firm, he looks for employment elsewhere. Indeed, employees may seek a better job even while working, and married people may court other mates while still married.
A living systems dyad is not a closed system. The two members of the dyad are not completely dependent on one another. Each receives inputs from other sources and sends outputs to other recipients. In fact, living systems in general and human individuals in particular form a large number of dyadic relationships with other systems. A person will have relationships to his or her own family as a whole and to each family member individually; to an organization as employer, to a work group, and to superiors, peers, and subordinates individually; to social groups and their individual members; to a community in which he or she lives and to leaders and other members of that community individually; to a nation or society; and to personal friends. Each of these relationships fulfills some portion of the person's needs.
To the degree that benefits from one relationship can be substituted for benefits from another, each dyadic bond is weakened. Typically, however, different needs are served by each relationship. The resources provided by one exchange relationship are, at best, only partially substitutable for resources obtained in another. For example, an employee may leave his/her employer and take a position with another firm, but the new employer will probably not duplicate all of the benefits provided by the old one, nor will new colleagues replace all of the individual relationships on the old job. The benefits of the new job may be greater in sum than the old ones, but specific benefits will be different and some needs will remain unfulfilled.
There is even less substitutability in other kinds of relationships. The family fulfills many emotional and developmental needs, for instance, but most families cannot supply the sorts of material and monetary resources that a good job provides. An unemployed worker may fall back on the resources of the family for a short period, but in the long run must seek new employment.
Nevertheless, the existence of multiple exchange relationships, alternative sources of inputs, and alternative recipients of outputs weakens each particular dyadic bond. The loyalty of employees to their employers, and of employers to employees, is tenuous. Therefore, organizations employ a variety of means to Strengthen the bonds of mutual exchange.
Managing Bonds of Exchange
One method of strengthening bonds is to increase the variety of resources exchanged. An employer, for example;.can strengthen the employment relationship by adding new benefits, instituting a new advancement program, or opening a credit union for employees. When an employer provides a wide variety of benefits, employees are not so likely to find another employer who can fulfill the same needs. The employees can likewise strengthen the relationship by offering useful suggestions or learning additional skills, thereby making it more difficult to replace them.
Another method of strengthening the bond is to increase the amount of resources exchanged. An employer can increase wages, offer longer rest periods, and improve working conditions. Employees can work harder and reduce absenteeism. This method is usually not as effective as increasing the variety of mutual benefits, because both parties may become satiated. That is, employees may accumulate so much money that they prefer leisure to more work, and productivity may increase to the point that the employer must reduce the workforce.
A third method is to induce the other party to make an increased contribution to the relationship. When people put more effort into a task, for instance, they tend to rationalize that the relationship is worth the additional effort. This effect is explained by balance theory or cognitive dissonance theory [2,3]. Since an unequal exchange relationship tends to deteriorate over time, however, the greatest strengthening effect occurs if both parties increase their contributions to the other party.
Another possible method of strengthening the bond is to seal off access to other sources. There are several ways this might be done. An employer might move operations from a large city to a much smaller community, where other employment opportunities are few. A group of employees might seek to lock their employer into the existing employment relationship by negotiating a labor union contract.
Employers often try to strengthen the bond by offering benefits that are contingent on length of service with the organization. In the United States it is common for benefits such as pension rights and the size of the pension, length of vacation time, opportunities for advancement and overtime pay, and number of days of paid sick leave to be dependent on an employee's length of service. In essence this is a variant on the method of sealing off other sources. An employee who leaves the job loses these benefits and must start all over again on a new job to accumulate service time. A weakness of this method is that the benefits, themselves, often seem like distant promises to the employee. An immediate increase in pay resulting from a switch to a new employer may have greater weight than a potential loss of pension benefits in thirty years.
Employee stock ownership, profit sharing, and productivity gainsharing appear to be more effective as contingency exchange arrangements. In the United States employee stock option plans (ESOPs) give employees an opportunity to buy company stock at a discount. As part-owners of the company, employees then have an increased stake in its profitability. The exchange relationship becomes somewhat more direct: to the degree that improved employee performance leads to greater profits, employees directly receive larger dividends and/or stock price increases. Other firms promise annual bonuses based on company profits. At Lincoln Electric, for instance, the directness of the link between performance and bonuses led to an almost obsessive employee devotion to efficiency [1].
