Systems Theory And Organizational Change

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received
69-16,544
DICLE, Ilhan A tilla, 1941-
SYSTEMS THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE.
U niversity of Southern C alifornia, Ph.D., 1964
P o litical Science, public adm inistration
U niversity M icrofilms, Inc., A nn Arbor, M ichigan
Copyright by
ILHAN ATILLA, C
1969
SYSTEMS THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
Ilham Atilla Dicle
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Public Administration)
January 1969
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
t h e g r a d u a t e s c h o o l
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, ‘written by
............___JLHAS.AT.XLLA DICLE........;......
under the direction of Dissertation C om
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments for the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Date J.gnwao.J . . . . 1 2 6 . 2
Babam
Mehmet Dicle'ye
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The present form of this dissertation, and the de
gree objective which it satisfies, could not have been
achieved without the help I have received from other per
sons. Although I hesitate to associate the names of
others with a study that has so many shortcomings, I am
intensely desirous to take this opportunity to express my
gratitude to those who have made this study a rewarding
experience.
I am deeply grateful to the Turkish Nation for
providing the necessary moral and financial support to
complete this study. A nation which cuts back from her
limited means of living, in the interest of the intel
lectual development of her members and of human society,
has every right to be proud of herself, thus her efforts
in that direction deserve recognition and appreciation.
My debt to her is beyond expression.
Also, I offer my gratitude to an unforgettable
group of people whose assistance, competence, understand
ing, friendship and devotion were most beneficial and who
had an equal hand in the completion of this study.
From Professor Bruce Storm, the Chairman of my
committee, and Professor Gilbert Siegel, the other com
mittee member, I received invaluable guidance and an
extraordinary degree of courtesy and kindness-
I am indebted to Professor Frank Sherwood, Pro
fessor Guerreixo Ramos, Professor Robert Berkov, and
Professor William Larson for their valuable guidance
prior to the qualifying examination. Throughout that
phase of the work, they were most helpful and encour
aging.
Professor Aurelius Morgner and Professor Alan
Brown were good enough to serve on my committees prior
to and after the qualifying examination.
I am thankful to all the administrative person
nel of the City of Burbank who were most receptive and
cooperative. Their contribution was to the empirical
part of the study.
In addition, I am deeply appreciative of bene
fits received from Dr. Wesley Bjuir, Director, Interna
tional Public Administration Center, John Barber, Connie
Rogers, Mary Ono and all other members of the staff, for
their contributions on administrative matters.
Mrs. Helen OfConnell has done a splendid job of
typing the final work, and so has Miss Ann Casy in edit
ing. My thanks go to them too.
Finally, of course, my heaviest debt is to my
wife, Ulku, who has shared every pain and joy with me.
She has been an inseparable part of oach facet of my
life through the years of doctoral study — always
inspiring, always encouraging, and always kind.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
* < t
111
LIST OF TABLES ix
Chapter
I. OUTLINE OF THE STUDY 1
Introductory
Nature, Aims, and Scope of the Study
Methodology
The Significance of the Study
Contents of the Dissertation
PART I. A REVIEW OF SYSTEMS LITERATURE
Systems Theories
General Systems Theory
Systems Design and Systems Analysis
Toward a Modern Systems Theory
Nature of Systems Theory
Advantages of Systems Theory
III. THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
Traditional Theories of Organization
A Systems Theory of Organization
Consequences of Viewing Organizations
as Systems
PART II. ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
IV. SOME MAJOR APPROACHES TO
II. SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED
20
AND SYSTEMS THEORY
74
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 125
vi
Chapter Page
V.
VI.
Approaches Which Concentrate on
Change in Human Elements of
Organization to Bring About
Organizational Change
Approaches Which Concentrate on
Change in Structural Elements
of Organization to Bring About
Organizational Change
Approaches Which Concentrate on
Technology to Deal with
Organizational Change
Systemic Approaches to the Study
of Organizational Change
A SYSTEMS MODEL OF ORGAN
IZATIONAL CHANGE ................
Levels of Change
Definition of Organizational
Change
The Process of Organizational
Change
Transformation of Change Inputs
Change Outputs of Organization
System
Planned Organizational Change
Objectives of Planned Organ
izational Change
Methods of Achieving the
Objectives of Planned
Organizational Change
A Critique of the Existing
Methods of Planned Organ
izational Change
A Strategic Model of Achieving
Organizational Change
Through Planning
PART III. AN EMPIRICAL STUDY
OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OF THE
CITY OF BURBANK AND ITS
TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .
City Government as a System
Technological Environment of
the City of Burbank
vii
154
224
Chapter
VII. A CASH OF ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE IN THE CITY OF
BURBANK ................................
VIII. THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMENT
SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF
BURBANK ................................
Developments of the Technological
Change Inputs of the City
System
Transformation of Change Inputs
into Actual Organizational
Change
The Effects of EDP on the Human
Elements of the City Govern
ment
The Effects of EDP on the Struc
tural Elements of the City
Government
The Effects of EDP on the Goal
Elements of the City of
Burbank
PART IV. METHODOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE STUDY
IX. EMPIRICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE MODEL AND THE PROSPECTS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ..................
Summary
Identification of Some Analytical
Concepts to Differentiate Sys
tems Approach to Organizational
Change from Conventional Reduc
tionist or Partial Approaches
Development of Some General Tests
of Achievement in Bringing About
Organizational Change
Suggestions for Empirical Testing:
A Proposed Research Design
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................
APPENDIX .........................................
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Years of Service in the City
Government of Burbank .................. 261
2. Years Spent in the Same Admin
istrative Positions in the
City Goverhment of Burbank........... 262
3. Level of Education for the City
Administrators in Burbank . v*......... 263
4. Attitudes of the City Admin
istrators Toward Change in
Burbank.................................. 264
5. Reasons for Favoring the EDP
in the City of Burbank............... 269
6. The Significance of Various
Reasons in Making the De
cision to Adopt the EDP
System into the City of
Burbank.................................. 275
7. Summary of Two Basic Approaches
to Organizational Change .............. 339
ix
CHAPTER I
OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
Introductory
Today, the environment surrounding organizations
has come to be highly dynamic; and the environmental
dynamism has made change an essential and inevitable part
of organizational procedures. The management of todayTs
large-scale complex organizations encounter a steady
stream of new machines, processes, procedures, structures,
and so forth. As education and technical knowledge have
increased, so has the pressure within, and without, or
ganizations for the introduction of new people, practices
and procedures.
Yet despite the common occurrence of organiza
tional change, its underlying processes and dynamics are
understood only in rough, ill-defined ways. This inade
quate cognizance of change very well reflects the true
characteristic of the prevailing approaches to organiza
tional change which have been made only in parts or
fragments. Scholars have usually studied the change
phenomenon in organizations by placing their emphasis on
a few elements of the organization. They have, in many
cases, reduced the explanation of an organization-wide
problem to a single cause; and a mere change in the cen
tral element has been accepted as an efficient solution.
This "single-shot" approach is illustrated by attacking
the problem through any number of areas of an organiza
tion, as if they were isolated from the total system;
these include human development, change in leadership,
a structural change such as delegation of authority,
change in the decision-making structure, communications
network, work-flow process, space layout, a technological
change such as introduction of a new method, a new
machine, and so forth.^
The reductionist approach to organizational change
has not been able to reflect fully the realities of the
complex organizations of today. Thus, the interdependent
and integrated nature of an organization does not allow
a problem, or a change, to be studied and analyzed and
thereby be solved in isolation from the rest of the system.
We need to recognize the fact that organizational change
is an interdependent process, and in most cases the prob
lems have multiple causes. It must follow that their
l-Louis B. Barnes, "Organizational Change and
Field Experiment Methods," Victor H. Vroom (ed.), Methods
of Organizational Research (Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1967), pp. 57-113.
solutions require a thorough knowledge of interdependent
processes of organization systems.
It seems that the prevailing partial theories of
organizational change have been the result of the tradi
tional organization theory — classical and neoclassical.
In the classical theory — where the whole emphasis is
put upon the formal structure — it is natural to expect
a partial approach. Here the formal structural elements
of organization are seen as the sole source of troubles,
thus the variables to be manipulated in order to solve
the problems or to bring about a change* On the other
hand, in the neoclassical or human relations theory, jthe
human elements (individuals and groups) are viewed as
primary causes of organizational problems; hence the sol
ution of these problems and the subsequent change could
be achieved only if the individuals in the organization
were changed.
Nevertheless, many weaknesses of the traditional
organization theory have been overcome through the appli
cation of the systems theory to organizations. Today,
organizations are no longer studied as purely formal
structures or mere collections of individuals; they are
no longer analyzed in isolation from their environment;
and the time has passed when they are appraised only in
rational terms. Instead, organizations are viewed as
integrated systems with formal (structural) as well as
informal (human) elements, with a rational as well as
nonrational aspects, in continuous interaction with their
environment, and with highly dynamic interdependent in*
ternal processes.
While organization theory has benefitted from the
recent developments in the systems theory, sufficient
effort has not been made to present a critique of inade
quate theories. If this were done and the change phenom
ena thus viewed in systems* terms, development in the
larger theory of organization could then be followed.
Nature, Aims, and Scope of the Study
This is essentially an exploratory study aimed at
identifying the significance of the systems theory in the
study of organizational change. To serve this purpose,
we have conducted our exploration on both theoretical and
empirical grounds. On the theoretical side, our objective
was to develop twofold systems model of organizational
change which would serve to give a better understanding
of the change processes in organizations and thus to
bring about the change more effectively. This requires
a review of literature pertinent to the idea of "systems”
and their application to organizations and .the prevailing
approaches to organizational change.
The theoretical part of the work may enable us to
close the gap between theories of organization and theo
ries of organizational change, to suggest an explanation
for the failure of organizational change attempts, and to
indicate relevant variables and strategies for more effec
tive action-oriented change programs in organizations.
On the empirical side, the purpose is to use the
conceptual framework developed in the theoretical section
for an analysis and evaluation of a specific case of or
ganizational change. The objective was to test the theory
against the realities of life as experienced in a large-
scale and complex organization.
In sum, the contention of this study is that the
systems approach to organizational change is more effec
tive in explaining and predicting change processes in
organizations, and in planning and achieving change,
than are prevailing reductionist approaches.
Methodology
As has been stated previously, this study is pri
marily exploratory. Parts I and II of the work are
theoretical and are based on an extensive survey of
literature which exists in the field. By definition, a
6
J
theory is "a set of interrelated constructs (concepts),
definitions, and propositions that presents a systematic
view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables,
with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena*"^
Theories, as well as models, are broad and general. The
scientific worth of a theory or a model is in its ability
to provide an explanation for observed events and rela
tionships, and to predict the occurrences of as yet un
observed events and relationships on the basis of ex
planatory principles embodied in the theory or^model.
Theories and models have provisional characteristics; and
they are always held with some tentativeness, no matter
how great the accumulation of findings consistent with
them. They are considered to be the most probable way
of accounting for their set of findings in the light of
present knowledge. However, they are not final formula
tions; they are always open to revision. It is on this
basis that we have formulated a new systems model of
organizational change in the second part of this work.
If theory is to become more than interesting
speculation, it needs to be tested and expanded by em
pirical research. It is through this research that we
^Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral
Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1965), p. 11.
7
can decide the extent to which a theory may hold up in
application. Our confidence in the general principles
of a theory will be greater if it is tested against the
realities of life. The more diverse observations it can
explain, the greater confidence we can have in it for the
purposes of prediction.
For a scientific test of the model of organiza
tional change as developed in this work, it would be
desirable to conduct a controlled experimental study in
the field in order to be able to manipulate the independ
ent variables, control the intervening or external ones,
and observe dependent variables so that causal relation
ships among them could be discovered and inferences be
made. However, practical difficulties made such an ex
perimental study impossible. The independent variable
existed when this study was started, hence*’its manipula
tion was not possible. This led to a field study, an
ex post facto scientific inquiry aimed at discovering
relations and interactions among variables in the life
situation.
The problems around which theories or models are
constructed are not sufficiently specific enough to allow
3
Claire Seelltiz, et al., Research Methods in
Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1964), pp. 479-500.
i
empirical research to be readily designed and conducted
in identical terms. For the purpose of this study, we
have attempted to specify the problem area: a case of
organizational change stimulated by technological change
(the adoption of Electronic Data Processing System EDP)
in a public organization (the City of Burbank).
Thus, the third part of this investigation is
empirical and analytical. The major part of the empirical
data was collected through a survey of beliefs, opinions,
attitudes, and feelings of respondents about the cogni
tive object (the EDP system) by means of survey question
naire and a series of interviews.
Although the use of the framework developed in
this study was most helpful in studying and analyzing the
selected case of organizational change, it has not pro
vided a pure empirical test for the model. For that
purpose, a research design has been proposed in the last
part of the work.
Sampling
Under the assumption that administrators possess
the greatest knowledge of their own departments, or
agencies, as well as of the total organization, we decided
to include all the managerial population of Burbank's
government in our sample. This included the City Manager,
Assistant City Manager, Assistant to the City Manager,
all the department heads, all the department head assist
ants, and the top men of the major division of each
department.
Data Collection Instruments
Our study started with unstructured personal in
terviews held with members of the sample. All individuals
interviewed were asked the same, or similar, questions
although there were variations from case to case, and
occasional differences in wording of questions. Most of
*
them were open-ended with the intent to obtain as much
information as possible. The majority of the interviews
were conducted by appointment and averaged about ninety
minutes in duration.
The questionnaire was based upon an extensive
literature survey. The first seven questions were taken
from the works of Trumbo, and used to measure the re
spondents* need for achievement and attitudes toward
change. The remaining queries were formulated to measure
knowledge, opinions, and feelings among respondents con
cerning various phases of organizational change, starting
with the adoption of the EDP system by the City, and
10
including the effects of EDP on the entire city organiza
tion .
With the exception of the first seven points of
inquiry, the questionnaire was pre-tested for wording and
understanding on a group of students. We assumed its
validity since it was directed to measure opinions and
feelings o'f respondents about a cognitive object rather
than their attitudes. The questionnaire was checked by
a few key members of the city organization who were famil
iar with both the individuals included in our sample and
the EDP system in the organization. Certain changes were
made based upon their suggestions in order to increase
reliability and internal consistency.
To facilitate coding and analysis, all questions
— except a few for identification — were of the closed
types. All were in the form of statements, and respond
ents were given six alternatives in their answers accord
ing to their degree of agreement with each statement.
Although an alternative for "no opinion" was not provided
for the respondents, they were orally instructed not to
answer the questions for which they had no opinion.
The reliability of the questionnaire was also
checked by certain questions intentionally built into it
which were against the factual data obtained from the
organization.
In addition to the interviews and personal partic
ipation in and observation of the organization, the
official documents and records kept by the city were ex
amined to reinforce the information at hand. Systems
analyses conducted by the University of Southern Cali
fornia, Municipal Systems Development Project were also
utilized.
Methodological Limitations
of the Study
Time was the first, and perhaps most important,
limiting factor of this study, for that which was availabl
for the entire project was limited. Therefore, it made
scientific testing of theory through controlled experi
mentation almost impossible. The only possibility open
to gather empirical data for an evaluation of the theo
retical conceptualizations within the limited period
appeared to be to study an organizational change program
which had already started and is still going on. The re
search carries the weaknesses of the case study: no purely
scientific and definite statements can be made based on
the findings, nor may any scientifically valid general
izations be derived from it. Consequently, the theo
retical conceptualizations and contention of the study
will remain subject to controlled scientific testing; and
12
until tested, they are open to question.
A second problem arising from time limitation re-
.lates to the actual period available for observations of
the organization along with the change process. The case
of organizational change in the City of Burbank is not
new and cannot be identified by definite lines through
time. However, a major change program was initiated in
early 1965 and was still going on in July, 1967, when we
began to study it. Because an active participation and
observation from the beginning was not possible, the ex
ploration of facts about the earlier period of the program
remained indirect.
We attempted to overcome this weakness through the
use of appropriate data collection instruments, but we
were not able to eliminate the effects of external or
intervening variables. This remains to be a serious
limitation of this study.
On the spatial dimension, the inclusion of more
than one case would have enhanced the validity of the
study and its subsequent findings. However, this was not
possible because of financial and time considerations, and
of practical difficulties in finding such cases. As a
result, the study was limited to one case of organiza
tional change.
13
Another restriction on the study was the newness
of the EDP system in the city government — in the sense
that at the time of the study, it was being utilized only
by few departments — and its use was in no manner organ
ization-wide. Many effects of the EDP which were not
felt at the time of our study could very well take place
in the future.
Significance of the Study
In spite of these limitations, this study has
relevance to the problem area with which it is concerned.
It is significant in the following terms: (1) It attempts
to explore the hidden realities of organizational change
through the use of the systems theory, and it is a con
tribution to the field of social change in general. When
the major role played by organizations in social change
is recognized, the importance of a thorough understanding
of the change process, as well as changing organizations,
becomes obvious. (2) It attempts to close the existing
gap between theories of organization in general and those
of organizational change, a more specific phenomenon of
organizations. (3) It clarifies the terminological con
fusion prevailing in regard to systems, and offers a
systems framework (also referred to as a systems model or
14
a systems theory since it carries the characteristics of
these concepts) which can be utilized quite fruitfully
to study a variety of systems.
Contents of the Dissertation
The dissertation consists of an introductory
chapter, three major sections, and a final part which
includes a summary and conclusions.
In the introductory chapter of the dissertation,
an outline of the study, including objectives, scope,
methodology, limitations and significance of the work,
has been presented.
The first part of the exposition then develops
material on the systems theory and its application to or
ganizations. In Chapter II, the field of systems theory
— the systems idea, General Systems Theory, systems anal
ysis and design and their relationships and interdepend
encies is explored. The use of systems ideas by several
authors is reviewed. At the conclusion of the chapter,
the term “systems'1 is defined and a “systems theory" is
conceptualized. Chapter III focuses upon the ways in
which systems ideas have been applied to organizational
study. In order to see the contributions made by the
systems theory to the field of organization and management,
15
we first review the traditional — classical and neoclas
sical — theory of organization and its weaknesses. Then,
the means by which the systems idea has been utilized to
study organizations, and the contributions it has made
are shown. Finally, a framework for a systems theory of
organizations is developed.
The second part deals with the organizational
change. In Chapter IV, the prevailing approaches to such _
change and their shortcomings are revealed. In the light
of these revelations, and based on the data generated in
the first part, a systems model of organizational change
is constructed in Chapter V.
Part III presents the study and analyses of an
empirical case of organizational change. This investiga
tion serves the theory of organizational change by testing
the ability of our theoretical model in explaining and
understanding the realities of organizations and the phe
nomena of organizational change, and by opening up
opportunities for improvements.
Chapter VI looks at our case organization as a
total system, emphasizing its technological environment.
Chapter VII presents the case of organizational change;
and in Chapter VIII, the process of specific change in
our case organization is studied and analyzed.
16
The final part of the dissertation attempts to
summarize the whole study by presenting some general tests
to identify systemic and reductionist approaches to organ
izational change, and to measure the degree of achievement
in bringing about such change. Lastly, it proposes a re
search design to be used toward empirical testing of the
systems model of organizational change as developed in
this work.
PART I
A REVIEW OF SYSTEMS LITERATURE
18
In the first part of this dissertation, our pur
pose will be to develop and clarify the concepts and the
material upon which we can build a theoretical model to
deal with the realities of organizational change. The
development of a systems model of organizational change
requires, primarily, a refinement of the meanings of
"systems" and ’ ’systems theory." Secondly, it is our con
tention that the utilization of this theory has contributed
significantly to the development of theories pertaining to
organization and management. However, this contribution
has not been as significant in the specific field of
organizational change. No one has yet attempted to
utilize and apply the idea of systems for a better under
standing, analysis, and achievement of organizational
change of this nature, although such an attempt seems to
be most promising.
Thus, the first part is designed to serve two
purposes: (a) to clarify the meaning of such concepts as
"systems," "systems theory," "General Systems Theory,"
"systems analysis," "systems design," and so forth. The
second chapter was then projected to serve that purpose,
and also (b) to indicate the contributions of the systems
theory in the field of organization and management. In
the third chapter this is done. Based upon this back
ground information, we shall then attempt to construct
19
a systems model of organizational change in the chapters
to follow.
CHAPTER II
SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED
The concept of "systems" has been with us for
many years. There is nothing new in its meaning. The
man on the street can easily identify the word as meaning
"an orderly relationship among the parts and the whole."
He can talk about weapon systems, hydraulic systems, and
electrical systems. He can mention several different
types and refer to them as physical, abstract, natural,
or man-made systems.^-
Roughly, then, a system may be visualized by
drawing a circle and placing the elements, parts, and
variables inside the circle as its components. These
then may be connected by using rubber bands, which stretch
or contract as the forces increase or decrease. All other
factors which impinge upon the system are placed in the
environment, outside the circle.
^"George R. Terry, Office Management and Control
(Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1966), p. 195.
^Robert Chin, "The Utility of Systems Models and
Developmental Models for Practitioners," Warren G. Bennis,
Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (eds.), The Planning of
Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961),
p. 203.
20
21
That which is new concerning systems is the man
ner in which the concept is now being used in the social
sciences. The systems models used by biological and
physical sciences were seen to be applicable to human
relationships in small or large units. The social scien
tist, including psychologists, sociologists, anthro
pologists, economists, and political scientists have
already started to use the idea in their work.
To emphasize the scope and significance of this
approach, it is perhaps sufficient to cite illustrated
examples from various fields. In the natural sciences,
the concept has been widely used to comprehend planetary,
chemical, nuclear, and other such phenomena. In the bio
logical sciences, the idea has been applied frequently in
the study of plant and animal life at a variety of levels.
In the field of engineering, the growth of its systems
has been rapid. In anthropology, the key element of
analysis is a cultural one. In sociology — particularly
as developed by Parsons — the concept of "social systems"
Is of crucial importance. In political science, the works
of Easton, Riggs, North, Eisenstadt, Almond and Coleman,
and so forth, have taken this concept as the focal point
for their analyses. The "systems" idea has also found
wide applicability in the fields of communication and
decision making.
22
Although there are slight differences in the
definition of the term "systems" in these fields, it is
possible to find that they agree on its essential
meaning.
Johnson, Kast, and Rosenzweig have defined a
system as "an organized or complex whole; an assemblage
or combination of things or parts forming a complex or
unitary w h o l e . The term, as they view it, connotes
plan, method, order, and arrangement.
Scott, following the same pattern of thought,
points out that system and the interdependency of parts
are interchangeable ideas.4 Drawing upon the conceptu
alization by Henderson, he adopts the definition as "the
interdependence of variables."
Seiler, basing his description upon the same
source, gives the definition as "a set of objects to
gether with the relationships between the objects and
between their a t t r i b u t e s . He continues to argue that
3
R. A. Johnson, F. E. Kast, J. E. Rosenzweig,
The Theory and Management of Systems (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., 1963), p. 4.
^William G. Scott, Organization Theory: A Behav
ioral Analysis for Management (Homewood, ill.: RichardD.
Irwin, Inc., 1967J, p. 120.
^Lawrence J. Henderson, Pareto*s General Sociology
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935), p. 66.
^John Seiler, Systems Analysis in Organizational
Behavior (Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967}, p. 4.
23
in this basic abstract sense, everything is related —
this, in such a way that a change in one thing produces
a change in all the other parts.
The common aspects of these three definitions is
their concentration on assemblage, or combination, inter
dependence, and relationships of parts. These may be
variables, things, objects, or their attributes. It is
important that the parts constitute a whole as a result of
integration, interdependence and interrelations. The
emphasis is on the idea of order.
Sutton also argues that the notion of a systems
implies an orderly patterning in its parts. Another more
explicit definition, in terms of order, is given by
Parsons and Shils:
The most general and fundamental property of a
system is the interdependence of parts or vari
ables. Interdependence consists in the existence
of determinate relationships among the parts or
variables as contrasted with randomness of vari
ability. In other words, interdependence is
order in the relationship among the components
which enter into a s y s t e m .8
In this definition, as well as the one given im
plicitly by Seiler, the underlying concept is causation.
F. X. Sutton, "Analyzing Social Systems, J. L.
Finkle and R. W. Gable (eds.J, Political Development and
Social Change (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966),
pp. 19-28.
^Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils (eds.),
Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1951), p. 107.
24
Seiler, in a sense, sees the development of the idea of a
system to be a result of a change in human quality, from
finding the cause of everything in a single thing, to
seeing the happenings as a result of a complex interrela
te
tion of forces.7 While Seiler stresses the idea of
multiple causation, Parsons comes closer to the existence
of a more simple and stable causal relationship among the
variables. This implies his emphasis on systems equi
librium, as will be discussed later.
Although it is not reflected in his definition of
the term "system," Seiler makes a statement which points
out another important element:
A change in one of the parts has an effect on
the other parts of the subunit which is of
vastly greater magnitude in terms of intensity
and pervasiveness than the effects of a change
in the same part of the subunit or things out
side the subunit.10
That to which he refers is the concept of "boundary," and
that is, in fact, an argument for the existence of a
boundary for every system. The interaction and interde
pendence of the parts is more intensive within boundaries
than their interactions with the objects, or the vari
ables, in the environment of the system, outside its
confines.
q
Seiler, op. cit.
l°Ibid., p. 5.
25
The definition as given by Price comes rather
close to Seller's conceptualization of the idea of
systems:
A system is defined conceptually as a set of
elements or parts which have relationships to
gether and which are interdependent. Interde
pendent means that if one part of a system is
affected or stimulated all the other parts will
be also. A system can be identified because
there is a greater exchange of energy or infor
mation within the system than there is between
parts of the system and the environment.11
This interpretation draws our attention to some
new elements of the concept as well as covering these
previously pointed out. It includes such elements as
parts, relationships between parts, and interdependency
of the parts. Moreover, it tells us that the boundaries
of a system can be drawn and thus be identified; that
there is an exchange of energy or information within the
system, and also an exchange between the system and its
environment. Since we are dealing with living systems,
we can deduct from this definition that in order for a
system to live, survive, and grow, there must be an ex
change between it and its environment, as well as that
among the parts, which are within the system. A system
exists within an environment and cannot be isolated from
•^Kendall 0. Price, "The Organization as a Social
System: The Changing Role of the Manager," Second Western
Institute on Community Health Administration, University
of Southern California (August 3, 1965).
26
it. Environment is, and should be, a primary consider
ation for every student dealing with the subject.
When it is compared with other definitions which
identify a system as interrelated and interdependent
parts, the definition by Price seems to have more the
flavor of dynamism. "Exchange of energy or information"
refers to a dynamic process, to a more active move of
operation. Whereas, the definition by Parsons, for ex
ample, reflects one which is static and passive. His use
of the phrase "existence of determinate relationships
among the parts or variables," has a fixed structural
connotation.
Two other definitions by Terry and Levy indicate
very well the dynamic characteristics of social systems
and support the fact that they are living, vigorous en
tities. Terry*s definition reads thusly, "a network of
procedures which are integrated and designed to carry out
a major' activity."12 Here, it is important to note his
ability to see a system as an integrative network of pro
cedures, and a purposeful entity — directional in its
operation. He points out that the components are con
sidered as a dynamic totality or interaction of parts
which is more important than the components themselves. °
■^Terry, op. cit., p. 197.
