This is an intriguing line of questioning -- why do we create
organizations, and why do we create them the way we do -- and one on which
I'd like to offer a humble opinion, with the caveat that I admit it's a
bit long-winded and wacky and I don't yet have my Ph.D. and thus am
without license to produce long-winded wacky opinions, but here goes:
[Host's Note: License? to produce long-winded stuff? Hmm... There's no
license needed here. Postings of all lengths are welcome here on LO; all
msgs should be as short as possible and no shorter. ...Rick]
We organize because we are human. We often look for things in human
physiology to show how we are different from animals and how that led to
intelligence, e.g. walking upright, opposable thumb, tool using, binocular
vision, etc. But what strikes me as significant is our ability to
organize. Long before humans were hunter-gatherers, we were scavengers.
Scavengers work best in packs (e.g. coyotes, vultures, etc.) often with
roles for each member. Humans have taken the art of organizing to
incredible heights, facilitated by the development of language to
communicate tasks, roles, and meaning. If you took your kids to see the
movie, the "Lost World," there's a good example of what I'm talking about.
In one scene, the little scavenger dinosaurs band together to bring down
the big bad human. A few scenes later, we see humans banding together to
bring down the big bad T-Rex. By organizing, we do not just accomplish
*more* than we could individually, but we can accomplish different things
--things we could *never* accomplish individually. Perhaps an individual
can invent a light bulb, but an individual cannot raise his or her own
standard of living without participating in the trillions of transactions
that form the basis of an economic system. To me, our organizations are
beautiful things. Sure, there are a lot of learning disfunctions (as one
characterization) but considering what we have, we've done pretty well.
I'd argue spectacularly well. Modern organizations allow us to live in
ways unprecedented by our ancestors. Note the fact that I can sit here an
contemplate these things and you have time to read them as one example.
The fact that we can imagine better forms of organization is a testiment
to our ability to innovate -- also very human.
So why do we organize the way we do? We could argue that it is human
nature to set up command and control structures. Some have even suggested
it is hard-wired into the male brain to see communications as ways of
establishing dominance structures. (e.g. your co-worker has a fight with
your boss; said co-working has lost status and is lower in the social
heirarchy. Wife has fight with girlfriend; said girlfriend is lower in
the social heirarchy (but only in the husband's mind).) Strong
hierarchies allow us to set and implement strategies in relatively stable
environments (stable environment: one in which the players and their
behaviors don't change much). An ecological niche, formed over millions
of years of evolution, is relatively stable to the human mind, and thus
heirarchies are very good ways to form organizations to hunt animals or
perform scavaging operations, for example. Tasks and roles are relatively
fixed. But in dynamic environments, peer social networks are more useful.
They allow for organizational support by providing information and
allowing freedom of action and on-the-spot learning and adaptation.
Interestingly, it has been argued that leveraging social networks is
hard-wired into the female mind. The point is that we have the capability
to form both kinds of organizations based loosely on these two principles,
and which balance we choose depends on the environment, our education, our
persepective, and our attitude.
Thus, we organize because we are human, and we are human because we
organize. And we're good at it. We could be better, but that doesn't
diminish the fact that we have done so well. That people are unhappy in
organizational life, or that the fact "Dilbert" is such a hot seller, is
much more an example of our ability to form idealistic values and wish to
realize those ideals as it is a indictment of organizational behavior.
How many people would like to go back to Henry Ford's $5/day assembly
line? Those people thought they had it pretty good. Perhaps one day we
will create organizations that consistently allow us fulfillment on the
job and not just living for the weekends. Perhaps one day we will all
work in organizations that seek to self-actualize its members. If we
believe human nature is immutable, we will be limited in these endeavors
and grow increasingly cynical (and thereby encourage the types of
organizations we seek to avoid, ala Dilbert). If we believe human nature
continuously evolves, then our new forms of organization depend on what
has gone before and what we've learned, and the answer to the questions
"why do we create organizations, and why do we create them the way we do"
is this: we must lay the foundations for our castles in the air.
Michael D. Kull (202)994-2153 http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~mkull
Doctoral Fellow -- Management of Science, Technology, and Innovation
Department of Management Science, George Washington University 20052
--Michael David Kull <mkull@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>