Productivity gainsharing plans, such as the Scanlon Plan, Rucker Plan, and Improshare, provide an even more direct link between performance and reward. Whereas profits are affected by factors other than employee performance, such as level of competition, consumer demand, effectiveness of advertising, and economic conditions, productivity gains are affected primarily by employee input and capital investment. Gainsharing plans employ a formula to calculate and award bonuses based on productivity gains. Published reports indicate that the majority of Scanlon Plans, for instance, are successful in terms of company performance and cohesiveness [4,6].
Other organizational rewards that are often contingent on employee performance include opportunities for special training and advancement, special recognition awards, and incentive pay. Employers who offer extensive training and educational opportunities to their employees take a risk that the employees will learn new skills and then use them to obtain a better job elsewhere. Nevertheless, better-trained employees are more valuable to the firm, are often grateful for the education they have received, and may perceive that similar rewards exist in the future if they stay with the firm. Realistic opportunities for advancement provide a reason for ambitious employees to remain with the firm; lack of such opportunities gives them a reason to look for better opportunities elsewhere. Recognition awards such as certificates, plaques, inscribed watches, or special titles confirm to employees that their service to the organization is appreciated.
Incentive pay and other rewards based on individual performance may add to the bonds between an organization and its members, but they tend to detract from cohesiveness between the members and between work groups. Profit sharing and productivity gainsharing, which assume a broader perspective on the contribution of all members to the common good, are more apt to contribute to cohesiveness between members as well as loyalty to the firm. In general, rewards that emphasize the value of the common enterprise rather than individual performance are preferable for the purpose of holding the organization together.
Summary
How does a living organization retain its living members? I have suggested two approaches: (1) through the template of the organization, by establishing common interests and values and by guiding the development of processes and structures that are compatible and synergistic, and (2) by establishing mutually beneficial exchange relationships.
Cohesiveness is enhanced when an organization's members share certain values among themselves and when these values are shared by the organization, itself. These shared values should relate to shared resources and information. Several means of attaining shared values in an organization were discussed, including (1) self selection by applicants for membership, (2) selection of members by the organization, (3) orientation and acculturation of new members, and (4) members influencing the values of the organization.
Careful planning of the organization's charter contributes to cohesiveness. The charter should specify a clear division of authority and responsibility that avoids gaps and overlaps, should indicate how and by whom decisions will be made, and should provide for appropriate feedback to the decision makers.
Mutually beneficial exchange based on differences in values also forms firm bonds between a system and its components. To strengthen these bonds, organizations employ methods such as (1) offering a large amount or broad variety of rewards for continued service, (2) offering rewards that are dependent on length of service, (3) reducing members' access to other sources, and (4) inducing increased contributions of time and effort from members.
In sum, these methods of assuring shared values, designing a well-integrated set of subsystems, and strengthening the bonds of exchange between the organization and its members provide a recipe for holding the organization together.
[1] M. Fein, 1976, "Motivation for Work." In Handbook of Work, Organization and Society (R. Dubin, ed.) Rand-McNally, Chicago, pp. 465-530.
[2] L. Festinger, 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. :
[3] F. Heider, 1958, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, pp. 107-112.
[4] E. E. Lawler, 1981, Pay and Organizational Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 148-9.
[5] P. R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, 1967, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard University.
[6] F. G. Lesieur and E. S. Puckett, 1969, "The Scanlon Plan Has Proved Itself," Harvard Business Review Vol. 47(5): 109-118.
[7] J. G. Miller, 1978, Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[8] T. J. Peters and R. H. Waterman, Jr., 1982, In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
[9] L. Smircich, 1983, "Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 28: 339-58.
[10] L. Tracy, 1986, "Toward an Improved Need Theory: In Response to Legitimate Criticism." Behavioral Science Vol. 31: 205-18.