27
According to Levy, “a system is an operation in
volving a plurality of interacting individuals whose
actions are, for the most part, aimed at the goals of the
system in which they are involved."^4 Levy also seems to
have emphasized the operation and interaction of elements
and its goal-oriented character. However, his definition
differs from the one by Terry, who in regard to the pur
pose of the system, talks about the ideal situation —
what it should be rather than what it is. And ideally,
he says that it is integrated and designed to carry out a
major activity. It is supposed to be goal-oriented or
directional in its operation. Levy implies both the
ideal situation and the existing situation in his defini
tion. A system has been so designed that it has some
goals,- and its activities are presumed to be directed
toward the achievement of these goals. In practice,
neither systems nor their components can be completely
rational entities; hence, all activities will be aimed
toward the goals of the system. However, for the system
to maintain its identity and to survive, it is necessary
that, for the most part, the actions of the components
are directed toward the achievements of the designed
^Marion J. Levy, The Structure of Society
(.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1952),
p. 113.
28
goals. Otherwise, it would be nothing but chaos, ox a
state of confusion.
Closed versus Open Systems
Systems of the physical sciences sometimes can
be treated as if they are closed systems, independent of
external forces. Optner defines a closed system as "one
which is free of variation or disturbance." He says that
one way to study such a system is through the concept of
the "black box. This refers to a simple machine in
the physical sciences. Certain inputs are introduced
into it and cogent resultant outputs are obtained from
it. These procedures are highly predictable and function
within statistically predictable limits. They are invari
ant systems and are structured, or designed, for partic
ular purposes. There is no disturbance from the outside.
Reliability in these closed systems, which are self or
ganizing, approaches one hundred percent. Examples are
hydraulic, electrical and telephone systems, and so
forth. Optner refers to such systems as "structured
sys terns.
■^Stanford L. Optner, Systems Analysis for Busi
ness Management (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1960), p. 3.
16Ibid., pp. 3-6.
29
Because of the wide applicability of this con
cept, older formulations constructed in the social
sciences tried to utilize the same model of a closed
system as was used in the physical sciences. This was for
the purposes of understanding social entities. The argu
ment by Chin, for example, indicates this tendency:
All living systems are open systems —
systems in contact with their environment,
with input and output across system bound
aries. What then is the use of talking
about a closed system? What is a closed
system? It means that the system is tempo
rarily assumed to have a leak-tight boundary
— there is relatively little, if any com
merce across the boundary. We know that no
such system can be found in reality, but it
is sometimes essential to analyze a system
as if it were closed so as to examine the
operation of the system as affected "only
by the conditions previously established
by the environment and not changing at the
time of analysis, plus the relationships
among the internal elements of the sys
tem." The analyst then opens the system
to a new impact from the environment, again
closes the system, and observes and thinks
out what would happen. It is, therefore,
fruitless to debate the point; both open and ,7
closed system models are useful in diagnosis.
Although Chin is aware of the fact that all living systems
are open and that no closed system can exist in reality,
he finds some advantages in considering such systems tem
porarily closed for the sake of analyses. Nevertheless,
Chin? QP» cit., p. 206.
30
it is this very concept, together with the idea of im
plied equilibrium, which has long blocked the development
of a realistic understanding and an explanation of the
organization theory and of social systems. First,
18 19 20
Bertalanffy, then Kahn, ? Schein, and others have re
belled against the classical systems models because of
their implicit assumptions labout the closed character of
social structures. The "energetic input-output system"
of Katz and Kahn is based on the open-system theory as
21
promulgated by Bertalanffy. The authors argue that
system theory is basically concerned with problems of re
lationship, structures, and interdependence rather than
with the constant attributes of objects. Living systems
are dependent upon their external environment and there-
po
fore must be conceived of as open systems.
The common characteristics of the open systems,
as listed by Katz and Kahn, are briefly the following:^3
^Ludvig von Bertalanffy, "The Theory of Open
Systems in Physics and Biology," Science, III (1950),
pp. 23-28.
^Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psy
chology of Organizations (New York; John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966), p p . 8 - 1 7 .
20Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 88-95.
2 1 y o n Bertalanffy, op. cit.
^Katz and Kahn, op. cit.
23Ibid., p p . 19-26.
1. Importation of energy from the external en
vironment (inputs);
2. Transformation of available energy (through
put) ;
3. Exportation of the product into the environ
ment (outputs);
4. “The patterns of activities of the energy
exchange has a cyclic character.“ This implies that the
structure of the system is a cycle of events.
5. "To survive, open systems must move to arrest
the entropic process; they must acquire negative en
tropy," thereby stopping disturbing elements.
6. Systems need information input in the form
of a negative feedback and through a selective process
(coding), in order to be able to correct deviations from
the course;
7. "The importation of energy to arrest entropy
operates to maintain some constancy in energy exchange so
that open systems which survive are characterized by a
steady state. A steady state is not a motionless or a
true equilibrium. There is a continuous inflow of energy
from the external environment and a continuous export of
the product of the system, but the character of the sys
tem, the ratio of energy exchanges and the relations
32
between parts, remains the same.” The tendency toward a
steady state, in its simplest form, is homeostatic, and
the equilibrium which complex systems approach is often
that of quasi-stationary equilibrium.
To cope with external forces, social systems move
toward incorporating within their boundaries the external
resources essential to survival. The result is the pres
ervation of the character of the system through its
growth and expansion.
8. ’ ’Often systems move in the direction of dif
ferentiation and elaboration." They move toward the
"multiplication and elaboration of roles with greater
specialization of functions."
9. A system can reach the same final state from
differing initial conditions and by a variety of paths
(the principle of equifinality suggested by von Bertalanffy
in 1940).
The man-machine systems (i.e., missile system)
and the nonphysical ones (i.e., engineering, administra
tion) are referred to as "incompletely structured" or
"unstructured" systems by Optner, and the terms are used
to describe the methods of the industrial and business
world. Their properties, or elements, are said to be
(a) inputs which are variable — there are many outside
disturbances here. (b) Outputs axe unpredictable and
they are statistically unstable. (c) Processor is either
man or man-machine. (d) The system can function with a
wide range of reliability (control). And lastly, (e)
outputs are not automatically reintroduced to improve
performance (feedback)
Optner*s list of five elements — inputs, outputs,
processor, control, and feedback — are, in fact, the
properties of all systems. Their description here, as for
the unstructured ones, may very well be taken to be the
properties of open systems because of the fact that the
terms"unstructured" or "incompletely structured" are used
in such a way to refer to social systems as they are
understood, for example, by Katz and Kahn.
Buckley has described an open system by pointing
out that when such a method is open, it means not simply
that it engages in interchanges with the environment, but
that this interchange is an essential factor underlying
the viability of the system*s reproductive ability, or
O R
continuity, and its ability to change. ^
Buckley has expressed the frequently used distinc
tion between open and closed systems in terms of "entropy"
24
Optner, op. cit., pp. 6-9.
^Walter Buckley, Sociology and Modern Systems
Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: ^rentice-Hall, Inc.,
1967), pp. 50-51.
34
"closed systems," hence, "have often been expressed in
terms of entropy — to * run down1 while open systems are
*negentropic* — tending to decrease in entropy or to
elaborate s t r u c t u r e . " ^ Buckley says that the typical
response of the former to an intrusion of environmental
events is dependent on the nature and strength of the in
trusion — a loss of organization, a change in the direc
tion of this solution of the system, or a move to a new
level of equilibrium. In contrast, the typical response
of the latter to environmental intrusion is elaboration,
or change of the structure, to a higher or more complex
level. This is because the environmental interchange is
not random, but rather selective as a result of the map
ping, or coding, or information-processing capabilities
inherent in open systems. These are inherently adaptive
ones. As one moves up on the levels of systems, it will
be seen that they become more and more open "in the sense
that they become involved in a wider interchange with a
greater variety of aspects of the environment, that is,
are capable of mapping and responding selectively to a
greater range and detail of the endless variety of the
environment."27
^Leon Brillouin, "Life, Thermodynamics, and
Cybernetics," American Scientist, 37 (1949), pp. 554-568.
See also Erwin Schrodinger, What Is Life? (London: Cam
bridge University Press, 1945TZ
27euckley, op. cit.
35
Systems Theories
While there is some agreement among scholars on
the meaning of "systems," there is no single body of
knowledge today which can be referred to as "systems
theory." Instead, there is a wide range of theories and
models which have been constructed by scholars in quite
different fields, through the use of systems concepts,
and which are referred to as "systems theory" or "systems
model." Below we shall present some examples of these
theories, or models, to give an idea about their uses
in different fields. We shall see that the idea has been
utilized to explain, understand, and predict mechanical
systems, living organisms, groups, organizations, polit
ical courses of action, and larger society. However, it
is in the next chapter, where it is of greater interest,
that we shall discuss the application of the systems
theory to organizations.
Stanford L. Optner
The idea of systems has long been applied to
those systems of a mechanical nature. However, more
recently it has also been pertinent to computers. Optner
argues that the combination of input and output periph
eral equipment — with a central processor — is referred
36
to as a computer system. He views a computer as a
physical (man-machine) system. It acquires its character
istics by the design. The electronic data processing
system is based on five requirements:
1. A means of getting into the central processor
in order to do something (inputs);
2. A means of getting out of the central proces
sor after something has been done (output);
3. A means of going about the business of doing
something in a reliable, automatic way (processor);
4. A means of monitoring the processor so it
will operate in a prescribed way (controls); and
5. A means of monitoring the output, thus de
livering the results of an operation back into the system
as input, to correct future output (feedback).^®
Optner visualizes the organization of a computer
system as shown in Figure 1.
Borrowing from a computer system, Optner applies
the same elements to a missile or a weapons system. The
elements of a missile in flight are given as follows:
1. A set of inputs, coded signals, called a
program, which will tell the missile what
to do;
28
Optner, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
37
Central Processor
Input
Output
Control
Storage
Arithmetic
and Logic
t
Figure 1
38
2. A set of outputs, the speed and direction
in which the missile is traveling, which
are the results of its program;
3. A processor, a computer or similar device
which accepts instructions, processes
them, and is the operating unit on which
all system elements work;
4. One or more controls, the built-in program
that has been designed to keep the missile
on its course, and applies the rules under
which the on-going process will take place.
(There are many other controls, such as
configuration, reliability, and so on);
5. A feedback, the transmission of output data
as another input in order to correct any
discrepancy between what the missile is
doing and what it should be d o i n g . 2 9
A missile system has been visualized by Optner as in
Figure 2.
Control
Input- Processor -?• Output
Feedback
Figure 2
29Ibid., p. 11.
39
Ludvig von Beitalanffy
While leading the movement toward a general sys
tems theory, Bertalanffy in 1950, argued fox a new con-
30
cept which he called the "open systems theory." The
basis of this systems, which is said to be a concept of
the general systems theory, is that "a living organism
is not a conglomeration of separate elements but a defi
nite system possessing organization and wholeness."31
Bertalanffy views an organism as an open system which is
influenced by, and influences its environment. Con
stantly, matter and energy enter it from the environment
and continually change within the system. The system,
thereby, maintains a state of dynamic equilibrium.
George C. Homans
Homans* model of social systems can be applied to
either the small group or the large organization. He
points out that any social system exists within a three-
part environment — physical, cultural, and technological.
The physical one includes such factors as the terrain,
climate, layout, and so on; the cultural is composed of
30Bertalanffy, op. cit.
31
Johnson, et_al., op. cit., p. 10.
40
norms, values and goals of society; and that which is
technological refers to the state of knowledge and in
strumentation available to the system for the performance
of its task. These external conditions then specify cer
tain activities and imposes certain interactions for the
individuals involved in the system which, in turn, arouse
certain feelings and sentiments among individuals. Homans
refers to activities, interactions, and sentiments which
are determined by the environment as the "external sys
tem." All these are mutually dependent upon one another.
on
A change in one will produce some change in others.
Homans postulated that "the higher the rate of
interaction of two or more people, the more positive will
be their sentiments toward each other." With increasing
interaction come new sentiments, new norms and shared
frames of reference which generate new activities. How
ever, they are not necessarily specified by the external
environment. Homans calls this new pattern which arises
out of the external system, the "internal system" (in
formal organization).
These two systems are mutually dependent. Any
change in either will produce some change in the other.
^^George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York:
Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1950).
41
Moreover, the two systems and the environment are mutually
dependent, and have the same implication for the system
q q
change.
David Easton
Easton applies the same concepts to a political
system, which also consists of inputs and withinputs,
34
outputs, and feedback. Inputs are variables reflecting
the forces within the environment. "Withinputs" mirror
the powers upon the system which arise from the inside.
Inputs are classified into two broad groups — demand and
support* Demands made by persons, or groups, may be ex
ternal or internal to the political system, and may come
from outside or inside its boundaries*
The support necessary for the maintenance of the
political system arises from the same sources and is
activated through its outputs. It is desirable to main
tain a store of support in the event a hostile variable
is interjected into the regimen.
Outputs are transactions moving from the polit
ical system into the environment. They are in the form
33Ibid.
3^David Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965).
42
of "authoritative allocations of values or binding deci
sions and the actions implementing and related to them."3^
Feedback is important because it enables the polit
ical body to respond to demands, to obtain information
about the effects of the decisions made and actions taken
(outputs already produced), and to know conditions within
the environment, as well as within the system, to make
decisions and take actions accordingly.
Almond, Coleman, and Powell have further elabo
rated this model of a political system as presented by
Easton.3^
Talcott Parsons
Parsons’ interest is in social systems in general,
and society in particular. To him a social system is
made up of the "interaction of human individuals." Each
member is both actor (having goals, ideas, attitudes, and
so forth), and an object of orientation for both other
actors and himself. Parsons states that any action
system can be analyzed in four categories, each referring
35Ibid., p. 126.
^ G a b r i e l a. Almond, James Coleman and G. B.
Powell, Jr., (eds.), Comparative Politics (Boston: Little,
Brown and Company, 1966).
3^Talcott Parsons, Societies (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966).
43
to a problem which the system faces: (l) concern of
maintenance ox control of patterns of the larger system
of organization, (2) integration, (3) attainment of goals
relative to the environment, and (4) adaptation to the
environment.
Walter Buckley-
Buckley has developed the "morphogenetic model
of modern systems theory" to replace the now outmoded
mechanical equilibrium and organismic models of society.
Buckley is an excellent source from which to obtain an
historical perspective of the evolution of systems ideas.
His arguments can be summarized as follows:
With the twentieth century came rapid advances
in physics, mathematics, and mechanics. A natural out
come was to view man and society as mechanical models.
Man, his groups, and their interrelations were taken to
constitute a continuity with the rest of the mechan
istically interpreted universe.
All were based on the interplay of natural
causes, to be studied as systems of rela
tionships that could be measured and ex
pressed in terms of laws of social mechanics.
. . . Thus, we have at base the concept of
"system" of elements in mutual interrela
tions which may be in a state of "equi
librium," such that any moderate change in
44
the elements or their interrelations away
from the equilibrium position are counter
balanced by changes tending to restore it.33
This conception was led by Pareto*^ and was fol
lowed by Bukharin, Sorokin, Znaniecki, and Lewin among
others. It has been taken over, almost unchanged, by
Homans, Parsons, and many other contemporary sociologists.
However, the concept of “equilibrium" has gone
through some modifications. A given equilibrium is taken
to be only a "temporary, ephemeral state" which is some
times achieved through behavior.^ For example, Sayles
refers to it as "moving equilibrium" which means a dynamic
type of stability — adjustments and readjustments to both
internally generated and externally imposed pressure. But
still, there is a pattern, and observably a repeating
tempo — though the level may be different.Homans now
uses the term "practical equilibrium" to refer to the
40
temporary state of behavior.
38
Buckley, op. cit.. pp. 8-9.
^V. Pareto, The Mind and Society, (Translated by
A. Livingston into English}.
40Robert M. Maclver, Social Causation (New York:
Harper Torchbook, 1964), pp. 172-173.
^Leonard Sayles, Managerial Behavior (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964), p. 163.
4^George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elemen
tary Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc.,
1961), p. 114.
45
Buckley argues that the continued appeal to
mechanical systems used to understand socio-cultural sys
tems only postpones the search for other, more appro
priate, and useful conceptualizations. The two are very
different types, with basically different organizing
principles and dynamics.4^
The organic model is a product of the advances in
the biological sciences at the turn of the present cen
tury. Society is viewed like an organism because of the
interdependence and cooperation of its parts. This out
look was advocated by Spencer. He felt that each com
ponent helped the other one for the furtherence of the
whole.44 However, this organismic analogy was exploited
to extremes by Spencer*s followers as they searched for
the social analogue of the heart, brain, circulatory
system, and so forth.
There are, of course, pitfalls in explaining
social systems through the analogy of organisms. Per
haps, the best example in expressing the difficulty in
interpreting a social system (in the framework of the
organic model) is to use the biological concept of homeo
stasis . An organism can change its structure very little
4^Buckley, op. cit., p. 11.
^4Ibid. The author refers to Herbert Spencer,
Principles of Sociology, 3rd ed. (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1897), Part II, p. 592.
46
fox the purposes of adapting to change, whereas a social
45
system has a much wider latitude.
The process, or adaptive model as constructed by
Buckley, views society as a "complex, multifaceted, fluid
interplay of widely varying degrees and intensities of
association and dissociation." A social system is an
ongoing interactive process. It continually shifts its
structure as an adaptation to internal and external con
ditions. "Structure" is a temporary, accommodative
representation of ongoing interactive process at any time.
Socio-cultural systems are inherently "structure-elabo
rating and changing." Process, then, focuses on the
actions and interactions of the components of an ongoing
system, such that varying degrees of structuring arise,
46
persist, dissolve, or change.
The basic problem according to Buckley is "how do
interacting personalities and groups define, interpret,
and act on the situation?" Now a refocusing is occurring
via the decision theory, in terms of various ones such as
"role-strain" theory, mathematical theory of games,
theories of exchange, bargaining or conflict, as well as
^For a critique of organic model and the concept
of homeostasis, see, Karl W. Deutsch, Toward a Unified
Theory of Human Behavior, Roy Grinker (ed.) (New York:
Basic IBooks, Inc., 1956), pp. 161-162.
46
Buckley, op. cit., p. 18.
47
the theories of cognitive dissonance, congruence, balance,
ferences between the models discussed above, the one
dealing with equilibrium is applicable to types of systems
which, in moving to an equilibrium point, typically lose
organization and then tend to hold that minimum level
within relatively narrow conditions of disturbance.
Homeostatis models apply to systems tending to maintain
a relatively high given level of organization against ever
present tendencies to reduce it. The process, or complex
adaptive system model applies to systems characterized by
the elaboration or evolution of organization; they thrive
4ft
on disturbances and variety in the environment. °
or concept formation.47
Buckley points out that in summarizing the dif-
Buckley has visualized that conceptualization
with a diagram as shown in Figure 3.
Equilibrium
Model
Organismic
Homeostatic
Model
Process of Adaptive
System Model
c
o
H-t -H
O + J
r H N
<■
V
Figure 3
47Ibid., pp. 22-23. 48Ibid.» p. 40
48
The characteristics of this raodexn systems theory,
as proposed by Buckley, can be summarized as follows. As
we go upward from mechanical models to organic and socio
cultural adaptive systems; (1) the components which are
interrelated become more complex in their own organization
— more and more unstable — and more fundamentally al
terable by the workings of the system of which they are a
part; (2) the relations of parts become more flexible and
the "structure1 1 more fluid. Relationships come to depend
more and more upon the transmission of information rather
than energy; (3) the systems become more and more open
"in the sense that they become involved in a wider inter
change with a greater variety of aspects of environment,
and more and more capable of mapping, or responding selec
tively, to a greater range and detail of endless variety
of environment"; (4) system "tension" changes from occur
ring only occasionally, or residually, as a disturbing
factor, to some level of tension as characteristic of,
and vital to, such systems though it may manifest itself
as now destructive, now constructive; and (5) from
morphostasis (processes in complex system-envixonment
exchanges which tend to preserve, or maintain, a system's
given form, organization or state) to morphogenesis
(those processes which tend to elaborate or change the
49
system*s given form, structure or state).
Buckley has developed a paradigm underlying the
evolution of more and more complex adaptive systems in
terms of "an abstract model of morphogenesis." This model
begins with the fact of a potentially changing environ
ment, and an adaptive system whose persistence and
elaboration, to higher levels, depends upon a successful
mapping of some of the environmental variety, and con
straints, into its own organization on at least a semi
permanent basis.
The adaptive system must manifest:
1. Some degree of "plasticity" and "sensitivity"
or tension vis-a-vis its environment such
that it carries on a constant interchange
with environmental events, acting on and
reacting to them;
2. Some source of mechanism providing for var
iety, to act as a potential pool of adaptive
variability to meet the problem of mapping
new or more detailed variety and constraints
in a changeable environment;
3. A set of selective criteria or mechanism
against which the "variety pool" may be
shifted into these variations in the or
ganization or system that more closely
maps the environment and those that do not,
and;
4q
Ibid., p. 63. The author explains the term
"mapping" as follows: "When the internal organization of
an adaptive system acquires features that permit it to
discriminate, act upon, and respond to aspects of the en
vironmental variety and its constraints, we say that the
system has mapped part of the environmental variety and
constraints into its organization. The system becomes
selectively related to its environment."
50
4. An arrangement for preserving and/or
propagating these “successful" mappings.'1 ®
General Systems Theory
Buckley*s morphogenetic model of the modern sys
tem theory is based upon a hierarchical order of systems
— mechanical models being at the bottom of the hierarchy
and complex, adaptive ones at the top. This conceptual
ization brings us to the discussion of a general systems
theory (GST). Because of the fact that each system may
be viewed as both a separate self-contained unit and also
part of a larger one, it is quite possible to create a
hierarchy of systems. By relating to each other, we can
move to ever smaller subsystems and to the larger ones.
At every level, however, there is an assumed system
boundary within which interdependent forces are at play
in intimate relationship, producing a total effect on
the whole.
There has been an increasing interest in devel
oping overall systems as frames of reference for syn
thesizing the results of research done on the segments
of knowledge, as well as for analytical work in various
areas. It has been argued that there are similarities
50Ibid.
51
in the theoretical construction of various disciplines,
and therefore models can be developed which have applic
ability to many fields of study. The ultimate goal is
the construction of a general systems model which could
~tie~ali disciplines together in a meaningful relationship.
The fruits of the movement in that direction have been
51
called "general systems theory." .
Historically, GST developed during the early part
of the twentieth century as a result of a number of par
allel streams of intellectual effort emerging at the
time. In particular, the need for more effective "organ-
ismic" models to account for the complexities being en
countered in biology, and the needs for a more effective
interdisciplinary cooperation were pressing. For the
first time, Bertalanffy, in the 1930s and early 1940s,
began to think and write in terms of extending the con
cept of open systems and organismic biology to a higher
theoretical framework; this, as a possible means toward
59
unification of science. The general systems theory
which he was formulating was given tremendous impetus by
the emerging interdisciplinary approach, and growth, in
^Johnson, et al.« op. cit., p. 6.
52Ludvig von Bertalanffy, "General Systems
Theory: A Critical Review," General Systems, VII (1962),
pp. 1-10.
52
the use of the systems* concept In the engineering fields
occasioned by the Second World War.
In 1949, a group of behavioral scientists, in
cluding Miller, Rapoport, Gerard and others, conceived
the idea of an interdisciplinary approach to the problem
of development and integration in their fields. Regular
seminars were started in 1952, and an Institute of Be
havioral Sciences was created a year later with the
support given to the group by the University of Chicago. °
In 1954, the Society for the Advancement of Gen
eral Systems Theory was formed, and through it the Chicago
group and Bertalanffy, and those associated with him were
combined. In 1956, the first General Systems Yearbook was
issued by the society. Boulding was the first president
of the society.
Bertalanffy, in his writings, has described ex
amples of communalities that might serve to unify science.
He states:
Thus, there exists models, principles, and
laws that apply to generalized systems or their
subclasses, irrespective of their particular
kind, the nature of their component elements,
and the relations of •'forces" between them. It
seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of
^R. p. Biller, "General Systems Theory: A Bib
liographical Essay," (Unpublished paper, University of
Southern California, School of Public Administration,
1964), pp. 4-8.
54Ibid.
53
systems of a more ox less special kind, but
of universal principles applying to systems
in general. In this way we come to postu
late a new discipline, called General Sys
tems Theory. Its subject matter is the
formulation and deviation of those prin
ciples which are valid for "systems" in
general.55
Also writing for the first volume of General Systems,
Boulding argues that:
At a low level of ambition but with a
high degree of confidence it [GST] aims to
point out similarities in the theoretical
constructions of different disciplines,
where there exists, and to develop theo
retical models having applicability to at
least two different fields of study. At
a higher level of ambition, but with per
haps a lower degree of confidence it hopes
to develop something like a spectrum of
theories — a system of systems which may
perform the function of a ’ 'gestalt'1 in
theoretical construction.56
Miller was interested more in developing a theory
which would be more concrete and testable. He tended to
exclude formulations which might exist only at the most
abstract mathematical level from his "general behavior
systems." He stated his understanding of the GST as
follows:
Systems are bounded regions in space-time,
involving energy interchange among their parts
and with their environment. GST is a series
55
Ludvig von Bertalanffy, "General Systems
Theory," General Systems. I (1956), p. 1.
^Kenneth Boulding, "General Systems Theory: The
Skeleton of Science," General Systems. I (1956), p. 11.
54
of related definitions, assumptions, and postu
lates about all levels of systems from atomic
articles through atoms, molecules, crystals,
viruses, cells, organs, individuals, small
groups, societies, planets, solar systems, and
galaxies.57
In 1962, McClelland suggested that there was, in
fact, no theory involved in GST. He states:
"General Systems" stands for an approach;
it is a certain point of view. It might be
characterized, also, as a conceptual frame
work within which observations are held. The
approach is a foundation upon which numbers
of theories can be constructed. Hence it may
be regarded as a working attitude useful in
several branches of investigation including
social research.58
It is important for our purposes to emphasize
McClelland's argument that "problems of modern science
are those of dynamic relationships, thereby implying the
existence of interactions betweep changing processes.
This means that GST must focus on ways to handle imper-
manency and change rather than on immutable laws.
GST has stimulated a large amount of theorizing,
and a lesser amount of empirical research. In the study
of complete systems, GST has followed two main lines or
general methods. One, developed by Bertalanffy and his
“^James G. Miller, "Mental Health Implications of
a General Behavior Theory," American Journal of Psychi
atry, CXIII (1957), pp. 7-77-775".
^®Charles McClelland, "General Systems and the
Social Sciences," ETC: A Review of General Semantics*
XIX (1962), pp. 444-466.
5 9 j b i d . , p. 453.
55
co-workers, "takes the world as we find it, examines the
various systems that occur in it, . • * and then draws
up statements about the regularities that have been ob
served to hold." This method is essentially empirical.
The second procedure, instead of studying first one sys
tem and then a second, a third, and so on, "considers the
set of * all conceivable systems* and then reduces the
set to a more reassurable size*"^
Following the second method, Miller has suggested
five systems levels appropriate for study of behavior,
including cells, organs, individuals, face-to-face groups,
and societies.^
Similarly, Boulding supplied one of the early
theoretical constructs for understanding the different
levels at which systems exist. He suggested that there
are nine such levels:
1. Frameworks — static structure;
2. Clockworks — simple dynamic systems with
predetermined necessary motions;
3. Thermostats — cybernetics systems, main
taining equilibrium through self-regulation;
^Ross W. Ashby, "General Systems as a New Dis
cipline," General Systems» III (1958), p. 2.
^Janies G. Miller, "Living Systems," (2 vols.,
unpublished work, 1961), I, pp. 1-27.
56
4. Cells — open systems, self-maintaining,
first level of life;
5. Plants — genetic systems, first societal
levels;
6. Animals — increased mobility, teleological
behavior and self-awareness;
7. Humans — self-awareness and ability to use
language and symbolism;
8. Societies — social systems of human cooper
ation; and
9. Transcendental systems — ultimates, abso
lutes, inescapables, and unknowables, but also exhibiting
62
systematic structure and relationships.
In comparing GST with the systems theories,
Bertalanffy sees GST as a basic science in its goals and
interests, and in the various fields of application to
which it is related. Some examples are systems engi-
63
neering, operations research, and human engineering.
Another difference between GST and systems con
cepts is found in their respective vocabularies. Terms
which are relatively common to the latter include system,
boundary, environment, homeostasis-equilibrium, inter-
^boulding, op. cit., pp. 14-17.
^bertalanffy, General Systems, VII, p. 3.
action, interdependence, structural-functional relation
ship, input-output, exchanges, open vs. closed system,
and so forth. On the other hand, GST often tends to use
such terms as analogy, structural isomorphy, formal iden
tity, levels, subsystems, and supersystems, character
istics of organized wholes, differentiation, centraliza
tion, growth, competition, and conflict, transactionalism
self-organizing and regulating, information and communi
cation, leading part, perspectives, and so forth.^
Boulding, however, has a tendency to see the two
approaches as reflective of the same movement. He states
There is something abroad that might be
called a systems movement of which the society
for General Systems Research is merely one as
pect, or perhaps merely a symptom. [The move
ment] is reflected in such new journals as
Management Science, Administrative Science
Quarterly, the Journal of Operations Res'earch,
and the Journal of Conflict Resolution; it is
reflected in institutions like the Mental
Health Research Institute at the University of
Michigan, and in the RAND Corporation at
Santa Monica. It is reflected in the new com
puter industry. It is reflected in intellec
tual developments such as Game Theory, Deci
sion Theory, and the various ramifications of
Operations Research.65
Actually, the logic behind GST and the systems
theory is almost the same. It is to look at something
^Biller, op. cit., p. 12.
^Kenneth Boulding, "Political Implications of
General Systems Research,* * General Systems, VI (1961),
p. 4.
58
as an integrative whole, paying particular attention to
the interrelation, as well as interaction, among the
parts. However, the systems theory is closer to the
operational level, while GST is more abstract. As a re
sult of being more operational, it has generated more
empirical research than GST. Both represent a point of
view, an approach, a methodology, a conceptual framework,
and a working attitude. Their vocabularies overlap; both
use such terms as subsystems, parts, interdependence,
integration, environment, energy exchange, and so forth.
Many systems theories have been developed which are based
on the ideas generated by GST. For example, Katz and
Kahn*s "energetic input-output model" is based on
Bertalanffy*s conceptualization of open systems.
Buckley's discussion of modern systems theory comes to
be quite similar to the theoretical formulations of such
general systems theorists as Boulding and Miller in re-
‘ v -
gard to their argument that there is a hierarchy of
systems and as one goes up this order, the complexity of
systems increases.
When we consider such operations of the systems*
concept as defined by Dorsey:
A bounded region in space and time, within
which information and/or energy are ex
changed among subsystems in greater quanti
ties and/or at higher rates than the
59
quantities exchanged 01 rates of «»cohange
with anything outside boundary, and within
which the subsystems are to some degree
interdependent;66
we see that there is an agreement among the members of
both movements on the definition of the term "system.1 1
This meaning is almost the same as that given by Miller
and quoted above. He is regarded as a general systems
theorist. However, Miller can be taken to be a link be
tween the systems theorists and those of the general
systems theorists because of his emphasis on operational
ization, and his tendency to exclude abstract mathematical
models from his formulation.
Then the difference which is most essential be
tween the two theories seems to be the level of generality
as underlined by the term "general.** Although this vari
ance has some implications, today, there is a tendency
toward combining the two movements. Examples of movements
of this nature have already been given in the works of
such scholars as Katz and Kahn, and Buckley. Therefore,
it makes little sense today to continue making a contrast
between GST and systems theories. On the contrary, ef
forts should be directed to their common use, thereby
John T. Dorsey, "An Infoimation-Energy Model,"
Papers in Comparative Public Administration, Ferrel Heady
and Sybil L. Stokes (eds.) (Ann Arbor: Institute of
Public Administration, 1962), p. 43.
60
benefiting scientific advancement.
Other terms which are sometimes used to refer to
the common meaning of GST and the systems theory are
"intersystem model," and "total system." Chin describes
an "intersystem model" by pointing out that it involves
two open systems connected to each other through such
lines of relationships as communications, leadership,
hierarchy and 'authority, the social contract, mutual role
expectations, power, conflict, intergroup relations, and
so forth. He continues by saying that the intersystem
model leads us to examine the interdependent dynamics of
7
interaction both within and between the units.
Terry uses the term "total systems" to refer to
the many related systems — the integration of necessary
ip
systems within the whole.
Systems Design and Systems Analysis
While trying to clarify the meaning of the con
cepts, we need, at this point, to bring in such terms as
"systems analysis," "systems design," and "systems engi
neering." Using a systems framework, many basic and
applied sciences have developed sophisticated analytical-
^7Chin, op. cit., p. 207.
^Terry, op. cit.» pp. 215-220
61
procedures. The Blalocks have suggested that on the most
general level that which can be termed "systems analysis"
involves a way of thinking which is common to all
sciences, whether explicitly recognized or not.^ They
also suggest that such analysis may be carried out from
three perspectives: (1) that which involves the relation
ship between system and environment; (2) which involves
interaction between several systems; and (3) which in
volves one type of system which is composed of other
types
Optner, who has more interest in the mechanism
of systems analysis, states that the "system module" is
used as an analytic tool in investigating the existing
systems. An engineer in this field usually takes the
following sequence of steps while trying to analyze the
system:
1. Identification of the system: processor;
2. Identification of the purpose for which the
system exists: output;
3. Identification of the ingredients to produce
the required end result: Inputs;
^H. m . Blalock and A. B. Blalock, "Towards a
Classification of Systems Analysis in the Social System,"
Psychology of Science, XXVI (1959), p. 84.
7^Ibid.
62
4. Identification of mechanisms to maintain
reliability and accuracy: controls; and
5. Identification of mechanisms to correct mal-
71
functioning output: feedback.
Systems analysis is seen here only as the first
basic step toward redesigning a system. "Systems design"
involves three essential steps: (1) investigation, (2)
hypotheses, and (3) implementation. At the first step,
the existing system is investigated through data collec
tion and analysis (systems analysis) and a conceptual
model is thus developed which is based on the analysis.
The second step is where the conceptual model which has
been developed is subjected to a test, and depending upon
the results, a new system is proposed. In designing it,
particular attention must be paid to the facts known
about systems. For example, it is important to know that
subsystems are interrelated and that their integration is
essential to proper operation. The unit subsystem func
tions as an integral part of the end item. The outputs
of subsystems actually energize higher order than more
complex ones. Therefore, each must be analyzed in order
to expose the subsystems and put them in their proper
71
Optner, op. cit., pp. 25-28.
63
relationships to those of a higher order — all with a
knowledge of the input-output requirements. Although
there are similarities between systems or subsystems,
they cease to exist at a certain point, and the unique
requirements of each must dominate. Outputs, goals, and
72
so forth, will change from system to system.
Finally, the new system needs to be implemented-
first through a pilot, then through the full installation.
Johnson and associates state that:
Systems design is the key activity in imple
menting the systems concept. This function
provides an overall framework by establishing
subsystems, larger systems, and a composite,
integrated whole. Within this framework and
within the philosophical setting of the sys
tems concept, other tools and techniques of
management science can be employed, e.g.,
linear programming, queing theory, network
analysis, and work simplification.73
Systems design covers the designs of a new system,
as well as the redesigning of existing ones, and always
with an eye toward change. Systems analysis focuses on
existing systems rather than on the design of new ones.
Systems engineering, on the other hand:
Implies the creation of systems as well as the
analysis of the existing systems. Systems en
gineering sometimes is assumed to deal only
^Ibid.. pp. 30-50, 80.
^Johnson, et al.« op. cit., p. 276.
64
with the physical components; that is, it
deals with the integration of components
and subcomponents into a total product such
as a computer or missile. . . . Moreover,
systems engineering can be defined as
“making useful an array of components de
signed to accomplish a particular objective
according to plan.0 This approach implies
the interaction of more than equipment. It
suggests the development of a man-machine
system which could function as a task-
oriented assemblage.74
Toward a Modern Systems Theory
From the discussions above, it is now obvious that
the movements of GST and the systems theories, design,
analysis, and engineering can be differentiated, but this
differentiation will not go very far. The concepts are
all interrelated for each are based on the same pattern
of thought and have implications for each other. Based
upon the degree of abstraction or generality, it is pos
sible to put these movements of the same nature in a
hierarchical order. At the top will exist GST, the most
abstract and least operational. Below, we can place sys
tems theories or models which axe less abstract, thus
focusing on a single system in an environment rather than
a range of systems — but having more operational implica
tions than the GST. Finally, at the bottom of the hier
archy, and with the least abstraction and most operation-
74Ibid., pp. 258-259.
65
ality, will be systems design, ox engineering, and systems
analysis. They represent the ways in which concepts are
utilized and may be considered as specific frameworks for
the implication of the systems idea, and for making use
of analytical tools for the same purpose.
At this stage, drawing upon all the discussions
presented so far, let us first define a system and then
the systems theory.
We define a system as anything which is an inte
grated whole, composed of interdependent elements and
parts which act on each other and in such a way with
their constantly changing environment, that the identity
of the system is maintained.
This definition of systems can be applied to
almost anything. Let us start with the simplest, a piece
of metal. Such a piece is composed of parts called mole
cules which in turn are made up of elements known as
atoms. These are interdependent, interacting and inte
grated, thus providing a whole — the piece of metal.
It is in an environment which is constantly changing.
There is some interaction between the metal and its sur
roundings as, for example, when the weather changes,
metal will change its size, and perhaps shape and length,
in order to adapt itself to the environment. Hence, it
66
gets larger when it is warm and smaller when it is cold.
It also has an identity, and is called by a certain name
— iron; for example, it will continue to be iron as long
as its content and nature is the same. But if more water
is added, its nature is changed. Therefore, it no longer
is iron — it is steel.
Let us apply the same definition of systems to a
plant such as a tree. It is also composed of parts which
are known as cells. As with metals, these parts too are
interdependent and integrated, and interact with one
another and with their environment. When the environment
changes, the tree changes as well. When there is no more
water or too little oxygen or too much carbon dioxide or
carbon monoxide, the tree turns yellow and gradually dies.
When this transpires, however, it is no longer the same
thing or the same system. It becomes wood and its content
is different from that of a tree. Its identity has
changed, together with its nature and thus has a new
means of operation.
The same thing is true for an animal or a human
being. They change with a changing environment and under
the forces so produced, they either continue to live as
organisms or die, and are transformed in nature, thus
becoming a system which is referred to as a corpse.
67
The examples may be multiplied up into the mil
lions, systems themselves being but single objects. There
are also the collections, and/or their combinations; hence
as we move up from the single unit to the aggregation,
systems become more and more complex.
In our study, we are not interested in physical
or biological systems, but with those which have been
created by human beings for certain purposes and which are
usually referred to as "social systems" — organizations.
Although the definition of a system we have given above
covers such systems as well, it needs to be elaborated
upon, taking into consideration the more specific char
acteristics of the organization. For this purpose, the
definition of systems can be refined as follows:
1. A system is an integrated whole;
2. It is composed of parts (subsystems) and
elements;
3. Each part is a subsystem in relation to other
systems of higher ranks — a system in itself — and is
composed of further subsystems in relation to other sys
tems of lower ranks;
4. Parts of a system are interdependent; they
cannot be independent of each other because in this case
there will not be a whole and we cannot talk about in
tegration;
68
5. There is a dynamic interaction among the parts
and elements of a system;
6. There is also a dynamic interaction between
the system, its parts and elements and the environment.
This points to the fact that:
a) Every system has an environment;
b) A social system is an open system and has
no rigid or fixed boundaries. The boundaries are not any
thing more than some assumed lines drawn for analytical
purposes;
c) Interaction among, and integration of,
parts and elements are of greater magnitude and intensity
inside the boundaries than those outside the boundaries;
and
d) A system can never be isolated from its
• M" •-m w '
environment and be independent of other systems In the
environment;
7. Environment is subject to continuous change,
and a system is a part of that changing milieu; therefore,
8. To survive, to maintain its identity, and/or
to grow and develop, a system (a) is also subject to con
tinuous change, and it must adapt itself to the changes
in the environment, (b) needs to get inputs from the en
vironment, no matter what they axe, (c) should process
69
these inputs (throughputs), (d) should produce outputs
and export them into the environment, (e) should have
a feedback mechanism to obtain the information about the
results or consequences of its outputs, and (f) should
have control mechanisms to direct:
(1) Deviations from the normal route of
operation,
(2) Inputs coming into the system, and
(3) Entropic elements operating within and
without the system;
9. A system constantly changes and while chang
ing, it strives for an orderly transition or for order in
the change process to prevent chaos and confusion.
Striving for order does not mean a "steady state" or
"equilibrium" which have static connotations. Even such
terms as "dynamic equilibrium," "practical equilibrium,"
or "quasi-equilibrium" are misleading because they imply
a cyclic change process of a stop and then a move which
does not reflect the realities of social systems; and
10. A social system is goal-oriented; it has been
created to achieve certain aims. These may be a variety
of things or their combinations — survival, growth,
change or adaptation, profit-making, production of mate
rial and services, satisfaction of clientele, and so on.
70
It is this fact which gives a system its identity. How
ever, both the identity and its goals axe also subject to
change. It is even possible that it might exist without
a goal, but only temporarily.
At this point, we are now in a better position to
define "systems theory," which is the body'of knowledge
generated, the set of relatively common propositions or
hypotheses set up (listed above) for study, explanation
and the prediction concerning the nature and operation of
systems, as well as their changes and consequences.
This definition is broad enough to cover the gen
eral systems theory, the models, design or engineering,
the analysis and tools used in the analysis such as man
agement science, PERT-PEP techniques of network analysis,
and so forth. In the remainder of the dissertation, when
we use the term "systems theory," we shall refer to this
meaning.
Nature of Systems Theory
Systems theory, first of all, is an epistomo-
logical device; it offers a systematic way of dealing with
complexity; it is utilized as a tool for conceptualizing
a phenomenon, an object, an organism, their combinations,
and so forth. It is a means of putting propositions or
71
hypotheses, or existing facts together, or theorizing to
explain, understand, or make predictions about the nature
of a system. In this meaning systems imply both the gen
eral theory and the models and as such, are broad con
ceptualizations in systems terms. The difference between
the two is one of a degree of abstraction, operationality,
and the area which they cover.
Second, systems theory is a collection of terms
or concepts to be used while theorizing about the nature
of a system.
Third, at operational level, a systems theory is
the framework in which a certain system may be analyzed.
In this usage it is referred to as "systems analysis" or
"systems design."
Fourth, the term "systems" implies perfection,
efficiency, and effectiveness which is obtained through
the design of a new system or redesign of an existing one
within the provided framework.
Fifth, systems theory can also be considered to
be a method of changing modes of operation.
Finally, a systems notion is an attitude, an ap
proach, a way of thinking, and a research methodology.
Advantages of Systems Theory
Before we conclude this chapter let us point out
72
some of the advantages of the systems theory:
1. It supplies a realistic look at a system. It
helps to comprehend the entirety, to see the whole, yet
appreciate the operation of various parts separately —
and as a group — in achieving a particular goal.
2. It has the impact of a change in the environ
ment, or in any one of its parts or elements, effecting
each and all other parts, and thus making them more un
derstandable, more explainable, and more predictable.
3- It helps in achieving more accurate and reli
able planning for the design of a new system or redesign
of an already existing one.
4. It emphasizes accurate and reliable controls.
5. It increases appreciation of the total prob
lem. Complex, intricate ones that extend into every
facet of the system can be handled satisfactorily by
this theory. The difficulties may be clearly identified,
and the problem areas can then be isolated.
6. Ingredients and requirements may easily be
identified and overlappings or duplications, unnecessary
inputs and waste, can be eliminated ox minimized through
the use of the systems theory.
7. The systems theory facilitates the utilization
of present-day data processing equipment, and through its
73
use the processing may be automated.
8. Day-to-day analysis or spe.ial studies can be
provided, and they may be performed as a by-product of
the total effort with little cost and effort.
9. Finally, the systems theory brings savings,
better coordination, greater efficiency and effective
ness in the operation of systems.
CHAPTER III
THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION
AND SYSTEMS THEORY
Our purpose in this chapter is to point out the
deficiencies of the traditional theories of organization,
and to indicate the significant contributions made by the
systems theory to the field of organization and manage
ment. To serve this purpose, we have reviewed below the
classical and the neoclassical theories of organization,
and have attempted to show how the essentials of the sys
tems theory have been utilized for a better understanding
and explanation of organizations.
Traditional Theories of Organization
Although a classification of the theories of or
ganization is a difficult job — because of the wide
variations involved — for the purposes of our analysis
such a classification may be helpful. It is possible to
divide the theories of organization into two: traditional
organization theory and modern organization theory. The
traditional theory can further be divided into (a) the
classical organization theory, and (b) the neoclassical
74
75
organization theory.
Classical Theory of Organization
This theory represents the ideas which prevailed
in the early developments of the study and in the prac
tices of organizations. It has a rich heritage including
1 o
the works of such famous scholars as Weber, Taylor,
3 4
Fayol, Gulick and Urwick, Mooney and Reiley, and many
others.
The classical theory of organization essentially
deals with the anatomy of the formal organization, and
sometimes is referred to, or identified with the
Max Weber, “The Essentials of Bureaucratic Or
ganization: An Ideal Type Construction," Robert K. Mer-
ton, et al.i (eds.), A Reader in Bureaucracy (New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1952), pp. 18-27. See also,
H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber (New
'York: Oxford University Press, Inc7^ 1946), Chapter VIII.
^Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific Management (New
York: Harper and Row, 1947).
^Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management
(Translated by Constance Stoxrs), (London: Sir Isaac
Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1949).
4Lut,her Gulick and Lindall F. Urwick (eds.),
Papers on the Science of Administration (New York: In
stitute of Public Administration, 1937).
5
James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, Onward In
dustry (New York: Harper and Row, 1931), or the later
edition, James D. Mooney, Principles of Organization,
rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1947).
76
"Scientific Management" movement or "Taylorism."^ It
evolved from the purpose of introducing into the organi
zation some rationality which was a natural consequence
of dissatisfaction with the organizational practices of
the time. Weber introduced technically superior rational
bureaucracy; Taylor used the objective rationality of
measurement; Fayol, Gulick, and Mooney and Reiley intro
duced some general principles and elements of organiza
tion for efficient operation.
Because of the emphasis put upon efficiency, the
classical theory starts with objectives or values which
the organization seeks to achieve. Next, the work neces
sary to achieve the determined objectives is decided
upon. Work, then, is divided into specific tasks for
maximum efficiency. Tasks are, in turn, allocated to
jobs or positions, each of which requires routine and
repetitive movements of a single worker.
The common elements of the classical organization
theory are specialization and departmentalism, unity of
command, span of supervision, and allocation of authority.
^John M. Pfiffner and Frank P. Sherwood, Adminis
trative Organization (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., I960), pp. 53-54; and also, Rocco Carzo, Jr.
and John N. Yanousas, Formal Organization: A Systems
Approach (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967),,
pp. 23-40.
77
The jobs are grouped together into administrative units
to meet the need for coordination. Each unit is headed
by one boss only and each supervisor should have only a
few subordinates reporting directly to him. Administra
tive units are grouped into higher level ones. This
grouping continues until the organization takes the shape
of a pyramid. Personnel assignments are based on job
7
requirements, and rewards are given for performance.
Orders go downward and the only upward communication is
the reporting of accomplishments.
The central problem in the classical theory is to
make certain that the work gets done efficiently. This
is accomplished through a careful definition of the tasks
into specialized jobs, and then by coordination of them
through a hierarchy of administrative units. The focus
is on the mechanics of organization, and therefore the
theory overlooks the significance of the people*s impact
on the anatomy of the formal structure. Administrative
decisions in the rational organizations of this theory
axe made with a full consciousness, and presumably with
a complete knowledge of alternatives. Workers are ex
pected to conform to the rationalized behavior in per
forming job operations as a result of the search for
p
"one best way" to do each task.
7Ibid. 8Ibid., pp. 53-55.
78
There is a tendency on the part of the theorists
of this school to view the employee as an inert instru
ment performing the tasks assigned to him. Personnel is
seen as a given, rather than as a variable, in the sys
tem.^ Because it views workers as automatons (in the
sense that the worker must adjust to the job and the
task) and labor is a commodity which can be bought and
disposed of at management*s discretion, the classical
theory of organization has also been referred to as
"machine model.
Scott points out:
It would not be fair to say that the classical
school is unaware of the human problems which
affect organizations. They simply do not
treat in any systematic way the interplay of
individual personality, informal groups, in-
terorganizational conflict, and the decision
process in their conception of the formal
structure. Additionally, the classical school
has failed to incorporate in its theory the
contributions of the behavioral sciences as
part of a comprehensive explanation of human
behavior in the organization.H
Neoclassical Theory of Organization
The neoclassical organization theory is usually
^James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organiza
tions (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 29.
lOlbid., p. 36..
■^William G. Scott, Organization Theory: A Be
havioral Analysis for Management (Homewood, 111.: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., 1967), p. 109.
79
referred to as "human relations" because it has been asso
ciated in the past with this movement. However, it should
be identified more broadly with those movements which
recognize and attempt to compensate for deficiencies in
the classical doctrine. It attempts to save the classical
theory by introducing behavioral modifications to the for
mal system. Some of the scholars connected with the neo
classical theory (perhaps approach or school would be a
better term) are Mayo, Roethlisberger and Dickson,
Lewin,^ Lippitt,*4 and Whyte,'1 ' 5 and many others.
The neoclassical theory or approach is best exem
plified by Scott with Pfiffner and Sherwood*s concept of
the "organizational overlays."-^ It is argued that
Pfiffner and Sherwood add the various modifications which
result from such behavioral overlays as informal groups,
•^F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Manage
ment and the Worker (Cambridqe: Harvard University Press,
1939).
1 9
Kurt Lewin, "Group Decision and Social Change,"
G. E. Swanson, et al., (eds.), Readings in Social Psy
chology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952),
pp. 459-473.
l^William F. Whyte, et al., Money and Motivation
(New York: Harper and Row, 1 9 5 5 ) .
l^William F. Whyte, "An Experimental Study of
Leadership and Group Life, Swanson, et al., (eds.),
op. cit., pp. 340-355.
■^Pfiffner and Sherwood, op. cit.
80
decision and power systems (not synonymous with formal
authority systems), informal communication different
than the prescribed one, and to the formal structure of
the classical theory.
Scott, furthermore, brings the following argu
ment :
The neoclassical school does not have a bona
fide theory as do the classicists. Rather
the neoclassical school includes all those
who protest against the inadequacies of the
classical model of organizational behavior,
but are not willing to divorce themselves
completely from its structural f r a m e . 1 7
Since this theory is composed of the critiques of
the classical theory of organization, let us summarize
these critiques. The first four points are discussed by
Etzioni and are the major findings of the Hawthorne ex
periments. They also reflect the weaknesses of the
lo
Scientific Management movement.
1. The amount of work carried out by a worker,
hence the organizational level of efficiency and ration
ality, is not determined by his physical capacity, but
by his social capacity;
2. Noneconomic rewards play a central role in
determining the motivation and happiness of the worker;
17
Scott, op. cit., p. 110.
1 ft
Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HalTj line•, 1964), Chapter IV.
81
3. The highest specialization is by no means the
most efficient form of division of labor;
4. Workers do not react to management and its
norms and rewards as individuals, but as members of
groups; and
5. The division of labor intensifies employee
interdependency. It created strains and tensions. The
routine and boring nature of the job stifles enthusiasm
and inhibits any latent desire an employee might have to
see "the big picture," and the relation of his job to it.
Division of labor, moreover, tends to segment the
organization into "enclaves of authority and influence."
Often executives come to regard their functional segment
in the organization as their own special empire. Hence,
this leads to fragmentation.
To overcome these difficulties which resulted
from the division of labor and was emphasized by the
classics as a major factor in achieving efficiency, a
number of recommendations have been made by the neoclas
sical school. Some of these are participation in
decision-making, job enlargement, bottom-up management or
the establishment of junior boards.
] g
Scott, op. cit., pp. 110-112.
82
6. Human behavior disrupts the best laid organ
izational plans and thwarts the logical relationships
founded in the structure. The emphasis is, therefore,
put upon ' ’informal organization.1 1
7. The effectiveness of supervision is determined
by individual differences in managerial ability, effec
tiveness of organizational communication, effectiveness
of formal control exercised upon operations, and organ
izational philosophy on centralization vs. decentraliza
tion of authority. Therefore, there cannot be an ideal
span of control or supervision.
The neoclassical school has criticized the clas
sical theory of organization in many other ways in regard
to the principles of organization, delegation of author
ity, levels of conflict settlement, and so forth.
However, we do not intend to go into details, since the
purpose here is to indicate the major improvements brought
upon by the systems theory of organization over the clas
sical and neoclassical theories.
The neoclassical theory of organization may be
considered to be the opposite side of the same coin which
was stamped-by-the classicists. While the scientific
management assumed that the most efficient organization
is the most satisfying one, the human relations reversed
83
the assumption by arguing that the most satisfied organ
ization is the most efficient one. One emphasized the
formal elements of organization, while the other, the
informal ones; one emphasized the material rewards, while
the other, the social ones to motivate workers; overall,
one was concerned with efficient operation and high pro
duction, and the use of human beings as tools to achieve
these goals. The other tends to use organization and
production for human satisfaction.
Pointing out the common weaknesses of both ap
proaches, Etzioni argues that "neither saw any basic
contradiction or insoluble dilemma in the relationship
between the organization’s quest for rationality and the
human search for happiness.Both of them are frag
mentary in their approach emphasizing either formal or
informal production or human happiness. They did not try
to articulate both but rather were interested in the in
side world of organizations and neglected their environ
ment — as well as their interactions with the environ-
ment.
Both the classical and the neoclassical schools
sought the causes of inefficiency in single factors.
^Etzioni, op. cit., p. 39*
84
They were not able to look at organizations as complex
systems composed of interrelated parts and engaged in
active interactions with their environment. Problems
which arose were approached by a "look-and-see" approach.
The causes of such problems or conflicts were not traced
to their origins and were not seen to be organization-
wide.
It was the modern organization theory which
brought an integrative approach and attempted to solve
the weaknesses of both the classical and the neoclassical
theories. Modern organization theory emphasizes the
necessity of studying the organization as a whole and not
just its parts in isolation. Scott points out that the
distinctive qualities of the modern organization theory
are its conceptual-analytical base, its reliance on em
pirical research data, and above all, its synthesizing,
integrating nature. These qualities are framed in a
philosophy which accepts the premise that the only mean-
Ol
ingful way to study the organization is as a system.‘ S ~L
However, modern theory is not a homogeneous body of
thought. Each scholar has his own special emphasis when
he considers the system. What is common among them is
^Scott, op. cit., pp. 122-123.
8b
the effort made to look at organizations in their en
tirety. Thus, the systems theory, as it is applied to
organizations, may be considered as constituting a major
portion of modern organizational theory.
In the next section, we shall look at the ways in
which the organization is studied as a system, so as to
enable us, at a latex point, to center upon the contribu
tions which the systems theory has made to organization
theory in general.
Application of Systems Theory
to Organizations
Our basic interest in this study is in organiza
tional change. However, before we-go into this discus
sion, we need to survey the ways in which systems theory
has been applied to organizations (in order to indicate
the contributions of this approach to organizational
theory) as we need to provide a background for our later
discussions. Such a survey would indicate some variations
in the ways in which the systems theory has been utilized
in order to make this probe. Some scholars have explored
organizations and developed theories directly in terms of
systems theory, while other have developed models — not
directly using the framework provided by it — but which
86
have a similitude to the systems idea. We shall briefly
review some, but not all, of the studies of organizations
in which the systems idea is utilized. We shall review
the systems-like studies or models of organizations for
the very reason that they have contributed immeasurably
to the way in which the systems theory has been applied.
Here, the studies of such scholars as Whyte, Trist,
Parsons, Likert, Etzioni, Argyris, and Blake and Mouton
are considered to be systems-like while those of Schein,
Gross, Katz and Kahn, Johnson, Kast and Rosenzweig, and
so forth, are taken as being direct applications of the
systems theory, as we have developed it above. The in
vestigations in both categories look at the organization
as a totality.
Talcott Parsons
One of the earliest applications of the systems
idea to organizations was formulated by Parsons. Accord
ing to him, formal organizations contain subunits, and
thus they may in turn be thought of as subunits of larger
systems. Activities in formal organizations are oriented
toward the achivement of some goal. They have explicit
mechanisms for solving the twin problems of maintaining
their identity (established patterns of internal rela-
87
tionships) vis-a-vis their environment, while at the same
time obtaining from the environment the support they need
22
for survival.
Parsons has used as the elements of his general
systems theory, the four systems problems and the five
bi-polar pairs of pattern variables to make a definition
of organizations. He has defined them as one kind of
"collectivity ready to act in concert to achieve a goal."
The latency problem concerns the integration of the organ
ization with the higher-order patterns of cultural values
(pattern-maintenance and tension management). The adap
tive problems concern themselves with their efforts in
the mobilization of resources (capital, land, labor, and
entrepreneurship), and their acquisition of such from the
environment. Parsons calls the goal-attainment problem
or sector of an organization "the mechanism of imple
mentation," and deals with allocative and coordinating
decisions. The integration sector deals with the mecha
nisms by which the organization is integrated with other
organizations and other types of collectivity in the
pq
total system.
^^Talcott Parsons, "Suggestions for a Sociological
Approach to the Theory of Organizations," Administrative
Science Quarterly, I (June, September, 1956), pp. 63-85
and 224-239.
^Max Black (ed.), The Social Theories of Talcott
Parsons (Enqlewood Cliffs: Prentice-Fiall, 1961), pp. *214-
£66.
88
The five pattern variables — affectivity-affec-
tive-neutralityj quality-performance, diffuseness-
specificity, particularism-universalism, and self-orienta-
tion-collectivity — are used to describe and categorize
different kinds of existing relationships and the norms
governing these relationships. Hence, the types of de-
24
viance which may occur are detailed in the organization.
Parsons has been criticized for lack of clarity,
lack of operationability of his concepts, his ideal-oxi-
entedness, emphasis on equilibrium, or stability of the
system, and so on. Although his model is not sufficient
to understand organizations, his contributions to the
field of organizational study cannot be minimized. Many
later studies have been stimulated by his work.
William F. Whyte
Whyte characterizes the point of view utilized in
his book, Men at Work, as a system approach to the organ
ization, and contrasts it with a cause-effect approach,
to the analysis of the organization. He points out that:
The student who pursues the cause-effect approach
tries to find one or more factors which can be
taken as the “causes" of certain other phenomena
. . . a number of these factors could be cited as
^4Henry A. Landsberger, “Parsons1 Theory of Or
ganizations," in Black, ibid., pp. 214-250.
89
cause, individually or in combination, of organ
izational behavior; yet every presumed cause can
be shown to have the given effect only in a cer
tain type of context and not in another.
If we acknowledge that the impact of a given
force depends in part upon the context within
which it operates, then this recognition should
lead us to see the necessity of building a scheme
of analysis in which forces and context are in
tegrated. This is what I mean by a systems
approach to organization. My system involves the
interactions, activities, and sentiments of the
members in relation to the social, economic, and
technological environment. I assume a state of
mutual dependence among the elements of the so
cial system, which means that a change introduced
into interactions will be accompanied by change
in activities and sentiments; a change introduced
into activities will be accompanied by changes
in interactions and sentiments, and so on. I
also assume a state of mutual dependence between
the environment and the social system, which
means that a change introduced into the environ
ment will have its effects upon the social sys
tem, and changes that occur within the social
system may have their effects upon the environ
ment. 25
Whyte has used the theoretical approach, commonly
known as the "interaction theory," to lead his empirical
studies. This approach was first developed by Chappie
Of\
and Arensberg in 1940. They stated the theory in a
highly abstract form. It was first applied by Arensberg
and McGregor in a study on industrial organizations.2?
2^William F. Whyte, Men at Work (Homewood, 111.:
The Dorsey Press, Inc., 19ol), p. 563.
26j=iiot D. Chappie and Conrad M. Arensberg, Meas
uring Human Relations: An Introduction to the Study oT""the
Interactions of Individuals (Genetics Psychology Monograph
No. 22) {Princeton: The Journal Press, 1940).
2?Conrad Arensberg and Douglas McGregor, "Determi
nation of Moral in an Industrial Company," Applied
90
The theoxy was further elaborated and modified by Homans
OQ
first in The Human Group. ° and later in Social Behavior;
Its Elementary Forms.^ Whyte admits that Homans had a
substantial influence on his thinking and in his field
study.
Rensis Likert
Likert also brings a systemic view to the study
of organizations through his ’ ’overlapping group model."
He argues that organizations can be conceptualized as sys
tems of interlocking groups. Interlocking groups are
connected by individuals who occupy key positions of dual
membership, serving as "linking pins" between groups.
There is a hierarchy of groups. Every group is composed
of subgroups and is itself a subgroup of a higher level
group. The organization which is composed of linked and
overlapping groups is also linked to its environment
through key people who occupy positions in both organiza
tions and some environmental system.^
Anthropology. I (January-March 1942), pp. 12-34.
^George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1950)'.
^George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elemen
tary Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.,
1961) .
30Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co” Inc., 196l).
The Tavistock Model^
32
The Tavistock model, as labeled by Schein, has
resulted from the experiences of the Tavistock Institute
in London in changing technology in the coal mining in
dustry, and the redesign of work in Indian textile mills.
Rice, as a result of the experiences undertaken
on Indian textile mills, developed the open-system model
of organizations which should be considered among the
direct applications of the systems theory to the study of
organizations. He argues that any given organization im
ports various things from its environment; utilizes these
imports through a conversion process; and exports them in
the form of products, services, and waste materials. One
major import is information, which is obtained from the
environment and pertains to the steps which the organiza
tion must do in order to survive. Other imports are
people, equipment, money, and raw materials.
The other version of the Tavistock model is the
concept of the socio-technical system developed by Trist.
E. L. Trist, et_al., Organizational Choice
(London: Tavistock Publications, 1963), and also A. K.
Rice, The Enterprise and Its Environment (London: Tavi
stock Publications, 1963).
^Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965),
p. 90.
It implies that any productive organization is a combina
tion of technology (task requirements, physical layout,
equipment available), and a social system (relationships
among participants ox workers). These two systems are in
mutual interaction with each other and each determines the
other. Neither system is the only determinant of the
nature of the organization. An effective work organiza
tion can most likely be obtained only if both the nature
of the job (the technical system), and the nature of the
people (the social system), are taken into account at the
initial design of the organization.
R. A. Johnson, F. E. Kast, J. E. R o s e n z w e i q ^3
The contention of these authors is that todayTs
large-scale business enterprises should apply the systems
concept to meet the growing complexities and proliferation
of operations. They use the systems theory to provide a
framework within which the manager can integrate his
operations more effectively. More specifically, they
apply this framework to management functions: planning,
organizing, control, and communication. Since we are con
cerned with organizations, we shall see how they apply the
^R. A. Johnson, F. E. Kast and J. E. Rosenzweig,
The Theory and Management of Systems (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., 1963).
93
systems theory to them. We will omit the other three
specific functions of management.
The authors point out that:
Traditional organization theory generally em
phasized parts and segments of the organiza
tion and was concerned with the separation of
activities into tasks or operational units.
It did not give sufficient emphasis to the
problem of interrelationships or integration
of activities. Nor did the neoclassical, or
human relations, approach, move in this direc
tion. Its approach was interjecting back into
the mechanistic traditional models, human
motivations, aspirations, desires, and limita
tions. Neither of these approaches provided
a basis for an integrated, systematic organ
izational m o d e l .34
Organizations should be considered as systems.
Business organization is thought of as a system within the
broader, more inclusive one of society. The separate com
ponents of most organized systems such as planners,
administrators who carry out the plans, human and material
resources, controllers, outsiders who are affected by the
organizations activity, and the social environment, be
come a viable, operating system by virtue of the organiza
tions. The organization, as a system, is divided into
units; these units interact among themselves and with
their environment; a structure of information flow and
communication is maintained; growth and viability is
r u \
Ibid., p. 50
94
assured; and integration as well as effective decision
making processes axe required.
The business organization is a man-made system
which has a dynamic interplay with its environment —
customers, competitors, labor organizations, suppliers,
government, and many other agencies. It is "a system of
interrelated parts working in conjunction with each other
in order to accomplish a number of goals, both those of
OP.
organization and those of the individual participant.
The Kahn Qverlapping-Role-Set Model3^
Kahn and his colleagues have argued that the organ
ization as a whole can be thought of as a set of over
lapping and interlocking role sets, some of which transcend
the boundaries of the organization. It is said to be the
set of people with whom a focal person, fulfilling an
organizational role has role-related relationships. It
has also been defined as the set of expectations of a
“formal position*1 or an “office*1 in an organization.
The behavior of members in the organization is
studied in terms of "role conflict" or "role ambiguity."
35Ibid., p. 10.
36R. L. Kahn, et al., Organizational Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964).
95
The former exists where different members of the role set
expect dissimilar things of the focal person; and role
ambiguity occurs when members of the role set fail to
communicate to the focal person information which he
feels that he needs to have in order to perform his role
either because they do not have the information or
because they withhold it.
. • . The kinds of expectations which members
of the role set hold, the manner in which
they attempt to influence the focal person,
his perceptions of their expectations and in
fluence attempts, his feelings and reactions
to these, and his attempts to cope with the
feelings and tensions which may be generated
— these can then be related to organizational
factors (rank, type of job, reward system,..and
so on), to personality factors in the focal
person or the role senders, and to interper
sonal factor's which characterize the nature of
the relationship between role senders and the
focal person (degree of trust, relative power,
dependence, and so forth)*37
The studies undertaken by Kahn, et al., as well
as by others who are dealing with the "role," or trying
to develop a "role theory,"3® all underline the interde
pendence of organizational variables, and the systemic
nature of organizations.
^Schein, op. cit., p. 94.
38
See Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason and Alexander W.
McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John
Wiley & Sons. Inc., 1958); Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J.
Thomas (eds.j, Role Theory (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1966); Michael Benton, Roles (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., Pub., 1965); and Erving Goffman, Encounters (The
Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1961).
96
Amitai Etzioni
Etzioni*s 1 1 structuralist" approach has made a
significant contribution to the development of the systems
idea, though it is not expressed in such terms.^9 jt
brings a wholistic or totality approach, in the sense
that it covers both formal and informal elements of the
organization and their articulation; informal groups and
relations between such groups inside and outside the or
ganization; human beings as well as production; and the
interaction between the organization and its environment.
It is an effort to overcome the weaknesses of both scien
tific management and human relations by synthesizing
them. It was the structuralist writers, Etzioni argues,
who first recognized the organizational dilemma; the in
evitable strains between organization needs and personal
needs; between rationality and irrationality; between
discipline and autonomy, and so forth.
Chris Arqyris
Argyris, recognizing the organizational dilemma
and making an effort to integrate individual needs and
organizational goals, has developed the "mix model" which
^Etzioni, op. cit., pp. 41-49.
97
reflects a systems view in the study of organization.40
He describes the organization as follows:
An organization is characterized by an arrange
ment of parts that form a unity or whole which
feeds back to help maintain the parts: a "part"
of an organization is actually an "organic"
part in that it exists by virtue of its posi
tion in the pattern that is the whole; the
wholej in turn may be differentiated from the
parts along two dimensions. First, the whole
has a different boundary than any given (or
subset of parts). Second, the functional unity
of the whole displays properties only revealed
in the actual process of full operation of the
whole.41
Argyris specifies five properties which are essen
tial to all living organizations:
1. A plurality of parts;
2. Maintaining themselves through their inter
relatedness;
3. Achieving specific objective(s);
4. Adaptation to the external environment; and
5. Maintaining their interrelated state of parts.
He also points out that there are three kinds of core
activities in which organizations engage: (a) achieving
objectives, (b) maintaining the internal system, and (c)
adapting to the external environment.
^Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and
the Organization (New York: John WileySons, Inc., 1964).
^ Ibid. j pp. 119-120.
98
From the definition of "construct organizations"
quoted above, Argyris infers six dimensions. These re
flect two extremes. One is the essential properties of
the "construct organization," the other reflects the op
posite which is away from the basic properties of the
"construct organizations." Every "real" organization may
have its activities described in terms of the degree to
which they approximate, or go away from, the essential
properties of the construct organization. The dimensions
inferred are:
1. From a situation in which a part (or
subset of parts) directs the organizational
"core activities" (achieving the objectives,
maintaining the internal system, and adapting
to the environment) to the point where these
core activities are influenced through inter
relationships of parts . • .
2. From awareness of the organization as
a (random) plurality of parts to awareness of
the organization as a pattern of parts . . .
3. From a state in which the objectives
being achieved are related to the parts, to
a state in which the objectives being achieved
are related to the whole . . .
4. From a state in which the organization
is unable to influence its internal oriented
activities (achieving its objectives, maintain
ing the internal system) to a state in which it
can influence these activities as the organiza
tion desires . . .
5. From a state in which the organization
is unable to influence its external oriented
activities to a state in which it can influ
ence these activities as the organization
desires . . .
99
6. From a state in which the nature of the
core activities . . . is largely determined by
the present to a state in which the present core
activities are continually influenced by consid
erations including the past history, the present,
and the anticipated future of the organization.^2
Empirical studies by the author have indicated
that traditional organizations approximate the left side
of the continua, while the creative, adaptive, and par
ticipative organizations approximate the right side.
Argyris has conceptualized the organization as a
"total open system," the energetic inputs being individ
uals, and has attempted to use this model, which he
assumes can be applied to all living organisms, including
individuals and organizations to integrate individual needs
and organizational demands.
R. R. Blake and J. S. Mouton
While Argyris attempts to integrate individual
needs and organizational demands through the "mix model,"
Blake and Mouton developed another construct — The Man
agerial Grid.^^
Blake and Mouton hold that individual needs and
organizational goals are not two independent poles but
4^Ibid.
^Robert Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial
Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964).
100
rather that production and people are truly interde
pendent. Production conditions influence the relation
ships of people and in turn these filiations facilitate
or hinder productive efforts. Managerial grid shows the
two concerns for production and people, and a range of
possible interactions between them. The result is the
five styles of supervision — 1*1* 1*9, 9.1, 5.5^ and
9.9.
The 1.1 style represents minimum concern for
both production and people; 1.9 represents a minimum con
cern for the former but maximum concern for the latter;
9.1 depicts maximum concern for production but minimum
concern for people; 5.5 designates an average balance
between production and people — adequate to get out the
work; and the 9.9 style delineates a maximum concern for
both production and people.
The last style, as mentioned above, has a similar
approach to Etzioni1s structuralist model, or Argyris1
mix model. It represents an organization with a high
degree of participation, commitment, and involvement on
the part of the people, and with a high degree of inter
dependence which is achieved through a "common stake" in
organization purpose. This leads to relationships of
trust and respect, high morale, high creativity, and high
101
performance. In such an organization, there is a great
concern for both production and people, and achievement
of one satisfies the other.
This systems-like model, or construct (9.9), im
plies a totality approach and seems to be a significant
step toward the solution of organizational dilemma by
thus integrating individuals and the organization.
Edgar H. Schein
Although Schein does not give a definition of
organization in terms of the systems theory, he attempts
to highlight the essentials of such a definition. He
lists his systems concept of an organization in the fol
lowing six points:44
First, the organization must be conceived of
as an open system, which means that it is in con
stant interaction with its environment, taking in
raw materials, people, energy, and information,
and transforming or converting these into prod
ucts and services which are exported into the
environment.
Second, the organization must be conceived of
as a system with multiple purposes, or functions,
which involve multiple interactions between the
organization and its environment. Many of the
activities of subsystems within the organization
cannot be understood without considering these
multiple interactions and functions.
44Schein, op. cit., p. 95
102
Third, the organization consists of many
subsystems which are in dynamic interaction
with one another. Instead of analyzing or
ganizational phenomena in terms of individual
behavior, it is becoming increasingly import
ant to analyze the behavior of such subsystems,
whether they be conceived in terms of groups,
role, or some other concept.
Fourth, because the subsystems are mutually
dependent, changes in one subsystem are likely
to affect the behavior of other subsystems.
Fifth, the organization exists in a dynamic
environment which consists of other systems,
some larger, some smaller than the organization.
The environment places demands upon and con
strains the organization in various ways. The
total functioning of the organization cannot
be understood, therefore, without explicit con
sideration of these environmental demands and
constraints.
Finally, the multiple links between the
organization and its environment make it dif
ficult to specify clearly the boundaries of
any given organization. Ultimately, a concept
of organization is perhaps better given in
terms of the stable processes of import, con
version, and export rather than character
istics such as size, shape, function, or
structure.
Bertram M. Gross
Gross attempts to develop a "general-systems
model” of organization.4^1 He points out that, when
viewed in general-systems terms, a formal organization is:
^Bertram M. Gross, "What Are Your Organization's
Objectives? A General Systems Approach to Planning,"
Human Relations» XVIII (1965) (The Tavistock Institute of
Human Relations, London, England), pp. 192-216.
103
1. A man-resource system in space and time,
2. Open, with various transactions between it
and its environment,
3. Characterized by internal and external re
lations of conflict as well as cooperation,
4. A system for developing and using power,
with varying degrees of authority and re
sponsibility, both within the organization
and in the external environment,
5. A "feedback" system, with information on
the results of past performance activities
feeding back through multiple channels to
influence future performance,
6. Changing, with static concepts derived from
dynamic concepts rather than serving as a
preliminary to them,
7. Complex, that is, containing many subsystems,
being contained in larger systems, and criss
crossed by overlapping systems,
8. Loose, with many components that may be im
perfectly coordinated, partially autonomous,
and only partially controllable,
9. Only partially knowable, with many areas of
uncertainty, with "black regions" as well as
"black boxes" and with many variables that
cannot be clearly defined and must be de
scribed in qualitative terms, and
10. Subject to considerable uncertainty with
respect to current information, future
environmental conditions, and the conse
quences of its own actions.46
Gross contends that this general-systems model
brings together, in an orderly fashion, information from
all dimensions of an organization. It integrates concepts
from all relevant disciplines. He says that a human organ
ization is not fully predictable, or tightly controlled,
for it is too complicated. The starting point is an
46ibid.
104
input-output concept. The flow of inputs and outputs
portrays the system*s performance. The endeavor of any
organization consists of activities to (1) satisfy the
varying interests of people and groups by (2) producing
outputs of services or goods, (3) making efficient use
of inputs relative to outputs, (4) investing in the sys
tems, (5) acquiring resources, (6) doing all these things
in a manner that conforms with various codes of behavior
and (7) varying conceptions of technical and administra
tive rationality.
Gross continues to argue that the structure of
any organization or unit consists of (1) people and (2)
non-human resources, (3) grouped together in differen
tiated subsystems which (4) interrelate among themselves
and (5) with the external environment, (6) and are sub
ject to various values and (7) to such guidance of
various types as may help to provide the capacity for
future performance.
In this performance-structure model, the first
element in both areas is the human one — people and the
satisfaction of their interests. All other elements and
their many issues are ways of thinking about people and
their behavior.47
47Ibid., pp. 197-199.
105
Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn4^
Katz and Kahn develop the "open-system theory"
of organizations which furnishes a dynamic and adequate
framework, and cures the implicit and unrealistic assump
tions of the classical and neoclassical theories concern
ing the closed character of social structures. The open-
system theory emphasizes the necessary dependence of any
organization upon its environment.■
The authors argue that the open-system theory
permits an integration of the macro approach of the soci
ologist and the micro approach of the psychologist to the
organization. The open-system theory eliminates the
weaknesses of both approaches. The blunt or gross nature
of the concepts of the macro approach which does not con
tain sufficient specifications of psychological dynamics
at work. The twofold weaknesses of micro approach — the
psychological micro approach usually deals with too few
of the significant variables in the total situation —
has often seized upon inappropriate variables, and has
pushed too hard in the direction of showing the univer
sality of some fundamental principles (reductionist em
phasis). This results in the loss of the total problem
48Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psy
chology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc•, 1966.
106
with which it should be concerned. The open-system
theory combines these two approaches. The larger problem
is described through the sociological-macro approach and
is analyzed in detail in terms of the many interrelated
behaviors of the actors on the scene.
The theoretical model used for the understanding
of organizations is one of an energetic input-output
system in which the energetic return from the output re
activates the system. Organizations as a special class
of open systems have properties of their own, but they
share others as well which are held in common with all
open systems. The common properties include the importa
tion of energy from the environment, the throughput or
transformation of the imported energy into some form of
product, the exporting of that product into the environ
ment, and then the reenergizing of the system from
sources in the environment. Organizations also share the
characteristics of negative entropy, feedback, homeo
stasis, differentiation, and equifinality
Organizations are social systems and their major
components are the role behaviors of members, the norms
prescribing and sanctioning these behaviors, and the
values in which the norms are embedded.
^ Ibid., Chapter IX.
107
The subsystems of social organizations are given
by the authors as:
1. Production or technical subsystems concerned
with throughput (work which is accomplished);
2. Supportive subsystems of procurement, dis
posal, and institutional relations;
3. Maintenance subsystems which ensure organi
zational survival by tying people into their functional
roles;
4. Adaptive subsystems which generate appropriate
responses to external conditions (organizational change);
and
5. Managerial subsystems which coordinate, ad
just, control, and direct these patterns of behavior to
hold the complex structures together as a unified system
or organization.^
William G. Scott51
Scott views a human organization as a social sys
tem. All parts in it affect the other parts; the various
discrete segments and functions do not act as isolated
elements. Every action has repercussions throughout the
50Ibid., Chapter XII.
Scott, op. cit.
108
organization because all units, human and non-human, are
linked.
Modern organization theory is argued to be an off
spring of the system concept. Both this theory and the
general systems theory study:
1. The parts (individuals) in aggregates, and
the movement of individuals into and out of the system;
2. The interaction of individuals with the en
vironment of the system;
3. The interactions among individuals in the
system (role theory and the theory of informal organiza
tion) ;
4. General growth and stability problems of the
system.^2 Hence an organization is the total system con
sisting of (1) individuals, (2) the formal organization,
(3) the informal organization, (4) the structure of status
and role expectancy systems, and (5) the physical environ
ment of the work situation.-^
These parts are connected to each other, and in
tegrated into a whole, through linking processes such as
communication, decision-making, authority, power, leader
ship, balance concepts (stability), and so on. The system
52Ibid., p. 128.
53Ibid., p. 124.
109
as a whole strives to achieve certain goals such as
stability, growth and interaction.
The parts of organization systems are interde
pendent. As such, they themselves are composed of units
which also are interdependent. Through intrapart and
interpart interdependencies, the parts are woven into a
configuration called the organizational system.
Modern organization theory then accepts systems
analysis as a starting point. Many questions that are
related to the parts of the system — interdependency,
linking processes, goals, and so forth, and which are not
seriously considered by the classical and neoclassical
theories — are the central queries of a systems analysis
and the modern organization theory.
A Systems Theory of Organization
Now, we can summarize the systems approach to
organizations by utilizing the systems theory as we have
elaborated in the previous chapter. We have defined an
organization as an open system, an integrated whole, com
posed of interdependent parts and elements which actively
interact with one another — and with their constantly
changing environment — in such a way that a certain
identity is maintained. Using this definition, we can
110
list the properties as follows:
1. An organization is an open system;
2. It is an integrated whole;
3. It is composed of parts and elements;
4. Although it is difficult to make a complete
list of the elements of an organization, we need to make
such an attempt. The elements of organization can be
classified as follows:
a) Human elements,
b) Structural elements,
c) Technological elements, and
d) Goal elements.
Before we break each of these down into their components,
we should point out that these four sets of elements are
not in isolation, independent of each other. On the con
trary, they are in close interaction and there is a large
area of overlapping among them.
The human elements of an organization include (1)
individuals and their behavior such as perception, moti
vation, psychological conflict, learning, thinking,
problem-solving, self-actualization, and so forth; (2)
groups and related variables such as interpersonal rela
tions, communication, influence (motivation, manipulation,
collaboration), intra- and intergroup conflict, and so
Ill
forth; (3) management philosophies and/or ideologies;
and (4) values held by the members of the organization
(individual values, group values, and organizational
values).
The structural elements of the organization system
are (1) formal rules and regulations of the system, (2)
formally established patterns of activities, and (3) in
formally patterned activities. The formal rules and
regulations include such elements as the organization
chart, the set of rules and regulations stated in the con
stitution and bylaws. The formally established patterns
of activities include such elements as formal practices
in the areas of work flow, record keeping, space layout,
personnel (position classification, compensation plan,
recruitment and selection, training, promotion, retire
ment, and so forth), finance (revenues, expenditures,
budgeting procedures, fiscal and monetary policy prac
tices, and so forth), formal hierarchy of authority,
formal communication and decision-making networks, plan
ning, control, conflict management, public relations, and
so forth. The informally patterned activities include
such structural elements as role setting and patterned
role relationships, informal communication and decision
making practices, and all other regular but informal (not
112
written) patterns of behavior and activities in any one
of the fields listed under the formally established pat
terns of activities.
The technological elements of an organization are
of two kinds: theory, or a state of knowledge, and the
material or instrumental consequences of that state.
This state of knowledge, or theory, includes methods and
ways of doing things in any one of the areas listed under
structural elements, and as presently practiced in the
organization. The material consequences of a particular
state of knowledge are tools, materials, machines,
physical constructs, and so forth.
The goal elements of the organization consist of
formally set up, or informally recognized aims, and the
task to be performed to achieve these ends.
5. Parts of organizations are open, integrated
systems in themselves. They are composed of almost the
same elements as the organization itself and interact in
a dynamic way with one another. They all are interde
pendent and integrated.
Parts of organizations may consist of a variety
of things. They may be structural such as departments,
agencies, bureaus, offices, or they may be functional.
Parsons indicates, for example, the major subsystems of
113
organization as (a) goal-attainment, (b) adaptation,
(c) integration, (d) pattern maintenance, and (e) tension
management.54 Katz and Kahn have identified the following
functional subsystems of an organization in terms of
systems: (a) production or technical subsystems, (b)
supportive subsystems, (c) maintenance subsystems, (d)
adaptive subsystems, and (e) managerial subsystems.55
Identification of the parts or subsystems of
organizations and their classification will obviously
depend upon a variety of factors. Firstly, the stage of
the analysis is important. If a new organization is being
designed, its parts can be constructed in the desired
manner. However, if an already existing organization is
being examined, its established parts (departments,
agencies, offices, and so forth) should be recognized.
In the latter case, the analysis of the system, according
to the subsystems identified by Parsons or Katz and Kahn,
would not be of great help because it would require a
complete rearrangement of the system which would be almost
impossible to put into practice.
Secondly, the size of an organization is signif
icant. A small one, undifferentiated or unspecialized
54Edward C. Devereux, Jr., "Parsons* Sociological
Theory," in Black, op. cit., pp. 56-57.
55Katz and Kahn, op. cit., pp. 39-47.
114
in itself, could be analyzed along with any kind of clas
sification of parts or subsystems. However, this is not
true for an already specialized, departmentalized, large
and complex organization — at least for practical
reasons.
Thirdly, flexibility of the organization under
analysis would play a significant role. A rigidly struc
tured body, for example, would not easily allow any change
of its parts for examination.
Lastly, parts or subsystems of an organization
will be different according to its functions. The differ
ences are based upon whether it is essentially a produc
tion or a service organization, a private or a public
organization, a profit or nonprofit organization, and a
professional or nonprofessional organization.
Because of these considerations, it is really not
necessary, and even can be harmful, to set up certain
patterns of subsystems, or parts, which would be true for
all types of organizations. Such a tendency lends rigid
ity rather than anything of benefit. Such orientations
as Parsons, or Katz and Kahn, come to be quite similar
to the ideal bureaucratic model of Weber which has caused
the sufferings of the organizations of today. Therefore,
we shall not attempt to give a classification of, or set
115
up certain patterns of the parts of the organization
until we study a specific one.
What needs to be emphasized here is the fact that,
whatever the parts of an organization may be, they axe
composed of the same elements which make the body itself.
They are integrated and interdependent and they are in
continuous interaction with one another, and with the
environment.
6. Because of the dynamic interaction among the
parts and elements of an organization, they are not free
of conflict or internal strains.
7. There is also a dynamic interaction among the
parts, elements, and environment. This implies that (a)
all organizations have an environment; (b) they are open
systems with boundaries which are not fixed and rigid;
(c) the integration of, and interaction among the parts
and elements is of greater intensity inside the assumed
boundaries than those between the organization and its
environment, or those outside the boundaries; and (d)
every organization, therefore, is a part of the environ
ment. It is a subsystem, or a part of the larger organ
izations or systems, and itself is composed of further
subsystems or parts.
8. The environment of organizations is subject
to continuous change.
116
9. To survive and maintain their identity or
to grow:
a) Organizations need to adapt themselves to
their changing environment, and therefore also are subject
to continuous change;
b) They need to import elements (human,
structural, and technical) — inputs — from their en
vironment;
c) It is necessary to organize these elements
into harmonious interacting, interdependent, and inte
grated parts or subsystems so that they (inputs) can be
processed as throughputs;
d) The elements and parts need to be so or
ganized that they enable the organization, as a whole, to
produce outputs and thus export them into the environment;
e) Organizations should have effective feed
back mechanisms to obtain accurate information about:
(1) The facts and variables in the
environment,
(2) The effects of the outputs on the
environment,
(3) The reaction from the environment
unfavorable to the organization, and
f) They should have control mechanisms to
check:
117
(1) Changes in their external environ
ment,
(2) Changes in their internal environ
ment,
(3) Adaptation to changes in the internal
and external surroundings,
(4) Deviations from the established route
of operation within the organization,
(5) Quality and quantity of elements
coming into the organization (in
puts) , and
(6) All other entropic elements operating
from inside and outside the organiza
tion.
10. While changing for the purposes of adapting
itself to its environment, an organization tries to
achieve order in the process of change, thus attempting
to prevent chaos and confusion. Striving for order does
not refer to a "steady state" or "equilibrium" which have
static connotations. Furthermore, we cannot talk about
"dynamic equilibrium," "practical equilibrium," or "quasi
equilibrium" because no organization can achieve a state
of equilibrium at any time for organizations are always
in continuous change. However, the intensity and extent
118
of change will vary from time to time, and from organiza
tion to organization.
11. Organizations are created by human beings to
achieve certain goal(s). In a sense, they are goal-
oriented entities. Goals, again, will change from organ
ization to organization. It is most probable that they
will range from production of material and services,
profit making, satisfaction of clientele and on through .
to survival, growth and development, change and adapta
tion, and so forth. Nevertheless, the goals are also
subject to change, as well as the indentities.
The definition of systems theory of organization
can be inferred from its proposed properties. We define
it as the application of the systems theory (the body of
knowledge generated and the set of the relatively common
propositions or hypotheses set up and elaborated in the
previous chapter) in the study, the explanations and pre
dictions concerning the nature and operations of organ
izations, as well as to their change and its conse
quences.
Consequences of Viewing Organizations
as Systems
r
It was our intention to review the theories of
organizations and point out the contributions which the
119
systems theory has made in the field. Now, we can sum
marize the improvements provided by this theory over the
classical and neoclassical ones.
1. The systems theory of organizations has
brought a realistic look at the organization. It is seen
as a whole. The parts or elements are only secondary to
the total system; however, they are not neglected. Parts,
as well as single elements, their operation as separate
entities, their share in the total process, their inter
action with one another, and their integration into the
whole are given due attention. Viewing such bodies in
this way has several implications:
a) An effective organization can be designed,
or redesigned, taking the properties specified by the sys
tems theory into consideration;
b) Accurate and reliable control mechanisms
could be set up, and waste of resources could be elim
inated; and
c) A reliable feedback mechanism based on
open channels of communication could be accounted for.
2. The systems theory of organizations recog
nizes the inevitability of conflicts inherent in the
nature of organizations.
3. The organizational dilemma is overcome by the
120
systems theory because of its understanding of the inter
dependencies, interactions, and integration of human and
production elements of the organization, which implies
that the two do not necessarily block each other. The
concern for one does not necessitate the neglect of the
other. Organizations can be so arranged that the satis
faction of the needs of individual members will also
satisfy the goals of the organization (production), and
vice versa.
4. The systems theory of organization presents
a more realistic way in which the problems are recognized,
decisions axe made, and conflicts or problems are handled.
The deficiencies of the "look-and-see" and "single-cause"
approaches in which short-sighted decisions are made and
problems are solved for the time being, are overcome.
5. The dynamic nature of organizations are
recognized, and the existing deadlock resulting from
viewing them as static entities striving for equilibrium
is overcome.
6. This theory has facilitated the use of data
processing equipment in today's organizations which has
resulted in greater efficiency.
7. The systems design and systems analysis have
contributed to the abstract levels of the systems theory
121
of organizations which are to be operationalized. As a
result, a wide range of studies on organizations have
been generated using the systems framework.
8. The fact of organizations being parts of the
larger environment is recognized by the systems theory of
organization, and the effects of the environment and the
organization upon each other are more realistically
understood.
9. Finally, organizational change, its internal
and external sources, the change process, and the conse
quences of such change have come to be better understood
through the systems theory.
The contribution of this theory to the field of
organizations can be summarized in one sentence. It has
brought a realistic approach to the study by putting em
phasis on the total organization rather than on its
individual parts, on dynamism rather than equilibrium,
and on interaction between the parts and its changing en
vironment rather than organizations in isolation. This
theory has saved the body of doctrine concerning organiza
tions from a "dead end," and has added new horizons to it.
It has established by now a foundation upon which studies
of all kinds, related to the organization can be built.
Such studies already have been undertaken.
122
Organizational change is an area where the systems
theory could be most fruitful, but to the contrary, re
search generated in this field by the systems theory
seems to be the least rewarding. It is our contention
that while the studies of organizations in general have
been fortunate in their development — as a result of the
application of the systems theory — the studies of organ
izational change are still lagging behind these develop
ments, suffering under a fragmentary or a partial
approach.
In the next part of our probe, we shall attempt
to indicate the present and incomplete manner in which
organizational change is studied. Following this, we
shall attempt to develop a systems model to examine the
realities of organizational change, applying the theory
as we have elaborated above.
PART II
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
In this part of the study, our purpose is first
to review some of the major prevailing approaches to
organizational change, and then to develop a systems model
in order to study, analyze and achieve change in the or
ganizations. The model to be developed is based upon the
fact, as revealed in the first chapter of this part, that
hardly any of the prevailing approaches to organizational
change are fully realistic in the sense that they reduce
the whole phenomena of organizational change, as well as
the problems of the organization to a single or few
elements. Hence, they are of a reductionist nature —
fragmentary and partial. In our understanding, a real
istic approach to the study of organizational change is
one which looks at the organization as a whole, with all
its elements and parts, and their interactions and inter
dependencies, having continuous interaction'with the
environment through inputs and outputs, and which views
the change in such a context.
A review of the literature on organizational
change indicates that such changes as occur at the
123
124
organizational level have been studied mainly in terms of
either human (or individual and group) change, techno
logical, or structural change. The first category of
studies on organizational change are based almost exclu
sively on an implicit assumption that alteration in the
human element of an organization will bring the desired
changes for the whole body. There are similar assumptions
underlying the second and third categories of studies,
such as a technological change in the organization, e.g.,
computerization of the information system, or a struc
tural one, e.g., delegation of authority, will create
the desired end results for the total organization. Fol
lowing these, we shall review some of the studies which
come extremely close to our idea of the systems approach
to change, but which are not considered to be significant
because they are not detailed analyses, but rather, stim
ulating pieces of thought.
Taking the deficiencies of the mentioned studies
into consideration, we shall attempt to develop a systems
model of organizational change which will later be put
into operation for the purposes of an empirical case.
This attempt is intended to be wholistic by taking the
realities of the total organization into consideration,
studying change in all its elements and parts, and at
all levels.
CHAPTER IV
SOME MAJOR APPROACHES TO
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
This chapter will be devoted to a review of the
prevailing approaches to organizational change. Such a
reexamination reveals that there are at least four dif
ferent approaches to the study of change at the organiza
tional level. Each of these will be briefly examined
below.
Approaches Which Concentrate on Change
in Human Elements of Organization to
Bring About Organizational Change
The implicit assumption underlying all the ap
proaches in this category is that if you change individual
members, particularly those at the top of an organization,
this will bring the desired changes in the whole organi
zation. Human change is equalized with organizational
change. In other words, the latter is reduced to indi
vidual change. Changing human beings in organizations
comes to be the same thing as changing the entire body.
125
126
One of the early studies which saw the degree of
participation, and therefore group change, as the founda
tion of organizational change was the one by Coch and
French.'*'
Because of the frequent changes in products and
job methods, it was observed that there was a resistance
to the necessary changes on the part of the production
workers at the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation. This
was revealed in terms of high turnover, very low effi
ciency, restriction of output, and marked aggression
against management. In their empirical research on this
problem of resistance, Coch and French saw the group
methods to be the most appropriate means for overcoming
the opposition.
After analyzing a variety of upward forces which
tended to increase the level of production, and downward
forces which were inclined to decrease the level, the
authors concluded that management can modify greatly or
remove completely group resistance to changes through
group meetings in which the leaders effectively communi
cate the need for change, and stimulate group participa-
Lester Coch and J. R. P. French, Jr., "Over
coming Resistance to Change," Human Relations. I (1948),
pp. 512-532.
127
tion in making the changes.*^
Some other studies which put emphasis on motiva
tional rewards to be derived from participation in the
change process — instead of discipline or the threat of
punishment — are those by Lewin,3 Likert,4 Argyris,^
McGregor,^ Drucker,7 and others.
Lippitt and associates focus their attention on
the concept of "planned change" (that which is derived
o
^The analyses, by Coch and French of upward and
downward forces, were based on Lewinfs original idea of
"quasi-stationary equilibrium." The three identified
component forces influencing production in a downward
direction were: (1) the difficulty of the job, (2) strain
avoidance, and (3) the goal of standard production— group
restriction; and the three identified upward forces were:
(l) management pressure, (2) supervisional pressure
against strain avoidance, and (3) pressure against group
restrictions on production.
3Kurt Lewin, "Frontiers in Group Dynamics,"
Human Relations, I, pp. 5-41.
4Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961).
5
Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957).
^Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., I960).
7
Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954).
128
from a purposeful decision to affect improvements in a
personality system or social system). It is achieved
with the help of professional guidance, its principles,
Q
and its techniques. They discuss such terms as change
agent, client system, change and resistance forces, and
phases and methods of the change. The generalizations
developed are said to be applicable to all client systems
— personality, group, organization, and community. Al
though the contributions of Lippitt and his associates
cannot be denied in this field, the deficiencies of their
study In regard to organizational change are quite clear.
First of all, they excluded a vast swath of change phe
nomena such as technological change, and second, their
change agent is a "free" agent from outside the organi
zation, a person or team brought Into the system to help
— consultants, applied researchers, psychotherapists,
and so forth. Thus, they forget the fact that, under
certain conditions, organizations contain the potential
resources for creating their own planned change programs.
Bennis and his associates have attempted to cure
the shortcomings of the first major study on planned
change through an extensive selection of articles on the
Q
Ronald Lippitt, et al.. The Dynamics of Planned
Change (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958).
129
Q
subject. In addition to their elaboration of the idea
of the change-agent — a person from outside or inside
the organization — they directed attention to new aspects
of planned change such as its roots and the conceptual
tools for the agent. They view such change as a process
of influence. With their emphasis on the change-agent,
dynamics of influence, the pivotal functions of planned
change training, consulting, and research, and the role
of the small group in the process of planned change, the
authors seem to have underlined the importance of the
human elements — individuals and small groups — in
organizational change.
Organizational change in both business and gov
ernment has come increasingly to rely on the "laboratory
approach" or "laboratory or sensitivity training" which
is defined by Schein and Bennis as "an educational strat
egy which is based primarily on the experiences generated
in various social encounters by the learners themselves,
and which aims to influence attitudes and competencies
toward learning about human interaction."-^ Organizations
Q
Warren G. Bennis, et_al., The Planning of Change
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961).
^Edgar H. Schein and Warren G. Bennis, Personal
and Organizational Change Through Group Methods (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 4.
130
have followed the laboratory method as a vehicle to bring
about organizational change, to improve procedures and
policies, as well as to increase personal skills and in
sight. ^ This approach to organizational change, as
defined by Golembiewski, works through:
1. The Basic T-Group — or "sensitivity train
ing group" — composed of individuals who do not
normally work together, which focuses on expressing
and unfreezing all the attitudes, on developing in
terpersonal trust, on increasing trust and openness
between group members, and on practicing new skills
and behaviors; and
2. Variant T-Groups — variously called "core
groups," ‘ 'action groups," or "family groups" —
composed of individuals who normally do work to
gether, which focus more on conceiving and imple
menting changes in the members* work.12
The application of laboratory training to organ
izational change is examplified by the work of Blake and
Mouton.^2 These authors specify six phases in the process
of organizational change and identify the complete process
as the "9.9 approach to organizational development."
Their six-phase approach considers, within a single long
term effort, the achievement of production through mature
interpersonal relationships which are integrated with the
H-For examples, see Robert T. Golembiewski, "The
'Laboratory Approach* to Organization Change: Schema of
a Method," Public Administration Review, XXVII (September
1967), pp. 211-222.
12Ibid., p. 211.
•^Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, The Managerial
Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 255-290.
131
purposes of the organization. "The primary goal,"
according to the authors, "is to change patterns of re
lationships between people and groups or between a group
and the organization so that more effective problem
solving and greater production effort can occur through
out the entire organization. After this has been
achieved, it can be expected that there will be an im
provement in the actual operation of the organization.
The first phase of the change process is a learn
ing program based upon behavioral science laboratory ex
periments. This consists of a series of learning sessions
in which all managerial members examine theories of human
behavior and participate in controlled experiments to
test these theories.
Team training is the second phase. It involves
direct interpersonal feedback among actual work group
members; people who have boss-subordinate relationships,
and who are on the same level in a work group.
In the third phase, the problems between groups
or those of horizontal linking are faced and resolved.
The horizontal linking includes people from the same or
ganizational level and from different groups who come
into contact with each other in day-to-day activities.
■^Schein and Bennis, op. cit., p. 170.
132
Setting organization improvement goals by the
entire managerial force is the fourth phase. In the
fifth phase, how to achieve the organization improvement
goals, which are set in phase four, is designed. The
sixth and final phase is a stabilization period, and its
aim is to insure that the changes which have already been
achieved are maintained.
Blake and Moutonfs emphasis is on laboratory
training and development of the human being to bring
organizational change.
Golembiewski points out some of the inadequacies
of the laboratory approach to organizational change as
follows:
First, we lack appropriate empirical theory
to guide lab approach to organization change . . .
Second, and relatedly, the lack of theory is
tied to the inadequate volume of research dealing
with applications of the lab approach to organi
zation change. . . . Theory and research about
the application of laboratory methods to individ
ual learning are in much better shape, in con
trast. . . .
Third, existing research about organizational
applications of the lab approach has important
design limitations. Generally much research
about learning in laboratores has a strong
focus on "outcome." . . . Commonly, "input" or
process variables receive less attention.15
^Golembiewski, op. cit., pp. 219-220.
133
Individual counseling and therapy is another
method used to achieve organizational change. The basic
objective of therapy is the discovery of the individuals
proper niche in the organization, so to speak, with the
assumption that if he is to change, he should be removed
from the social situation influencing his present be
havior. In isolation, he can learn about himself, then
how to relate to his former colleagues.
If he gains new insights, overcomes his in
securities, experiences his world as a less
threatening place, and hence perceives it
more objectively, he should be able to re
late to his fellows more effectively. The
secondary target then of changing an indi
viduals personality structure is the re
structuring of his own role and his rela
tionships with others in the organization.
The use of personality conversion in changing
organizations will perhaps be most effective if it is
achieved in the individual who is a powerful figure in
the organization or Is close to the top in a position of
power. Nevertheless, as argued by Katz and Kahn, the top
officers tend to see counseling and therapy as more appro
priate for their subordinates rather than for themselves.
Furthermore, in most cases, the change in the personality
of one manager or one individual will not have enough
■^Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psy
chology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966), p. 394.
134
significance to deal with the change resistance in the
entire organization. In addition, the effectiveness of
therapy in changing the personality is sometimes ques
tioned.
Group therapy within the complete entity has also
been utilized to produce organizational change. This has
been attempted by the Tavistock Institute in England.
The immediate aim in this approach is the im
provement of people’s understanding of their
organizational interrelationships and their
own personal motives. The remote target is
organizational restructuring by responsible
organizational members themselves. The basic
philosophy flows from individual therapy.18
The most serious limitation of this approach to change is
said to be its assumption that conflicts are primarily
the expression of individual characteristics and neuroses
{rather than in the organizational body), and for the
most part are not recognized by the individual.
One of the most influential representatives of
this approach is Bennis. In dealing with the problem of
organizational development, Bennis is not concerned with
improvements resulting from new technology or from struc
tural rearrangements. His analysis of organization
development includes:
17Ibid., p. 395.
^Ibid., p. 409.
135
1. Effecting a change in values, so that
feelings and similar nonintellectual expres
sions come to be considered a legitimate part
of organization life. This means stressing
openness rather than secrecy, collaboration
rather than dependence, cooperation rather
than competition, consensus rather than indi
vidual rule, authentic relationships rather
than those based on political maneuvering.
2. Improving the personal skills, the
relevant organizational knowledge, and par
ticularly the interpersonal competence of
managers.
3. Developing increased understanding
within and among working groups in order to
reduce dysfunctional individual tension.
4. Developing more effective methods of
conflict resolution, focused on doing prob
lem-solving rather than on suppression or
denial that problems exist.
5. Developing "team management" in which
more of each group*s resources are effectively
used for the organization's problems.
6. Viewing the organization as an organic
system of relationships which tend to work
best when marked by mutual trust, mutual sup
port, open communications, interdependence,
and multi-group membership of individuals,
and a high degree of personal commitment.3-9
It is obvious that the goals which are listed as
the goals of the organization development may best be
l^warren G. Bennis and Hollis W. Peter, "Applying
Behavioral Science for Organizational Change," Hollis W.
Peter (ed.), Comparative Theories of Social Change (Ann
Arbor: Brown and Brumfield, Inc., 1966), Foundation for
Research on Human Behavior, pp. 306-307. See also, Warren
Bennis, Changing Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1966).
136
taken to be the goals of the individual, or personal
development, ox group development. The eight general
types of change methods described by Bennis — exposition
and propagation, elite corps development, human relations
training, staff programs, scholarly consultation, circu
lation of ideas to the elite, developmental research, and
action research — also indicate the great emphasis put
upon individual or group change while striving fox organ
izational change. The three broad types of programs, or
processes, frequently used in combination, which are said
to be most successful in bringing about such change —
training, consultation, and applied research — have the
same weaknesses.^
In all these approaches to organizational change,
the individual change, or group change, is confused with
the organizational change. Thus, confusion and misunder
standing result from one basic implicit assumption that
since the organization is made up of Individuals, we can
change it by changing its members. Katz and Kahn list
the following series of over simplifications, or general
izations, implicit in the approaches which emphasize
change in human elements of organization to bring change:
po
Warren G. Bennis, MA New Role for the Behav
ioral Sciences: Effecting Organizational Changes,1 1
Administrative Science Quarterly, 8 (1963), pp. 125-165.
137
The assumption that the individual can be
provided with new insight and knowledge;
that these will produce some significant
alteration in his motivational pattern;
that these insights and motivations will
be retained even when the individual
leaves the protected situation in which
they were learned and returns to his ac
customed role in the organization; that
he will be able to adapt his new knowl
edge to that real-life situation; that he
will be able to persuade his co-workers
to accept the changes in his behavior
which he now desires; and that also he
will be able to persuade them to make
complementary changes in their own ex
pectations and behavior.21
The weaknesses of these assumptions, or over
simplifications, start with the fact that the initial
diagnosis may be wrong. Analyses and explanations based
on such simplistic generalizations are not sufficient to
understand the complexities of the problems of organiza
tional change. A more systemic, as well as more specific,
approach seems to be necessary in order to replace these
fragmentary approaches which have been a natural conse
quences of the human relations movement. This method
reduces organizational change to only that of the human
elements in the organization.
21
Katz and Kahn, op. cit., p. 391
138
Approaches Which Concentrate on Change
in Structural Elements of Organization
to Bring About Organizational Change
The studies included in this category are those
which see structural changes to be essential to organiza
tional change- The implicit assumption underlying these
studies is that changing any one of the structural ele
ments of an organization — such as the hierarchy of
authority, the communication and decision-making networks,
role relationships, and so forth — will produce change in
the total organization in the most desired way.
Structural change has been the major mechanism
of the classical organization theorists. "Out of the
deductive, rational, largely military-based thinking of
early nonempirical organization theory, there evolved the
whole set of now-familiar principles1 for optimizing
organizational performance by optimizing structure."^
This approach is considered to be formal and
legalistic. The performance of tasks is improved by an
appropriate division of labor and a system of authority;
by clarifying and defining the jobs of the people and
^Harold J. Leavitt, "Applied Organizational
Change in Industry: Structural, Technological, and
Humanistic Approaches," James G. March (ed.), Handbook
of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company,
1965), p. 1146.
139
setting up clearly defined relationships among those jobs,
with authority, responsibility, and coordination mechanism
spelled out. People, it is assumed, have been contracted
to work, to accept responsibility assigned to them, and
to achieve the goals of the organization no matter what
they are. Internal consistency, orderliness, and hier
archical coordination are emphasized.
Leavitt argues that in one way or another these
structural approaches are still widely applied and that
these procedures are as yet being undertaken to solve
organizational problems. This, by redefining the areas
of responsibility and authority, redesigning the approved
set of organizational channels and roles, and such prin
ciples as "span of control," "unity of command," and so
forth, are still being discussed up to the present day.
Structural approaches have been specified in
terms of centralization vs. decentralization of authority
and responsibility, decision-making, and so forth, the
flow of work, and communication networks.
Changing organizations through decentralization
has become a topic for long discussions. Decentraliza
tion has been said to reduce the cost of coordination and
increase controllability over subunits. Through smaller
decisions, power, and information centers, it leads to
140
flexibility. Variations in technology, appropriate to
the varied tasks of different decentralized units, becomes
more possible. Decentralization is also said to be a
mechanism for further change by opening organization to
increasing local autonomy.
An example of empirical studies conducted to de
fine the effect of decentralization on organizational
change has been given by Roby and his associates.^
Speed of problem-solving by teams of four airmen was
measured for two conditions of group organization: (a)
responsibility centered in one team member, and (b) re
sponsibility shared equally by all members. It was con
cluded that problems requiring reaction to environmental
changes are more quickly solved under shared responsi
bility .
Another area of structural approaches to organiza
tional change is a communication system within the organ
ization. Variations in communication networks have been
indicated which affect rather significantly both routine
and novel task performance. Leavitt has pointed out that
for programmed repetitive tasks, centralized communication
structures seem to operate most efficiently — but with
^Thornton B. Roby, et al., "Group Problem Solving
under Two Types of Executive Structure," Journal of Ab
normal and Social Psychology, 67, (1963), pp. 550-556.
141
some human costs. For more novel and ill-structured
tasks, a wider communication interconnection with larger
numbers of channels appears to work more effectively.^4
Guetzkow and Simon,25 Bavelas,^ Leavitt,^7 and
Op
Carzo have supported the empirical evidence to indicate
that different structures (tight and loose, oral and
written, face-to-face and separated) will, at least
initially, have different effects on groups exposed to
the same problem.
Other areas of various structural approaches to
organizational change include power structure,^ planning
Leavitt, op. cit. The empirical evidence is
provided by The RAND Corporation. See, March, op. cit.,
p. 1148; and also Harold J. Leavitt, Managerial Psychology
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press‘ d 1958J .
^Harold Guetzkow and Herbert A. Simon, "The Im
pact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and
Performance in Task-Oriented Groups," Management Science.
I (1955), pp. 233-250.
Of*
Alex Bavelas, "A Mathematical Model for Group
Structures," Applied Anthropology» 2 (1948), pp. 16-30;
and "Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups,"
Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 22 (1950),
pp. 38-50.
97
Harold J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Com
munication Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Ab
normal Social Psychology, 46 (January 1951)-, pp. 38-50.
28
Rocco Carzo, Jr., "Some Effects of Organization
Structure on Group Effectiveness," Administrative Science
Quarterly« 7 (March 1963), pp. 393-4^4.
a detailed analysis of power structure, see,
Carzo and Yanouzas, op. cit.» pp. 182-235.
142
of work flows or design of work,^ and role sets in the
organization.^
In summation concerning structural approaches,
organizational changes have come to rely upon structural
changes, that is, changing the structural elements of the
organization. These carry the greatest importance in
bringing about the transformation. The problems in need
of change are seen to be structural ones which have
arisen from poor organizational design. It this is
changed, it is assumed that the problem will be solved.
Of course, this is not a realistic approach in the sense
that organizations axe not simple structures, as it has
been assumed, which require correction in order to solve
complexities. Human and technological elements, and
organizational goals cannot be eliminated from the
analysis of organizational change.
Approaches Which Concentrate on
Technology to Deal with
Organizational Change
In many cases, organizational change has been
30
For a study of work flow see, Eliot D. Chappie
and Leonard R. Sayles, The Measurement of Management (New
York: MacMillan Company, 1961}, pp. 18-4b.
^For studies on role structures see, Kahn, etal.,
op. cit., Neal Gross, et_al., Explorations in Role Analysis
(New York: John Wiley 8. Sons, Inc., 1958); Bruce J. Biddle
and Thomas Edwin (eds.), Role Theory (New York: John Wiley
143
viewed in purely technological terms. Examples are work
measurement techniques of Scientific Management and the
resulting "industrial engineering," operations research,
data processing techniques, computers, linear program
ming, PERT, and so forth. Here, it is assumed that
organizational problems are essentially technical; the
utilization of available techniques is essential to the
solution of these problems.
During the last several generations, the world
has been undergoing a process of profound change and
transformation. The technological revolution is revealed,
in its most obvious form, in the advances of the mechan
ical inventions. This century has become a "machine
age," displacing the simple hand tool of early times by
mechanical giants.
Taylorism, which is signified by its work measure
ment and design techniques, has constituted a significant
force for change in American organizations since 1911.
Out of this has emerged a new set of technical skills,
or a new class of specialized agents of change — the
industrial engineers and other planners and designers
of the work.
& Sons,-Inc., 1966); and Erving Goffman, Encounters.
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1961.
144
Beginning in the 1940s, techniques of operations
research evolved. This type of research was a product
of World War II, and developed in response to pressures
for more effective application of science to organiza
tional problem-solving. Its emphasis is on improvement
and optimization of performance. It tries to maximize
goals under certain specific conditions.
Operations research practitioners tend to work
with physical resources, with economic and engineering
variables which are quantitive, measurable, and directly
linked to the efficiency and profitability of the organ-
32
izational system.
When one speaks of organizational change, one
often refers to the adoption of computers into the organ
izational practice. Mechanization and/or automation of
the office work and information through the use of com
puters, as well as other advanced office machines is,
today, the target for many programs of organizational
change.
A good example of how each of these three ap
proaches view organizational change has been supplied by
Leavitt.33 He points out that three sets of consultants
3%ennis, Changing Organizations, pp. 85-91.
33Harold J. Leavitt, "The Engineering of Human Be
havior in Industry," Industrial Medicine and Surgery,
(December 1964).
145
have been called on to give their prescriptions for the
solution of the same problem as posed by a curious and
persistent company president. After a study of the prob
lem, each set of consultants has come up with quite
different prescriptions; a typical management consultant
advised certain changes in the structure of the organiza
tion; an operations researcher saw the problem as one of
rearranging the physical equipment and flow process; and
a behavioral science advisor proposed a program dealing
with improvement in the interpersonal and group variables.
Systemic Approaches to the Study
of Organizational Change
Certain scholars have recently (essentially under
the influence of new developments in the field of the
systems theory) attempted to look at the facts of organ
izational change in a systemic way. Some of them have
considered the social or informal side of organizations
together with the formal side, thus trying to identify
the role of each in the process of change. Some have
added to their analyses a third element or side of organ
ization — the technological element. Others have seen
organizations as socio-technical systems while still
other scholars have emphasized the effects of the
146
environmental forces. There are also those who have
looked at the forces inherent in the systems, and in
their environment which are the causes of change.
As we discussed above, the emphasis of the clas
sical theorists was on the structural elements such as
the systems of authority, control, communication, and so
forth. The neoclassical school or the human relations
movement brought the informal organization onto the
scene, thus placing, at the forefront, the human side of
the organization. Being influenced by this movement,
Roethlisberger and Dickson were able to look at the or
ganization as a whole system composed of formal, informal,
and technical bodies.*^ The formal organization was ex
plicit in its sets of rules and regulations which pre
scribed the hierarchy of authority and the relationships
between the technical organization and the social organ
ization. Technical organizations resulted from the
requirements of the productive processes, and would,
therefore, consist of tools, materials, conversion
processes and products. Finally, the social or informal
organization consisted of the actual behavior patterns
and sentiments — regardless of the formal prescriptions
F. Roethlisberger and J. W. Dickson, Manage
ment and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1939.
147
— which are based largely on unrecognized social norms,
values and traditions.
Roethlisberger and Dickson saw organizational
systems to be in a state of balance or equilibrium.
Thus, any change in one part is accompanied by changes in
other parts. Any particular activity pattern within the
total system contains elements of the technical, formal
and informal organizations. Thus, for example, an at
tempted change in a technical procedure will effect other
procedures in the same category — formal activities, and
informal interactions, activities, and sentiments. It is
the informal face-to-face relationships among individuals
which create resistance to changes and represents the
conservative force in the organization. Therefore, at
tempted changes which are usually introduced in terms of
specific modifications of technical and formal elements,
must be pointed toward the informal patterns of behavior
and sentiments. Usually, this element is neglected be
cause the leaders who initiate a change are not always
aware of such patterns.^
This conceptualization seems to be one of the
earliest theories of organizational change in systems
r a c .
Abraham Zaleznik and David Moment, The Dynamics
of Interpersonal Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., !9o4),pp. 451-453.
148
terms, however, it is prejudiced on the human side. In
formal sets of relationships are overemphasized, and are
seen to be the most fundamental element of the change.
Thus, the importance of structure and technology in
changing organizations axe minimized. This was a natural
result of the authors1 preoccupation with human relations
movement•
Later, Leavitt has attempted to elaborate the
theory of organizational change on the foundation built
by Roethlisberger and Dickson. Leavitt sees organiza
tion to be a systemic whole which is composed of four
sets of variables: task, structural, technological, and
human variables. These are highly interdependent. A
change in any one usually results in compensatory change
in others. He assumes that it is one of these variables
which is to be changed. Sometimes, the aim may be to
alter one as an end in itself, sometimes as a mechanism
to change others. Usually, efforts to affect this are
ultimately designed to influence the task variable.
According to Leavitt, the last three sets of var
iables represent the three approaches to change. Differ
entiation between these approaches to organizational
change is found in the points of entry into the organiza-
36Leavitt, "Applied Organizational Change . . .1 1
149
tion through relative weighting, and underlying values.
However, approaches may overlap and one may not exclude
all other variables.
First giving the framework and later examining
the literature related to each approach of change, Leavitt
does not come up with any specific conclusion. He leaves
the matter up in the air, so to speak, by not going into
the explanation of the change process, or how organiza
tional change can successfully be secured using the
developed framework.
The essential idea typified in the "socio-tech-
nical system,” as evolved by Trist is similar to studies
by Roethlisberger and Dickson, and the studies of Leavitt.
Socio-technical system implies that any productive organ
ization is a combination of technology — task require
ments, physical layout, available equipment and a social
system. This is a system of relationships among those
who must perform the job. The two are in mutual inter
action and each determines the other. Trist has obviously
divided the formal, or structural elements of organiza
tion, into technology and the social system. His idea
of technology differs from the previous ones in the sense
that it includes the elements of formal structure (task
requirements, physical layout).^
37Schein, op. cit.. p. 90.
150
Many studies of organizational change have
utilized this idea of a socio-technical system. Carzo,
in talking about linking technical and social subsystems,
has commented that often an organization finds it neces
sary to implement changes in order to take advantage of
a technological innovation, or to correct inefficient
practices. However, when technical changes are intro
duced without due regard for the social subsystem, the
inevitable result is the failure to realize the sought-
after improvements. Therefore, in order to induce the
desired change, it may be necessary to make drastic re
visions in the total system.38
Katz and Kahn, referring to The Tavistock experi
ments and to their proponents, Trist, et al., have argued
that the target of organizational change is the manner in
which the technical and social subsystems fit together.
Organizational structure (all types of patterned rela
tionships which comprise a system or subsystem) is said
to be the direct objective for change. However, the con
sideration of the two dimensions of any production system
is useful since the technical, and the accompanying
social-psychological system, and the manner in which they
OQ
Carzo and Yanouzas, op. cit., pp. 509-523.
151
correspond in these two interlocking arrangements is most
beneficial.^9
Guest, at the end of his study of an experimental
case, arrives at the conclusion that a basic unit of
organization, the factory, is best described, not as a
social system alone, nor as a technical system, but as a
socio-technical system. He comments:
On his part the social scientist often makes
the error of concentrating on human motiva
tion and group behavior without fully account
ing for the technical environment which cir
cumscribes, even determines, the roles which
actors play. Motivation, group structure,
interaction processes, authority — none of
these abstractions of behavior take place
in a technological vacuum.40
It is, therefore, necessary to combine the social and the
technical systems into one which is unified. The tech
nologist and the behaviorist must be brought together
more often than they have in the past.
Guest also refers to the work by Trist and asso
ciates. His conclusion is based on their work. He
indicates that emphasizing the human element in his case
study of management of Plant Y caused the neglect of the
technological elements of the organization which in turn
brought about the trouble and the eventual disintegration
of the plant.
40Guest, op. cit., p. 134.
4~ * ~ Ibid.» pp. 134-136.
152
Schein is concerned with the organization's
ability to adapt itself to the changes and cope with the
forces which create a need for adaptation to its environ
ment. The environment is dynamic; it places demands upon
AQ
and constrains the organization in various ways.
Starting with Bertalanffy, Schein, Katz and Kahn,
Argyris, and many others have signified the concept of
an open-system. For the organizations to be open, two
things are implied. These are of extreme importance for
an analysis of organizational change. First, organiza
tions are composed of mutually dependent parts; and
second, there is a continuous process of interaction
among the parts and elements of the organization, and be
tween the organization and its environment. This idea of
the open systems also represents a fundamental attempt to
ruin the strong idea of organizational equilibrium em
phasized by Parsons, Lewin, Simon, Smithburg, and Thomp
son. The latest, but perhaps the strongest, objection
to the idea of equilibrium came from Buckley. His model
of morphogenesis is an attempt to recognize that organi
zations are continuously changing, evolving and elabo
rating systems. The organization is a dynamic system —
42
Schein, op. cit., p. 95.
153
dynamism being provided through action and interaction
at lower levels and roles and institutions at higher
ones.4^ No longer does organizational change consist of
a simple process of specialization, or differentiation.44
In the next chapter, we shall make an attempt
toward developing a general model of organizational
change in systems terms so as to deal with the hidden
complexities involved, and then elaborate upon the frag
mented, prejudiced, and reductionist approaches and
studies surveyed up to this point.
4^Walter Buckley, Sociology and Modern Systems
Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1967).
44Amitai Etzioni, Studies in Social Change (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966), pp. v-vi.
CHAPTER V
A SYSTEMS MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
At the end of the first part of this study, we
attempted to elaborate the systems theory of organization.
The model to be developed here is, in fact, a part of that
broader one of organization, and will be developed along
the same lines. There, we defined an organization as an
open system, an integrated whole, composed of interdepend
ent elements and parts which actively Interact with one
another — and with their constantly changing environment
— in such a way that a certain identity is maintained.
Before we attempt to give a definition of organ
izational change based on this definition of organization,
we need to look at the ways in which the term "change"
has been used by scholars in the field.
"Change" is a concept, and a construct, which is
used by different people .to denote quite different things.
Perhaps the most primitive notion of change is simply
that it is the same thing as "movement," that is, a mere
shift in position. Yet movements can be perceived in
which the change is very slight. Movements may be
154
155
extensive in terms of location, but trivial in terms of
structure — or a thing or object may not move at all,
but the world around it may move, or otherwise “change,"
so drastically that the meaning of the given thing, its
importance, and its functions, may be greatly altered.
Thus, we may have conditions where there is much movement
and no change, or vice versa.
“Change" may or may not be observed directly. It
may happen within the thing, hence, it may not be visible
at all, or it may be external and thus easier to observe.
“Change" may reflect conditions upon multiple
levels whereby on one level it is not apparent but upon
another, it is very dramatic.
Sometimes, “change" Is equated with improvements.
In a report of a series of meetings on the management of
organizational change, composed of executives of a number
of large companies and social scientists which was held
in 1961, the following definition of change was agreed
upon. “Change itself, of course, means the overthrowing
of tradition, and the laying aside of patterned ways of
living and working together — ways which are often just
beginning to stabilize after an earlier change."^
'*'The Foundation for Research on Human Behavior,
Managing Major Change in Organizations (Ann Arbor: The
Foundation for Research and Human Behavior, 1961), p. 1.
156
Progress, efficiency, science, achievement, and
success have come to be included among the most conspic
uous values of the twentieth century in both developing
and developed countries. These values have produced a
highly dynamic society, the predominant characteristic
of which is "change." Often, the word is used inter
changeably with such terms as progress, growth, develop-
r \
ment, and improvement. However, this does not seem to
be the accurate meaning of change in the sense that it
is unidirectional. It may be positive — but could be
negative as well. A system could also change toward a
less desirable condition, toward disintegration and break
down.
When change is taken in its general meaning, we
do not have any empirical yardstick whereby we can measure
it either in an absolute or relative sense, for in this
usage, it is too abstruse. But in specific cases, and
for specific systems — whether it is an object, a prod
uct, a technique, an individual, a group, or an organiza
tion — our ability to measure change will be enhanced as
a result of the analyses of the qualitative and quantita
tive structural and functional aspects of the particular
system.
^Warren G. Bennis, et al.. The Planning of Change
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 1.
At this point, it is sufficient to conclude that
change is all of these things, for it is inevitable and
universal. It is a continuous phenomenon, always occur
ring in a greater, or lesser degree, and at greater or
q
lesser rates.
Levels of Change
Our concern here is primarily with the living
systems. Each living unit can be considered to be a
system by itself and a subsystem in relation to other
systems. The living ones may be arranged into a hier
archy of increasing complexity as based upon the studies
by Zalexnik and Moment.4
This hierarchy starts with the individual cell.
Combinations of particular kinds of cells make up organs.
Such organs exist in functional relationships to each
other and to larger systems. The nervous system, the
circulatory system, and respiratory system connect and
thereby make up the total individual organism. Individ
uals are engaged in exchange processes with each other,
and this process results in groups, organizations.
^Walter Coutu, Emergent Human Nature (New York:
Knopf, 1949), p. 477.
4Abraham Zaleznik and David Moment, The Dynamics
of Interpersonal Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1964), pp. 443 £*
158
society, international systems, and the world society.
Thus, change can be studied at any one of these
levels. However, our study will be limited to change
only at the organizational level. We shall concern our
selves with other levels of change only to the extent
that they relate to organizational change.
Although there are some aspects in common con
cerning all these systems, the statement by N.ascimento
that "generalizations about a given level are also appli
cable to other levels of the systemic complexity" is,
obviously not acceptable because of the fact that organ
izations are not merely composed of individuals but, in
addition, they include other elements, parts, interaction
patterns, and so on.^ The same criticism goes fox Lippitt
and his associates, who focused their work on planned
change on four different levels ■ — the personality, group,
organization, and the community — and thus theorized
regarding the change-agent's diagnostic orientation and
role, the phases of planned change and related points —
this with a view of applying their inferences to the four
levels of transformation.
Kleber Tatinge do Nascimento, "Change Strategy
and Client System: Administrative Reform in Brazil" (un
published Ph.D. dissertation, School of Public Adminis
tration, University of Southern California, 1966), p. 53.
^Ronald Lippitt, et al., The Dynamics of Planned
Change (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958).
159
Definition of Organizational Change
We define organizational change as the whole
process of change which takes place in an organization
system as a consequence of a shift — initial positive
ox negative, qualitative ox quantitative, directed ox
nondixected — in any one or more of the change areas in
an organization (elements, parts, interaction patterns,
or their combination) which is affected by change inputs
produced in the dynamic internal and external environment
of the system.
Organizational change must be differentiated from
those concerning the elements of the body. According to
our definition, in order to be considered an organiza
tional change, an initial alteration in any one of the
elements of the organization must have further repercus
sions for the total system, hence the organization must
be affected by this first change in one way or another.
Therefore, the adoption of a new machine (the initial
act) is not considered to be an organizational change.
But if the machine is put into operation and in turn
further changes axe made for its use (e.g., new forms
are prepared, individuals are recruited or trained to
operate it, and so forth), then, it becomes an organiza
160
tional change. Or when an individual member of the organ
ization is trained, this act in itself is not organiza
tional change, but when the individual starts to affect
the organization, as a result of his training, then we
can talk about such a change. Therefore, organizational
change is not a single act but rather a process including
the effects of the change inputs, the initial change, and
the subsequent changes which take place in an organiza~
tion.
Organizational change may be either positive or
negative. When it is positive, it indicates progress,
development, or improvement — leaving the traditional
methods, or ways of doing things, and adopting new,
better, and more efficient ones. However, organizational
charn_; ' may not always be positive. A change in organiza
tion may result in inefficiency, disintegration, and
breakdown as well. In this case, the change is negative.
Organizational change may occur in qualitative
terms; for example, the betterment of the quality of goods
produced or services delivered, the change of the quality
of management and personnel, in general, after a training
program; or it may be quantitative. For example, a change
in the number of personnel, in the levels of hierarchy,
in the number of departments or offices, amount of pro-
161
duction, and so forth, would be of the latter type.
Organizational change may be directed or non
directed. Today, social scientists have gradually come
to see it in terms of directed, systematic or planned
change. However, organizational change need not be
planned or directed in all cases for a change in organ
ization may very well occur without a previous plan.
Our definition of organizational change then also
points to some other important aspects of the change phe
nomena in organizations; namely, that it originates in a
dynamic internal and external environment of the system;
environment affects organizations through change inputs;
change inputs may result in an intial change in any one
or more of the change areas or targets in the system —
elements and parts of the organization, interaction pat
terns, and any combination of them. Therefore, the
initial change will cause further changes in the system
because of its interdependent character.
The Process of Organizational Change
The process of organizational change starts with
the change inputs generated in a dynamic and continuously
changing internal and external environment; continues
with the transformation of the change inputs into actual
162
change in the organization system and resulting change
outputs; and ends with control and feedback.
A Dynamic and Continuously
Changing Environment
Organizations are creatures of their environment.
Their opportunities, resources, problems, and their very
survival are generated and conditioned by the environment.
The scientific and technological forces are constantly at
work in this milieu; and the importance put upon scien
tific and technological developments today can easily be
read from the huge amounts of funds invested in research
and development activities. Change which is precipitated
by scientific research and development, and the engineer
ing applications stemming from them — whether these
concern materials, men, or organizations — has been re-
ferred to as technological change. Such a change is a
complex phenomenon. Each innovation which results from
a scientific research, produces a series of other changes.
An effect is, at the same time, the cause of another
effect which is also a cause, and so on. Science, which
has been called the most powerful force moving in the
"^William Ogburn, ”How Technology Causes Social
Change,” Francis R. Allen, et al., (eds.), Technology and
Social Change (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc.,
1957), p. 20.
163
modern world, has created a technological revolution
revealed in the form of mechanical invention. The power-
driven machines have transfigured the status of the work
man, have taken the woman out of the home, have encouraged
the growth of the factory and the resulting automation,
and mass production, all have created an extreme special
ization. Science, and its new technology, has displaced
the simple hand tool by mechanical giants. The workman
has become a tender of machines, a presser of buttons, a
feeder of materials, a coordinator of operations, a re
ceiver of finished products. He is no longer the sole
master of production acting directly on raw materials,
shaping them into a finished product, thereby creating
commodities stamped by his own personality.
Since the end of World War II, there has been a
continuous and rapid acceleration of product change. As
a result of accumulated technology and increased consumer
demand, production innovation has become an important tool
of competition and growth. Consequently, there has been
a constant shortening of the lucrative life-span of
products
®H. Igor Asoff, "The Firm of the Future," Harvard
Business Review, XLIII, (September-October 1965), p. ib3.
164
Along with the tendency toward shorter product
life cycles, markets have also come to be highly dynamic.
An important source of market change has been the emerg
ing product dynamics- As vendibles are devised for new
uses, the firm must expand its market horizons. As
superior technology displaces the older products from
the traditional markets, firms have to fight back by
looking for new sales areas.
A steady and radical improvement in the means of
communication and transportation has been perhaps the
most important source of market, as well as, product
dynamics. Each day, hundreds and thousands of telephone
and telegraph lines are built, and highways, airlines,
and waterways are opened for operation. This fact has
resulted in an extension of a market area covering thou
sands of miles. And because of the highly developed
communication networks, large markets are easily affected
by a slight change in any one of them.
The number of schools, colleges and universities
is rapidly increasing. And the number of educated people
likewise is increasing. People in such societies have
become highly mobile. No longer do they struggle for
daily livelihood and therefore enter an organization
being treated as machines. On the contrary, the man of
165
today wants to be dealt with as a human being, and if he
is not satisfied in one place, he may easily find another
job somewhere else because of his education and training.
The result is again a mobile society.
In conclusion, the environment encircling today*s
large-scale complex organizations is changing with revo
lutionary speed. It has become highly dynamic. Being so,
it generates new forces and pressures which require organ
izations to adapt themselves to new developments and
changes in their environment. One such force is competi
tion between organizations themselves; another is the
efficiency considerations which result from the use of
new and better technology.^ A third pressure put upon
organizations by today*s dynamic environment is the recog
nition of individuals as human beings rather than tools
to be manipulated. These forces in the environment create
the necessity for the organizations to cope with the
changes in their environment and hence be adaptive sys
tems. Therefore, adaptation for today*s organizations
is a must if they are to survive, maintain themselves,
grow, and develop.
g
Guerreiro Ramos, Administracao e Estrategia do
desenvolvimento (Rio: Fundacao Getulio Varges, 1966),
p. 29.
166
The Internal and External En
vironment of Organizations:
Ir. the case of organizations, the term "environ
ment," in the popular usage, implies the larger society,
the things which exist outside the organization, but this
usage of the term is misleading. When the inside world
of an organization is not included in an analysis of the
environment of organizations, it will remain incomplete.
The term needs to cover internal as well as external en
vironment. The internal environment of organization
system includes all the elements, parts, formal and in
formal interaction patterns of the organization. The
external environment includes all the elements, parts,
formal and informal interactions patterns of the larger
system, namely society outside the organization which
affect the particular organization under analysis.
Organizations as Open Systems
As we have stated above, organizations are not
closed systems, isolated from their environment, inde
pendent in their operations, and free from the effects
of other systems in the environment. They are, and must
be open, receptive systems if they are to survive. Or
ganizations do not have fixed, rigid boundaries to
167
separate them from the rest of the society. Instead,
they axe in constant interaction with their surroundings,
receiving inputs from the environing conditions and ex
porting outputs into them.
Change Inputs of Organization System
Along with raw materials, and energy necessary
for survival, organizations give entrance to such inputs
which will have a future potential for creating changes
in the organization. To differentiate these inputs from
the conventional ones, we call such inputs "change in
puts."
The change inputs of an organization system may
come from internal or external environments or both. We
call the change inputs which are generated by the internal
environment — within the organization itself — "change
withinputsActually, both the external change inputs
and change withinputs are originated by the scientific
and technological developments which may take place in
either the external or the internal environment.
The change inputs of organization system, first,
appear in the form of human needs and demands. Some ex
amples of external demands of the clientele and of the
public in general, and internal demands of the members
168
axe:
1. A more efficient system: provision of better
products and services with the same cost, or provision
of products and services of the same quality as those
available in the market with lower costs;
2. Greater recognition for the individual mem
bers of the organization as human beings;
3. Greater human participation in the affairs of
the organization by its members, as well as outside groups;
4. Greater benefits, higher pay, and better
working conditions;
5. Maintenance and growth of the organization,
and so forth.
It is difficult to give a complete list of these needs
and demands generated in the internal and external en
vironment of organizations for they may change from
situation to situation, depending upon the type of organ
ization and production, as well as the type of clientele,
and similar variables. However, it is the needs and
demands of those within and outside the organization
which put pressure upon the organization to change; and
change then becomes necessary to satisfy these demands if
the system is to survive.
Demands enter organizations in form of change
169
inputs through the human and technical elements. Change
inputs of human elements may come through:
1. Formal and informal, oral or written pres
entations of demands to the representatives of an
organization;
2. Hearings held by organizations1 management;
3. Bargaining between organization representa
tives and individuals and groups from inside or outside
the organization;
4. Recruitment of new individuals into the organ
ization;
5. Training of the people already in the organ
ization; and
6. Conflicts between individuals and groups in
the organization or between those in the organization
and those outside.
Change inputs of technical elements enter organ
izations in the form of new techniques and innovations.^
The former may simply be new action-oriented ideas, new
methods, new ways of doing things in organizations. In
this case, they are new patterns of scientific knowledge
■^"Innovation" is defined as "the act or process
of introducing any behavior or thing that is new."
Maneck S. Wadia, "The Administrative Function of Innova
tion," Maneck S. Wadia, et al*» The Nature and Scope of
Management (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1966),
pp. 170-174.
170
to be utilized for better performances of activities and
procedures. The new techniques, as technical change in-
puts, may be related to any one or more structural ele
ments of the organization systems — such as the formal
chart, rules and regulations, authority, power, leader
ship, communication, decision-making, conflict, solution,
patterns of role relationships, planning, control, record
keeping, work flow, space layout, personnel, finance,
public relations, and so forth.
Technical change inputs may also be in the form
of new materials, tools, machines, and so forth, which axe
developed in the external environment, or in the internal
environment of the system — sometimes forced into the
organization, and sometimes adopted by the organization
without any outside force but simply for the sake of
efficiency or other similar considerations.
That which may be said, in general, about all the
change inputs of organization systems is that they all
are change-directed. This directedness may be conscious
and intentional as well as unconscious and unintentional.
However, they all are change inputs, that is, it is most
probable that eventually they will bring some change in
organization of one sort or another.
If they are change-directed, then, what are the
targets of organizational change?
171
Targets (01 Areas) of Change
in Organization System
The targets or areas of change in the organization
system which will eventually be affected by the change
inputs of the system can be listed briefly as follows:
I. Elements of organization
A. Human elements of organization
1. Individuals and related variables
2. Groups and related variables
3. Management philosophy or ideology
4. Values held by the members of the
organization
B. Structural elements of organization
1* Rules and regulations
2. Any kind of formally established set
of relationships, activities, and
procedures
3. Any kind of informally established
set of relationships, activities, and
procedures
C. Technological elements of organization
1. Any kind of already practiced methods
or ways of doing things in the organ
ization
172
2. Any kind of material, tools, ox
machines already in use
D. Goal elements of organization
1. Formally set up goals
2. Informally recognized goals
II* Parts of organization (any structural, func
tional, or geographical division of the
system)
III. Patterns of interaction between and among ele
ments and parts of an organization, or between
the organization and its external environment
IV. Any combination of these.
Transformation of Change Inputs
The transfer of change inputs into actual change
will not take place automatically. Even the entrance or
penetration of the inputs into the organization will not
be easy. The existence of change inputs is not sufficient
to bring about organizational change.
The core of the actual transformation of inputs
into real change is a process of the power struggle within
the organization. If we recognize that it is the human
elements of an organization which eventually will play the
greatest role in the adoption of a change, we must also
173
point out that: it is the individual member of the organ
ization who is actually going to be affected by this
change. Because of this very fact, people in the organ
ization system are vigilant and cautious regarding any
change effort in the organization or that which is di
rected to it, and which may threaten their positions or
status therein. If the threats of change inputs are
obvious, then, they will resist. It is this aspect of the
process which has captured the attention of the majority
of the students of the subject. In most cases of organ
izational change, the organizations have been viewed as
resistant systems. This is important, nevertheless,
there is more to it than this. People in organizations
who resist change are not only those whose positions are
directly threatened by the proposed change. They may
oppose or resist change because it threatens their
friends' positions, or that it upsets the traditionally
established ways of doing things — the procedures in the
organization. This means, in effect, that in the future
they have to change also and adapt themselves to new ways,
whatever they may be, if they are going to remain in the
organization.
People resist change because it is something new,
and anything new requires new abilities, new ways of
174
thinking and doing. Members of the organization try to
develop stable patterns of work, and of interaction.
"When these stable patterns are disturbed, individuals
experience stress or an uncomfortable feeling of pressure
and dissatisfaction. A breakdown in the flow creates
opposition as the individuals struggle to restore it.
Under stress people react emotionally . . . "H Behind all
these thoughts lies the fear of loss of security, status,
or job. That is the reason that change threatens some
people and faces resistance in the whole body.
Resistance to change does not come only from
within the organization. Individuals and groups from
outside may also resist change because of their relations
with the organization and the manner in which the partic
ular change would be to their disadvantage.
People inside or outside may resist organizational
change also because of their conserva'tive nature, simply
because they do not want any disturbance in their environ
ment. These individuals are passive in nature, insecure;
they have low empathy, and their needs for achievement
are low.
On the other hand, the innovators — the producers
of change inputs, the originators and proponents of
■^Leonard R. Sayles, "The Change Process in Organ
ization: An Applied Anthropology Analysis," in Wadia,
et al., op. cit., p. 192.
organizational change — are those most probably ready
to face any kind of threat which would be generated by
the particular change, who desire change and anything
new for its own sake. They want to advance, to develop,
and this can be achieved through change. These are the
people who have a high need for achievement, who are
upward-mobile, and also highly empathetic. It is not
always necessarily the administrators, as it is naively
assumed, who suddenly commit themselves to the accomplish
ment of change and then devote all efforts to this objec
tive. Rather, support or opposition for change in an
organization may come from any level, as well as from
the outside. Of course, the individuals and groups in
side or outside the organization who anticipate great
advantages to be gained as a result of change would be
at the top of the list of supporters. But there will be
others also who will support the change program in the
organization without having any direct, short-term
advantages.
Change in the organization will or will not take
place depending upon the result of the clash between the
two powers — the resisting and the supporting forces.
The change inputs can be transformed into actual organiza
tional change only if the resisting force can be defeated
12Ibid., pp. 191-197.
176
by its proponents. In order to induce change, the magni
tude of a disturbance must be great enough or appealing
enough so that the opposing forces are unable to counter
balance it.
Change in organizations may take place in any one
or more change areas listed above. It may be qualitative
or quantitative, negative or positive, planned or un
planned.
Because of the fact that the change inputs of
organization, as well as the support for the transfer of
such inputs into actual change in any one of the suggested
areas, may come from within and from outside, it is im
portant that the whole process satisfy the needs of the
individual members, the needs of the organization itself,
and the needs of those outside the organization.
Interdependency of Organizational
Change
Change in any one of the above .listed areas of
organization is not a distinct, separate process which
is set apart from the functioning of the total organiza
tion. Because of the interdependent and integrated
nature of an organization system, a change in any one of
the change areas in the organization may not remain iso
lated from the whole process without having any effects
177
upon other elements and parts, as well as upon the pat
terns of their interaction.
It is difficult to predict all the alterations
which will take place in an organization as the result
of an initial change in any one of the suggested areas
of the organization. What may happen depends, to a large
extent, on the quality and the quantity of independent
variables of the original change, and of the modifiers
or intervening variables. Examples of independent vari
ables are the speed with which change is introduced, how
radical the change is, number of persons to be affected
by it, the prestige and personality of the originator,
and whether it is started at the top or at the bottom of
the organization.
Among the modifiers of change, the two most im
portant ones are human beings and the present state of
the organization system, including all the structural,
technical, and goal elements.
As we pointed out above, people, even at the same
level, will react to organizational change differently.
It is the unpredictable nature of the human being — the
modifiers of change — which makes it difficult to put
the change process in organizations in definite or certain
terms. However, the personal behavior and attitudes can
178
be measured to the degree that statements of probability
can be made. And it is our contention that the degree
to which people desire or oppose change is a dependent
variable of (l) to what extent the proposed change affects
their present status, and (2) their need for achievement.
It is hypothesized that those whose present status is
expected to be negatively affected by the proposed change
and who have a relatively low need for achievement will
resist, while those whose present status is expected to
be positively affected, and who have a relatively high
need for achievement, will support it.
Individuals with a high need for achievement are
not only supporters of change, but most probably its
originators as well. The studies conducted by Rogers
on the relationships between technological change and
1 ^
status achievement, ° McClelland on need for achieve
ment, - * - 4 Lerner on mobile personality and empathy,^
13
Everett Rogers, "A Conceptual Variable Analysis
of Technological Change," mimeographed journal paper,
No. J-3275 of the Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics
Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Project No. 1236.
14David C. McClelland, The Achieving Society
(New York: The Free Press, 1961).
1 5
Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional
Society (New York: The Free Press, 1958).
179
Gouldner on cosmopolitans and locals,-^ Riesman on inner-
1 7
other directedness, and Presthus on upward-mobile,
1 R
indifferent, and ambivalent personalities, provide the
theoretical support for the above stated hypothesis.
An initial organizational change will also be
modified by structural, technological, and goal elements
of the system. The philosophy, formal rigidity, degree
of participation, openness of communication — whether
decisions are made at the top or at lower levels of the
organization — whether conflicts are allowed or sup
pressed, the financial and manpower situations of the
organization, and so forth, are other intervening vari
ables which will play a significant role in the process
of change.
The interdependent nature of organizational
change can be summarized very well by a quotation from
Bowers and associates:
Hence, technological change introduced into
a work system will conceivably produce al
terations in the work processes and work
*^A. W. Gouldner, "Cosmopolitans and Locals: To
ward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles," (2 parts),
Administrative Science Quarterly, II (1957), pp. 281-306,
and 444-480.
l^David Riesmann, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1950).
■^Robert Presthus, The Organizational Society
(New York: Random House, 1962).
180
flow, than in the composition and organization
of work groups. These in turn affect changes
in both the quantity and quality of social in
teraction. Thus, the work situations of indi
viduals involved in the work system will have
undergone modifications. Their knowledge,
attitudes, and skills may less essential than
previously; they may be deficient in those
which are now called for by the new work. As
work is the axis around which the other areas
of most lives revolve, it follows that if
work patterns are altered behavior patterns
outside of work must also be affected.19
In another theoretical study of the effects of
technological change on the organization, Jasinski points
out the following examples of the alterations in the
structural and human elements of an organization which
are most likely to take place as a result of an initial
technological change:2®
1. Alterations in work processes, in new tech
niques, new methods, and new work flow;
2. Because of the changes in work alterations,
production per individual will be different, and conse
quently, economic rewards will be affected;
lg
Raymond V. Bowers, et al., "Technological
Change and the Organization Man: Preliminary Conceptual
ization of a Research Project," mimeographed paper read
at the 55th annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, New York, August I960. See also Frank J.
Jasinski, "Adapting Organization to New Technology," in
Wadia, et al., op. cit., pp. 184-191.
2®Kenneth G. Van Anken, "Personnel Adjustment to
Technological Change," H. B. Jacobson and Joseph S.Roucek
(eds.), Automation and Society {New York: Philosophical
Library, Inc., 1959), pp. 341-359.
181
3. The interaction patterns, such as subordinate-
superior interaction informal social relations will be
affected by the changes in work processes and economic
rewards;
4. The size and composition of work groups will
probably be affected;
5. Change opens up new kinds of careers to per
sons who make their work within the organization all-
important.
An individual once clearly destined for a
particular position suddenly finds himself
confronted with an option; what was once a
settled matter has split into a set of al
ternatives between which he must now choose.
Such occupational changes, of course, pre
sent opportunity for both success and
failure.21
The impact of technological change on an indi
vidual may be negative such as "side-lining," "kicking
upstairs," "banishment to the sticks," "outright elimi
nation," and so forth, or it may be positive. Because
of increased responsibility, salary levels may be higher.
Some may not have enjoyed their previous jobs and v/ork
groups and may now find the new ones preferable;
6. One*s self-image in the organization which is
based on worthwhileness of the work, its intrinsic values,
21H. S. Becker and A. R. Strauss, "Careers, Per
sonality, and Adult Socialization,1 1 in M. Stein, et al.,
(eds.), op. cit., pp. 217-218.
182
perceived status and power, the degree of satisfaction
derived from social interaction with other employees,
relative economic compensation, how indispensable one
perceives himself to be, how an individual perceives his
future career chances, and so forth, will also be af
fected. If technological change produces a new work
image that is significantly less satisfying to the indi
vidual than the previous one, considerable strain and
ego-protecting reactions can be expected;
7. Finally, technological change will cause an
individual in the organization to evaluate his status.
Differences in the evaluation may again result in negative
or positive reactions of the individuals to change.
The effects of automation and technological change
on organizations in the future (1985) are predicted by
Simon as follows:
a) There will be few vestigial "workmen'1
—- probably a smaller part of the total labor
force than today — who will be part of in
line production, primarily doing tasks re
quiring relatively flexible eye-brain-hand
coordination. . . .
b) There will be a substantial number
of men whose task is to keep the system
operating by preventive and remedial main
tenance. . . .
c) There will be a substantial number
of men at professional levels, responsible
183
fox the design of product, for the design
of the productive process, and for general
maintenance. . . .22
Simon adds a fourth prospect to those above in regard to
the role to be played by different levels of management:
There is reason to believe that the kinds
of activities that now characterize middle
management will be more completely auto
mated than the others, and hence will come
to have a somewhat smaller part in the
whole management picture.23
Just as this range of change is generated by a
technological means, so a structural change (formal dele
gation of authority, a change in work process, or in the
control system, and so forth, or a change in human ele
ments such as a training program) could also be the
initiator and could generate a similar range of subse
quent transformations in the organization.
Change Outputs of Organization System
The result of the above described process of
change in organizations is the change output of the sys
tems: adaptation or the adjustment to changing conditions
in the organization*s internal and external environment.
This implies satisfaction of demands for change coming
po
Herbert Simon, The Shape of Automation for Men
and Management (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 44.
23Ibid., p. 47.
184
from individuals, formal and informal groups, interest
and pressure groups both in and outside the organization,
public and private organizations in the environment, or
the public at large. Thus, the first element of the
change output, or organizational adaptation, is satis
faction of the demands for change.
The second major element of a change output,
which may be considered to be a consequence of the first,
is survival and maintenance of the system.
Finally, change outputs of organizations could
result in growth and development of the system: a quanti
tative increase in the elements and parts of organization,
and a betterment of their quality.
We should be careful not to confuse organizational
change and the change output. The change output is only
the last phase of the whole process of change; it is the
adaptation, survival and/or growth of the system (it could
be its disintegration and breakdown as well). Whereas,
the organizational change is the whole process of change
including the inputs, the transformation of them into
initial changes, those subsequently generated, and the
change output itself. It is a complex process, and its
i
complexity remains to be discovered essentially through
empirical studies. Nevertheless, the difficulties
185
involved in controlling all organizational variables and
the measurement of the effects of a change input, or an
initial change, in an organization should be recognized.
Organizational Change and
Institutionalization
Change is universal, inevitable, and continuous.
In fact, when we are talking about the organization as a
system, we are speaking of a hierarchy of systems. Organ
izations are composed of subsystems, elements, parts, and
are themselves parts, ox subsystems of larger systems.
Just as change in one element or part of the organization
has implications for the total organization, an organiza
tional change has implications for the super system,
namely society. Since an organization is not an isolated
entity in the society, a change is a cause for further
ones. Hence, those changes are origins for even more,
and so on. In short, an organization will affect, and
eventually will be reaffected, by any kind of organiza
tional change, for they are not only influenced by the
forces in their environment which generate change, but
also influence them. Organizations themselves may become
sources of change in their environment.
When an organization becomes a recognized source
of change in the environment and maintains ability to
186
control, structure and be valued by environment, the
organization is then institutionalized.
Feedback
In order to survive, maintain its identify, grow,
and be able to do the job which it has been designed to
do — and do it effectively — an organization must be
open to alterations. It must be flexible enough to adopt
them and adjust itself to them. This requires organiza
tions to be aware of the effects and consequences of their
change outputs, as well as of others. And only through
an effective feedback mechanism may an organization sense
the needs and requirements in its environment for change
and thereby make necessary adjustments.
In the broad sense, "feedback" may indicate that
some of the output energy is returned as input. In other
words, feedback denotes a communications network which
produces action in response to an input of information,
and "includes the results of its own action in the new
information by which it modifies its subsequent be
havior."^4
A serviceable feedback requires an effective in
formation and communications network which is a major
OA
Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New
York: The Free Press, 1963), p. 88.
187
intervening variable of organizational change. This
affects the whole process of change, including inputs and
outputs in the organization. The magnitude of information
received, the openness of the communication channels, the
content of the communication, and so forth, are factors
which play a significant role in the control of organiza
tional change. Therefore, feedback is an important phase
in the process for it provides the continuity of change,
and is essential for the survival and growth of the sys
tem, and it lies at the heart of a good control system
on organizational change.
The Control of Organizational
Change
In some cases, where the major initial change is
not controlled, the subsequent process in an organization
may result in a state of chaos and confusion. Desired
outcomes and reactions to change can be obtained through
a good control system over the whole process of change,
otherwise, the opposing forces in the organization could
cause the disintegration and breakdown of the system.
Control starts with checks put upon the change
inputs by the organization through a selective mechanism.
Mainly through its management, the organization regulates
the nature of change inputs, their quality and quantity.
188
The entxopic elements, that is disruptive change inputs
and their harmful effects, are minimized and eliminated
if possible.
As we have indicated above, change inputs could
be negative or positive. They could aim at the destruc
tion of the system, thus such inputs could be enfused
into the organization by other competing organizations,
interest groups, or individuals. The aim of these inputs
could also be positive, hence leading to progress and the
development of the system.
Negative and positive organizational change could
be the result of the transformation process. The conver
sion of change inputs into actual change in any one of
the change areas of organization could result in negative
change, hence a disadvantage to the organization.
It is the control function of the management, as
well as other members of the organization who desire to
maintain and improve their positions through the survival,
maintenance, and growth of organization, and thereby put
a strong check on the negative organizational change,
minimizes and/or eliminates the entropic elements of the
system. Of course, this control should be maintained for
subsequent changes and for the entire change process.
In this case, it is important to emphasize that
189
the purpose of the control function is not to achieve
stability, equilibrium, or balance of the system — not
to prevent or eliminate change — but is to put a check
on the intrusion of disruptive or entropic change inputs
into the organization, the transformation of inputs into
positive or constructive change outputs, and feedback
processes. On the other hand, control neither means
closing the system nor isolating it from its environment.
When organizations resist new change inputs, they may
again be subject to disintegration and breakdown; they
may perish rather than adjust themselves to changes in
the environment and thereby will not grow.
To stabilize an organization or to bring it to an
equilibrium or a balance, connotes an organization in
which there is some life, a process without any consider
able change, a static or semi-static organization. This
is contrary to the realities of today*s large-scale com
plex organizations. Organizational change is an insepar
able part of organizational phenomena; it can never be
isolated from it. Organizational change can be controlled,
checked, planned, and directed, but it cannot be elimi
nated. Organizational change is inevitable to the
survival and growth of an organization. Hence, today,
talking about stability or equilibrium of organizational
190
systems needs to be abandoned. Instead, regulation of
change should be substituted.
All organizations have internal controls designed
to minimize the adverse effects of change on a system to
allow for constructive change, and keep an eye on devia
tions from established norms. These controls may be
formal or informal. The former consist of formal regu
lation through policies, standards, and rules; the latter
controls include norms, values, and sanctions of conduct
2R
through the group.
Of course, one of the most effective means of
control over change, and of achieving positive change in
organizations, has come to be planning. Recognizing its
significance for organizational change, we have assigned
the next section to planned organizational change.
Planned Organizational Change
Human beings, recognizing the fact that change is
inevitable and a continuous process from which they cannot
escape, have sought through planning to convert changes
into improvements; to minimize or eliminate destructive
ones, and to support and encourage positive or construc-
^Theodore M. Mills, "Equilibrium and the Process
of Deviance and Control," American Sociological Review,
(October 1959), pp- 673-674.
191
tive change. Planning is an important tool to be used
in order to control and achieve, quickly and effectively,
the necessary and desired changes in organizations.
"Planned change is any that uses planning before and dur-
0 f s
ing the change to achieve stated goals."
Drawing upon the definitions given by Lippitt and
associates,2"? and elaborated upon by Bennis and his asso-
no
ciates, we can define planned organizational change as
a conscious and deliberate effort to improve the opera
tions of an organization through the utilization of
scientific knowledge.
The targets of planned organizational change may
be any one of the change areas in the organization: ele
ments, parts, or interaction patterns among them.
Change agents have sometimes been viewed only as
outsiders. More frequently, they have been seen as be
havioral scientists, or on a broader basis, as "behavioral
change agents." This seems to be a mistake on the part
of its advocates. It is true that the agent can be, and
^Warren G. Bennis and Hollis W. Peter, "Applying
Behavioral Science for Organizational Change," Hollis W.
Peter (ed.), Comparative Theories of Social Change (Ann
Arbor: Brown and Brumfield, Inc., 1966), p. 293.
27Lippitt, et_al., op. cit.
OQ
Bennis, et al., The Planning of Change.
192
in some cases is an outsider, and he may also be a be
havioral scientist who deals mainly with changing human
elements of an organization, however, this is not a law
or a principle which is found to be true in all cases.
A change agent may be from within the organization as
well. In the case of organizational change, the agent is
an individual or a team who, or which, has some role to
play in planning and directing the change. In its gen
eral meaning, every member of an organization is a change
agent. The change agent then may be a member of the
organization, or not, and thus found at any level of the
organization. Also he may be an individual ox a team;
behavioral scientist, physicist, engineer, medical doctor,
human relationist, industrial engineer, systems analyst,
and so forth. The use of the term "change agent" is mis
leading when applied only to professional scientific
knowledge and skills to help bring about organizational
change.
Organizations, today, have become the conventional
place for the studies of scholars in many disciplines.
An interdisciplinary approach in the study of organiza
tions seems to be most promising — and such an approach
is already on the way. Actually, the systems character
of organizations requires agents with broad education and
193
training to deal with their problems. However, today,
science is so fragmented and training so specialized,
that a single individual or a group of individuals trained
in the same field are not fully capable to play the role
of an effective agent. Instead, an interdisciplinary
team, composed of the representatives of different dis
ciplines, could do this job with greater efficiency and
effectiveness.
If the change agents are members of the organiza
tion, this is advantageous for they have an intimate
familiarity with the system. Likewise, if the agents
come from the outside, the prospective objectivity which
comes from detachment is of considerable help and impor
tance. It then follows that a combination of outside and
inside agents will most probably be for the better in
the sense that it would serve both purposes by providing
objectivity and familiarity, as well as acceptance by
the system.
It is seldom possible or advisable to try to
draft a complete, detailed plan for achieving organiza
tional change. It is probably better to design one which
includes certain broad elements in which some degree of
flexibility and replanning can be exercised when and
where necessary. The broad elements of such a plan would
194
include (a) the objectives of organizational change, (b)
methods through which objectives can be achieved, and
(c) a strategy of action.
Objectives of Planned
Organizational Change
Organizational change may be planned to achieve
either specific objectives or overall general ones. The
specific objectives of organizational change will vary
from organization to organization and from time to time.
They are usually established around particular problems
which the organization faces at the time of planning.
In most cases, the solution of a problem and the settle
ment of a major conflict will be the objective. In
essence, the specific objectives of such change remains
situational.
In practice, the overall general objectives of
organizational change do not follow a particular pattern.
They are also situational and differ from case to case.
It is difficult to give a list of objectives of planned
change; nevertheless, such an attempt Is desirable. What
we shall attempt to do next is to find the common general
objectives of planned organizational change as agreed
upon by the scholars in the field. The objectives to be
195
discussed below, in a sense, are normative and, to some
extent, "value-loaded" on our part. Nevertheless, we
feel that they reflect the common values of the students
of organization.
The general objectives could be expressed in terms
of ultimate and intermediate goals of organizational
change.
The ultimate objectives of planned organizational
change include survival, maintenance, growth, and devel
opment. Survival implies a counteraction (the prevention
of the breakdown of the system) on the part of the organ
ization. This, of course, is to fend off the destruc
tive; forces. Maintenance is a neutral term and requires
some effort on the part of the organization to get it
going — an effort to prevent destructive forces from
hindering improvement plus positive steps to add to the
present effectiveness of the organization, sometimes
added enough to keep the organizations competence at the
level of competing forces in the environment. Growth is
a positive term which means a quantitative increase in
the capabilities of the organization which gives it some
superiority over competing forces in the environment —
an increase in size, in amount of products and services,
and resources used, and so forth. Development is also a
196
positive expression which is, in general, used to imply
qualitative increase — a betterment of human and natural
resources of products and services, and so forth.
All these imply for the organization a greater
capacity and flexibility in adapting itself to the chang
ing environment.
The intermediate objectives of planned organiza
tional change which are objectives of a second order,
with the purpose of reaching the ultimate ones, may be
classified into objectives of organizational change re
garding human elements of organization, those related to
structural elements, and those related to technological
elements of organizations:
I. Objectives of Planned Organizational Change Related
pg
to Human Elements of Organization*. 7
1. Improving the interpersonal capacity of indi
vidual members of the organization;
2. Improving their skills and relevant organiza
tional knowledge;
3. Developing a high degree of mutual trust and
support, and a high degree of personal commitment;
4. Effecting a change in values through stressing
openness rather than secrecy, collaboration rather than
po
Bennis and Peter, op. cit., pp. 306-307•
197
dependence, cooperation rather than competition, consensus
rather than individual rule, authentic relationships
rather than those based on political maneuvering; and
5. Developing increased understanding within, and
among working groups.
The results of such activities will include
"improvements in morale, attitudes, personal satisfaction,
and a decline in absentee rates, sickness and accident
rates, and personnel turnover." The incidence of crea-
tivity and innovation will also rise.
II. Objectives of Planned Organizational Change Related
to Structural Elements of the Organization:
Recently, the tendency in this area has been
toward the achievement of a decline in the rigidity of
organizational structure. Now there is a strong reaction
to the idea of hierarchy. Instead, a Eupsychian type of
o r g a n i z a t i o n , or an organization based on the principles
of the market'32 is desired. The structural requirements
of such a body may be listed as follows:
1. Maximizing participation in organizational
decision-making; ___________________________________
30Ibid., p. 307.
^Frank P. Sherwood, "Market Theory" (unpublished
paper, University of Southern California, School of Public
Administration, 1966).
^^Abraham Maslow, Eupsychian Management.
198
2. Maximizing free and open communication;
3. Minimizing the hierarchy of authority;
4. Minimizing all other rigid hierarchical set ups
in the organization.
A second major objective of planned organizational
change in the area of organizational structure is the
achievement of "team management."33 This tendency is the
product of the movements which view organizations as total
integrated systems of interrelated parts and which em
phasize "programs" in the organization which cross the
traditional departments and offices, thus requiring people
from the related departments to come together to manage
a program common to all. Of course, the actual outcome
of such an approach is a complete restructuring of an
organization.
III. Objectives of Planned Organizational Change Related
to Technological Elements of Organization:
In regard to technological changes, one of the two
related objectives of planned organizational change could
be stated as being the application of the systems theory
to organizational study. This requires profound changes
o o
Neely Gardner, "Project Management" (unpublished
paper, University of Southern California, School of Public
Administration, 1967).
199
in the techniques, methods, and processes presently
utilized. Adoption of integrated information systems by
some organizations has come to be an outstanding example
of this trend.
The second objective in this area comes as a
direct result of the first, namely, adoption of recently
developed materials, tools, and machines into the organ
ization. The use of computers, or in more general terms,
data processing equipment, has come to be the most prom
inent example of such change. It seems to be the con
tinuing objective of planned organizational change in
this area.
We must repeat and emphasize that all these are
only intermediate goals or means to achieve the ultimate
ones of survival, maintenance, growth and development of
the organization. These produce flexibility and adapta
tion of the organization system, even before they con
tribute to the achievement of the ultimate goals. To sum
up, if we are talking about objectives of planned organ
izational change in terms of goals, then there is a goal
hierarchy with three layers:
1. Survival, maintenance, growth, and develop
ment of the organization system (ultimate goals);
2. Flexibility and adaptations of the system;
200
3. Goals of human development or change in an
organization, goals of structural change in the organiza
tion, and goals of technological change therein (inter
mediate or secondary goals).
Or, if we are talking about the objectives of organiza
tional change in terms of goals and means, the second and
third levels become means to reach the goals as stated at
the first level. In both cases, it is the entire organ
ization which is important. The emphasis put upon the
elements and parts is only for reaching the desired organ
izational change.
Methods of Achieving the Objectives of
Planned Organizational Change
In practice, a number of methods have been used to
bring about planned organizational change. Bennis has
listed eight such methods as reviewed below.
1. Exposition and propogation: This method of
bringing change in the organizations rests on the assump
tion that knowledge is power, ideas change the world, the
men who possess ’'truth" will ultimately lead the world.
2. The Elite Corps: This program is based on the
idea of "getting the right man in the job." This method
realizes that ideas (exposition and propogation) by them-
^4Bennis, Changing Organizations, pp. 101-104.
201
selves do not constitute action; a strategic role is a
necessity for ideas to be implemented.
3. Human Relations Training Program: This ap
proach hopes to inculcate key executives with the neces
sary insight, wisdom, and diagnostic sensitivity.
3. The Staff: This is the provision of a source
of intelligence within the client-system such that appro
priate intelligence is available when needed.
5. Scholarly Consultations: “A procedure whereby
science can be made useful to clients. It Includes ex
ploratory inquiry, scholarly understanding, scholarly
confrontation, discovery of solutions and scientific
advice to the client."35
6. Circulation of Ideas to the Elite: This is a
strategic method which is based on the simple idea that
"if you want to change things, then get your ideas to the
people in power, or people who influence someone who can
influence someone in power."
7. Developmental Research: That which is directed
toward the problem of helping people to see how something
could be done substantially different, or better.
8. Action Research (or applied research): The
aim here is to apply the behavioral sciences in order to
35Ibid.
202
improve the systems performance, or to solve a problem
for a client.
Bennis later criticizes all these ways of bringing
about planned organizational change on the basis that they
are underlined with certain assumptions which are not true
in actual life. As a result of the assumption that facts
or knowledge equal power, no implementation or intelligent
action is taken into consideration. Collaboration between
the change agent and the client system (organization) is
taken for granted and does not reflect the reality. It
is assumed that if an individual at the top has the facts,
he will act in accordance with them. As a result, the
individual is overemphasized and there is an individual
istic bias; organizational forces and roles are not taken
into consideration. They involve also an insight bias.
It is assumed that without any manipulation, personal
insight gets translated into effective action. This may
not be true in all cases.
In short, all of the listed methods of bringing
about planned organizational change have inherent weak
nesses that do not make them suitable for implementation.
Recognizing the weaknesses of these methods,
Bennis and associates^ have described three broad types
o A
Bennis and Peter, op. cit., and Bennis, et al.,
The Planning of Change.
203
of programs used by change agents frequently in combina
tion: training, consultation, applied research.
Training
By training, Bennis and associates refer to
T-group laboratory training, or sensitivity, or group
dynamics training which was started in 1947 in Bethel,
Maine, by the National Training Laboratories. While at
the beginning, the main objective was personal change or
self-insight, since late 1950s the emphasis has shifted
to organizational change.
There is now a wide variety of the application
and content of laboratory training. However, by nature
it is an unstructured group setting where participants
examine their interpersonal relationships ^ Sometimes
with the help of a skilled trainer (usually a psycholo
gist) , and sometimes by analyzing data generated by them
selves, the participants then begin to understand the
dynamics of group behavior in such areas as decision
making, leadership, influence, communication, distortions,
motivational forces, the effects of authority, and of
group norms on behavioral patterns, individual coping
mechanisms, and so forth.
3?For further information, see W. G. Bennis and
E. H. Schein, Personal and Organization Change Through
Group Methods (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965).
204
One of the best examples of the application of
the laboratory training method — to bring about planned
organizational change — has been given by Blake and
Mouton, namely, the Managerial Gxidj^ though their model
is a more structured one than the T-group. Nevertheless,
it makes for accurate learning about self, group, and
organizational context through participation. Their model
includes six distinct phases ox strategies to be used to
achieve the change:
1. Introductory theory and experiments: All mem
bers of management participate in the laboratory for a
one- or two-week session on a "diagonal-slice" basis.
2. Team training: Starts with the top team and
reaches to lower levels (family groups),
3. Intergroup integration and linking: Functional
groups work together to solve the problems which exist
between them.
4. Planned change and goal setting: Managers
(ten-twelve) get together to set goals for the total or
ganization. They provide the mechanism fox ensuring that
the changes sought after are planned.
og
Robert Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial
Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964) .
205
5. Realizing the organizational goals: The
change-agent attempts to help the organization to realize
its established goals.
6. Stabilizing the changes brought about.
Consultation
This method helps, firstly, in understanding the
causal and underlying mechanisms of the problem and,
secondly, in encouraging and helping the client system to
take remedial action. Here, consultants (or ABC practi
tioners) as change agents do not give direct expert
advice for acceptance or rejection by the client, but
undertake a more clinical or psychiatric role. They help
the client to see his own behavior in a different perspec
tive, to recognize "reality," and to take remedial action.
It is assumed that the problems of a client system cannot
be solved unless the client is directly involved in the
diagnosis of the problems. This will produce individual
and group commitment, and personal understanding on the
part of the members of the client system. These are re
quired, together with outside help, for action to solve
the problems which are being faced.
206
Applied Research
Applied research focuses on the systematic collec
tion of data from the client system. It not only aims to
resolve a particular question at issue, but the results
axe used systematically as an intervention for change
during the diagnosis and problem-solving processes.
In their analysis of the methods employed to bring
about the organizational change, Katz and Kahn review such
methods as information, individual counseling and therapy,
group therapy within organizations, the influence of the
peer group, and sensitivity training. These are the
same or quite similar to those presented by Bennis and
associates.3^ In addition, they have included the sys
temic use of feedback and group discussion (the approach
of Floyd Mann) in their review as a method of organiza
tional change. This approach makes use of such tools as
information feedback through reports, suggestion systems,
surveys of employees1 ideas, or opinions and feelings,
and group discussion.
The authors point out that all these methods of
bringing about organizational change are simple general
izations. They all confuse this change with individual
"^Robert L. Kahn and Daniel Katz, ’ 'Concept of Ob
jective Organization,1 1 The Industrial Environment and
Mental Health, Journal of Social Issues, XVIII (1962),
p -------- ------ -----------------------
207
change, and carry the assumption — which could be false
— that you can change organizations by transforming its
members. Instead, they present a new method of change
which they entitle as "systemic change: changing organ
izational variables." The foundation of this method is
said to be "the Morse-Reimer experiment" of 1956.^
Here, the main goal is to change an organization
as a social system, to deal directly with its character
istics, or variables as properties of the organization
rather that as the outcome of group and individual
properties.
Although Katz and Kahn are concerned with the
organizational change in systems terms, that which seems
to be most important in their analysis is changing the
authority structure, or degree of decision-making, at
various levels. Methodology to bring such change includes
persuasion of a top executive, the use of group discussion
and the official introduction of the change as the new
policy of the company.
A Critique of the Existing Methods of
Planned Organizational Change
With the exception of a few, all the methods or
programs or strategies reviewed above have the same
4QIbid., pp. 425-433
208
weakness. They are individual and/or group oriented,
and do not take other variables into consideration. In
this sense, they are partial, following the same frag
mented or partial approach to organizational change which
was reviewed in the previous chapter. Therefore, the
assumptions underlying them all could be that they were
wrong at the start.
Organizations are integrated systems of interde
pendent variables. Organization is not a mere collection
of individuals or groups. There are additional variables
which result from the interactions of individuals and
groups. Moreover, the individual behavior inside the
organization has quite a different set of determinants
than the behavior outside the organizational roles. Thus,
the first weakness of the existing approaches and methods
of organizational change is involved in the assumption
that changing the members of the organization alone will
bring the desired change in the organization.
The second weakness springs from the subsequent
assumption that knowledge and factual information will
automatically lead toward action to solve the problem,
but such supposition carries no guarantee that remedial
action will eventually be taken. It may very well not
be put into effect at any future date.
209
The term "applied research" is in fact so broad
that its usage as a method of planned change does not
make much sense. That which is more important and truly
needed is a method which is specific enough to direct the
planning and execution of a change at the organizational
level. Applied research does not have this quality al
though it is its fundamental methodological objective.
Although the change model designed by Blake and
Mouton has taken into consideration the interdependent
nature of organizations, it is only in regard to human
elements of such. Therefore, they obviously have excluded
structural and technological elements of change from the
analysis.
Katz and Kahn have placed a greater emphasis on
the systemic nature of organizational change. They have
added the structural dimension to it. However, their
model is not free from weaknesses either. Primarily, it
does not tell us what the structural variables of the
organizations are which could be subject to change — ex
cept authority or decision-making. Secondly, it is not
complete in the sense that it ignores the role of other
elements of organization — technological and goal elements
— and deemphasizes the role of the human ones in a
planned change. Thirdly, this model is also similar to
210
the previous ones and has a reductionist nature since it
reduces the whole organizational change to structural
variables of organization. And lastly, although it rec
ognizes the interdependent nature of the organization, it
does not indicate the implications of interdependence for
the planned alterations.
A Strategic Model of Achieving
Organizational Change
Through Planning
To overcome the weaknesses of the presently ex
isting approaches and methods to achieve such change, we
have designed the following model:
I. Prerequisites of Effective Planned Organizational
Change:
A. The systems theory should provide the essence of
all approaches and methods of planned organizational
change.
1. Approaches to change should take the whole
body into consideration — its elements, parts, and inter
action patterns as they relate to the whole.
2. Methods of achieving the objectives of
planned organizational change should take the character
istics of an organization into consideration. Particu
larly, the interdependent nature of organizational change
211
which requires certain procedures to alter human, struc
tural, and technological elements, all in combination.
This should be well understood.
B. Although everyone in the organization is, in a
sense, a change agent and is concerned with organizational
change, the planning of these modifications is primarily
management's responsibility, hence the heaviest obliga
tions for change efforts are at the top.
C. Today, since change has come to be an inevitable
part of every large, complex organization — as a result
of a dynamic and continuously changing environment — a
change or improvement function needs to be established as
one of the basic functional parts of the organization.
The responsibilities of this function should include:
1. Helping management to determine the areas
and objectives of change;
2. Helping to determine the means through which
the objectives can be achieved;
3. Helping to devise strategies and tactics for
achieving the desired changes;
4. Helping to achieve useful and lasting ap
plication of change plans;
5. Providing strong guidance for continual and
systemic quest for, and achievement of, positive or
212
desired change (improvement) throughout the organization.
D. The following points are essential for the suc
cess of any planned change program:
1. The application of scientific knowledge
(including technological);
2. Management involvement in the program’ , and
recognition of the self-help principle;
3. Inside or outside staff support and assist
ance ;
4. Cooperation and participation rather than
direction.
E. Finally, the recognition of a need for change
or of a problem which needs to be solved is one of the
major prerequisites for an effective planned organiza
tional change program.
II. Planning for the Change:
Planning for the change includes the following
steps:
A. Clarifying the problem;
B. Defining objectives;
C. Developing and reviewing alternative courses
of action;
D. Determining strategies and tactics;
213
E. Identifying and developing needed skills.
A. Clarifying the Problem:
The recognition of a need for change may come
directly from the organization itself, or it may be stim
ulated by a change agent from the outside. After this
need has been expressed, a survey of the problem is essen
tial to identify it, and to cite the elements, and inter
nal and external causes of the difficulty. In this
survey, all available techniques such as systems analysis,
PERT, operations research, and so forth, should be
utilized.
B. Defining Objectives:
After the problem has been discovered and iden
tified, and the need for a change has been agreed upon,
the objectives of the change must be literalized. In de
fining the objectives, the totality of the organization,
its interdependent nature, and contributions to the organ
izational dilemma, that is, the extent to which they
serve the needs of both organization and the individual
members must be taken into consideration.
C. Developing and Reviewing Alternative Courses of
Action:
At this stage, a search for alternative courses
214
of action to achieve the established objectives is under
taken. Assuredly, the search cannot be an infinite one.
It will cover the available alternatives and stop when a
satisfying one — more satisfactory in comparison to the
ones available — is found for achieving the objectives
at hand.
D. Determining the Strategies and the Tactics:
Among the available alternative courses of
action, the most strategic one should be chosen. In
making this choice, and setting up the program for
change, the following strategies should be taken into
account:
1. Methodological strategy: Given the interde
pendence and mechanisms of internal process of change in
organizations, an alteration in any one of the change
areas will necessitate some changes in other areas of the
organization. Therefore, the use of a single method of
change may not be effective. A combination of the fol
lowing methods will probably prove to be successful:
a) Personnel training to change the human
element, including technical training and human relations
training {T-group or sensitivity training),
b) Formal structural changes to alter struc
tural elements,
215
c) Systems analysis and the use of similar
tools (PERT, operations research, and so forth) to bring
about technological change in the form of new action-
oriented ideas and methods, and adoption of new materials,
tools and machines.
2. The solution of the organizational dilemma —
the conflict between the goals of the organization and the
needs of the individuals — should be contributed by the
change program.
3. The choice to be made must take the environ
mental factors into consideration. This requires a close
look at the sources of change inputs and change outputs.
The demands for change coming from, as well as the impli
cations of change for all the identifiable forces in the
environment of organization, need to be taken into ac
count (co-optation).
4. It is essential to get the interest and par
ticipation of the organization (client system) in the
complete process of planning and bringing about change
(collaboration).
5. Participation of all the employees in the
change program is desirable.
6. It will be of considerable help to start at
the top of the organization by obtaining management's
216
interest and support fox the program.
7. The use of informal groups in getting accept
ance for change should be a major part of the program.
8. Resistance to change is an inevitable part
of every change program, and should be so accepted.
9. All these necessitate an open and accurate
communication and information system.
10. The degree of trust and confidence in the
source of change is of considerable significance.
11. Change should be attractive to groups, and
individuals, in the organization. Benefits accrued from
the change must be perceived by them.
12. Changes perceived to be central to the groups*
purposes will be the ones which are most likely to be
accepted.
13. As much as possible, people in the organiza
tion should be given a common perception of change.
14. Personality and attitude differences will
affect acceptance or resistance.
15. Group composition, structure, patterns of
sub-groupings, networks of communication, and other prop
erties of the group as a whole influence the acceptance
of change.
16. The use of rewards will facilitate the
change.
217
E_. Identifying and Developing Needed Resources:
Although the amount of available resources for
the solution of a problem may in many cases be given at
the very beginning, it is desirable not to sacrifice a
good change program for lesser resources. Instead, it
is better to design an efficient program and then seek
the required resources for its execution. Developing
needed skill, providing the needed financial support, and
ascertaining the required time, are parts of every good
program.
III. Execution of the Plan:
Based on the identified strategies, action should
be taken (a) to execute the change plan, (b) to devise
and periodically use methods for assessing how the change
is proceeding, (c) to replan the change as required, and
(d) to take new action steps.
IV. Follow-Up:
The effectiveness of a change program cannot come
to fruition if it is not followed-up. In many cases, a
change program is stopped either after its design has been
completed, or after it has been put into practice.
Usually, the follow-up is not included in the program and
it is not considered to be within the realm of a change
218
agent's work. However, follow-up should be an essential
part of every planned organizational change for it deals
with (a) the actions which must be taken in order to con
solidate and reinforce the patterns of behavior and with
the requirements which are expected under the new system,
(b) the control of the subsequent changes generated in
the organization as a result of the initial planned
change, (c) the establishment of the created change as a
part of the total system, and (d) the consequences of the
change and the feedback which is used fox further im
provements in the system.
PART III
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ORGAN
IZATIONAL CHANGE
In this part of the dissertation, a case of organ
izational change is studied and analyzed within the
framework of the change model developed in the second part
of the work. This is an attempt to provide some empirical
ground for our theoretical model of organizational change:
a test of its ability in understanding, explaining, and
predicting the phenomena of such change* It is also a way
to open up the opportunities which could improve the model
in the light of the realities of actual organizational
life. The case study to be presented is that of a city
government which adopted the electronic data processing
(EDP) system about three years ago, and which has under
gone a series of modifications as a result of this initial
technological change. The two general questions which
provided the boundaries of this empirical part of the
study were:
How was the whole process of organizational change
brought about through an initial technological change
219
220
(adoption of EDP) in the organization (government of the
City of Burbank)?
What effects have the initial technological change
(adoption of EDP) had on the organizational system (of the
City of Burbank)?
More specifically, we have attempted to answer the
following questions:
1. Has the adoption of the EDP system, or the
initial change, created further ones in the system of the
City of Burbank?
2. Has the EDP system had greater effects on the
departments of the city government which have been closer,
functionally and structurally, to the newly created Bureau
of Electrpnic Data Processing?
f
3;; - Have those city employees who had negative
attitudes toward change resisted the EDP system in the
organization?
4. Has the EDP system tended to disrupt group
cohesiveness in the organization of the city government?
5. Has the EDP system tended to have negative
effects on the middle management level of the organization
of the city government?
6* Has it significantly affected the decision
making network in the city government?
221
7. Has the EDP system created a tighter control,
particularly on the lower levels of the organization of
the government?
8. Has the EDP system created a greater need for
integration of functions and structures in this civic
body?
9. Has the EDP system placed a greater emphasis
upon the formal elements of the government?
10. Has the communications network in the organ
ization been significantly affected by the EDP system?
11. Has the system tended to have significant
effects on work procedures, methods and techniques in the
organization of the city government?
12. Overall, has the EDP system increased the
effectiveness and the efficiency of Burbank*s government?
We have selected the government organization of
the City of Burbank for our empirical study for several
reasons. First, at the time the study was undertaken,
the Municipal Systems Development Project of the Univer
sity of Southern California, School of Public Adminis
tration, was already in contact with Burbank. Thus,
there was a familiarity on the part of some members of
the staff with the organizational system of the City.
Hence, it was through this project that we found the
2 2 2
opportunity to get in touch with the city administrators.
Second, the City of Burbank had a reputation, at that
time, for its change orientedness, and for having a man
agement team who strongly favored change in the City.
Third, the City had already made quite a few alterations
in the organization, and seemed to be ready to implement
some of the recommendations yet to be made by the Munic
ipal Systems Development Project as a result of their
analyses in the City.
Although our initial purpose was to conduct an
experimental research in cooperation with the Municipal
Systems Development Project and the City administration,
we decided to study the change process in the organization
of the city government. This was initiated with the adop
tion of the EDP system about three years ago, and the
effects of the EDP on the total organizational system of
the City after the University of Southern California,
Municipal Systems Development Project was discontinued.
The three specific objectives of this part of the
study were (1) to discover the whole process of change in
the City of Burbank which was started with the adoption
of the EDP system, (2) to find out what effects this ini
tial technological change (adoption of EDP) has had on
organizational system of the City, and (3) to see to what
223
extent the findings would agree with the essentials of
our theoretical model.
The survey data were generated through personal
observation, interviews, and a survey questionnaire
administered to a sample which consisted of all the admin
istrators at the top and the middle management levels of
the city government. (For more detailed explanation of
research sample and data collection instruments, see the
introductory chapter of the dissertation.)
We have looked at the City of Burbank as a system.
The system of government and its environment are presented
in Chapter VI, and the case of organizational change is
summarized in Chapter VII. Chapter VIII deals with the
process of change in our case organization. It analyzes
the technological change inputs and the subsequent process
of change in the organization; examines the effects of the
initial change (the adoption of the BDP system) on the
total organizational system; and attempts to answer the
questions which were asked above.
CHAPTER VI
THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
AND ITS TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
City Government as a System
The government organization of the City of Bur
bank was established as an integrated system, composed
of certain interdependent and interacting elements and
parts — as a subsystem of the larger environment, and
in constant interaction with other systems in that envi
ronment. The City was incorporated in 1911, and chose
its first governing body — Board of Trustees. In 1926,
a fifteen-member Board of Freeholders was elected to draw
up the City Charter which was adopted at a special elec
tion and approved by the state legislature. It became
effective in 1927. The Charter retained the ultimate
power and authority in the hands of the people, and made
its use possible through a "Council-City Manager* form
of government.
The elements which constitute the system of gov
ernment — like any other organizational systems — are
those of the human, the structural, technological, and
224
225
the goal. The City, first of all, is a human system —
one composed of individuals and groups, and all other
related variables. It has a system of individual, group,
and organizational values. It is, moreover, a philo
sophical or an ideological system. The formal rules and
regulations, as well as the principles of informal func
tioning of the system, are backed up by the traditional
American philosophy of government which retains the ulti
mate power and authority to rule in the people. It then
tries to control the use of the power, and authority
transferred to the representatives, through checks and
balances —- this being in line with the doctrine of the
separation of powers.
Second, the city government is a structural sys
tem. It is one of formal rules and regulations as ex
pressed in the City Charter, laws, bylaws, resolutions,
and so forth. It is a system of formally established
patterns of activities: formal division of work, func
tioning of divisions, and formal interaction of the
divisions (departments, offices, groups, and individuals).
And, finally, it is a system of informally established
patterns of activities: the function of informal groups
in the city government, and interaction patterns within
such informal groups, as well as among them; informal
226
communication, decision-making, informal leadership, and
so forth.
Third, the government organization of Burbank is
a technical system. It makes use of the available knowl
edge and techniques which relate to all areas of the
organization such as personnel, financial, police, and
fire administration, public works, and service, and so
forth. It is also a system of physical materials and
machines. As a result of the knowledge and information
utilized in the organization, certain kinds of to^ls,
materials, and office machines are used.
Finally, the government organization of Burbank
is a system of goals. Although they are not too obvious,
they can be stated as formally established and informally
recognized aims. The formal goals are to provide services
to the community, to meet the needs and, consequently,
increase the welfare of the community of Burbank. The
informal goals could best be discovered through an em
pirical study which is not our concern here. However,
organizational change and adaptation, satisfaction of
employees, excellence in government services, organiza
tion and its functioning may be listed among the informal
goals of the City.
The parts of the organizational system of the city
227
government refer to all of the offices — departments,
bureaus, and so forth — as indicated on the organizational
chart (see Chart 1). However, the three major parts of
the system of the city government are the legislative
body (the City Council), the mayor, and the city manager.
The legislative body of the City (Council), as
originally laid down in the City Charter, would consist of
five persons elected at large for terms of four years.
The Council would enact the laws and establish administra
tive policy fox the city government.
The Mayor would then be chosen by the Council to
be presiding officer at the pleasure of the Council. He
would have the same voting power as any other member of
the City Council, and would be the executive head of the
City. In an extraordinary emergency, he would assume
general control of the government and be responsible for
the suppression of disorders and restoration of normal
conditions. He would sign all resolutions and ordinances
passed by the Council, and would represent the City at
every ceremonial function of a social or patriotic char
acter.
The City Manager would be appointed by the Coun
cil, on the basis of executive and administrative quali
fications and experience, to be the head of the government.
He, in turn, would appoint the Assistant City Manager and
CITY OF BURBANK
City
Clerk
City
Counci
City
Attorney
City
Manager
City
Treasurer
Animal
Shelter
Disaster
Services
Finance
Department
Public
Service
Department
Golf
Department
Personnel
Department
Parks and
Recreation
Department
Public
Works
Department
City
Planning
Department
Building
Department
Fire
Department
Purchasing
and Stores
Communications
Department
Chart 1
Organization Chart of the City of Burbank
228
229
Assistant to the City Manager. His duties then would be
to enforce the civil laws and carry out the policies of
the Council through the control and direction of the city
departments. He would advise the Council on financial
conditions and future needs of the City and make recom
mendations for consideration and action of the Council.
Like government organization itself, each office
or department in the organization may be considered as an
open and integrated system in itself, and a subsystem of
the total structure. They are then composed of the same
elements — human, structural, technological, and the
goal. They are thus in constant interaction with one
another and with the external environment of the organiza
tion. They are closely interdependent, and this is essen
tial to the maintenance of the integrated nature of the
larger organizational system. The dynamic interaction,
and the invisible competition between and among the ele
ments, and parts of the city government, cause conflicts
and internal strains in the City.
The government system of Burbank is a part, ox a
subsystem, of the larger society. It is in constant in
teraction with the County of Los Angeles and other neigh
boring counties, cities, and special districts, the State
of California, the Federal Government, and many other
organizations, groups, and individuals in its environment.
230
The external environment is and has always been
quite dynamic. Hence, it has been going through a con
tinuous change- In order to survive in such an environ
ment, the City has also gone through a variety of
transformations — and has attempted to adapt itself to
that environment — essentially as a result of the pres
sure felt from the internal and the external surroundings.
Although such changes and the adaptation have not always
been timely, the government has been able to maintain an
order over the change throughout the process, and has not
lost its original identity while doing so.
The system of government has constantly imported
human, structural, and technological inputs from the
environment but not always the most appropriate ones.
It has then processed them, and exported the services
produced into the community and the larger society.
Until recently, the city government did not have
an integrated information and communication system to
provide effective feedback and control mechanisms. How
ever, the first step toward the establishment of such a
system has now been taken by the adoption of computers,
and by the creation of the Bureau of Electronic Data
Processing which is a separate department of the city
organization.
Technological Environment
of the City of Burbank
231
Automation
The external environment of the City of Burbank
can best be characterized by technological change or
"automation.1 1 The word "automation" was coined in 1947
by Del Harder, vice-president of Ford Motor Company, to
apply to "automatic handling of parts between progressive
production processes." At about the same time, Diebold
used the word "automative" for the use of control devices
that operate by means of feedback.^
Automation presumably increases productivity.
This presumption has also been substantiated by empirical
research. About a decade ago, MIT*s Solow attempted in
his analyses of the aggregate production function for the
United States, to indicate the important role played by
technology in the growth of the United States. He found
that the United States owes two-thirds of its economic
growth to technological progress.^
Solow*s findings have been supported by many other
■'•Paul A. Samuelson, Economics: An Introductory
Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hili Book Co., 1964}, p. 333.
^R. M. Solow, "Technical Change and the Aggregate
Production Function," Review of Economics and Statistics.
39 (1957), pp. 312-320.
232
empirical studies, particularly those carried out by the
National Bureau of Economic Research since 1957.^ They
have shown that technological progress has significantly
contributed to and has been improving the productivity
of American labor and capital.
The impacts of automation are various. First,
automation is a manpower problem — involving changes in
labor requirements; changes in skill as jobs change; re
training worker mobility, and so forth. Second, it makes
possible entirely new ways of performing a task. Third,
it is a completely new way of life.
Today’s crop of machines is a far more powerful
agent for social change than was that of the first indus
trial revolution. Today’s machines have created a new
ability to build systems which process and communicate
information, translate from one language to another, re
spond to the human voice, and so forth. In short, today’s
machines deal with the very core of human society — in
formation and its communication and use. These develop
ments are more than changes in manpower, employment, or
new ways of doing old tasks. They also create new tasks
and alter human society since this technology vastly
extends the range of human capability.
Samuelson, op. cit., p. 517
233
How Automation Is Perceived
Automation has quite divergent implications fox
whomsoever it affects. It is perceived in different ways
by the individual, the manager, and public policy. The
individual sees it either as a job threat, or as a chal
lenge and opportunity, if he is a technician. The manager.
public administrator and private businessman usually views
it as a labor saving device, and as a means for exercising
tighter controls on his enterprise thus seeing it as a
means to rapid change. In short, it is an opportunity to
progress toward more effective organization and management.
Nevertheless, in one respect, automation provides
managers with new methods or new kit of professional tools.
On the other hand, it creates an environment in which the
total change of the enterprise is required. The environ
ment of organizations of today have become highly dynamic,
and continuously changing — essentially as a result of
automation and rapid technological advances. In other
words, the great meaning of automation to the manager is
found in the social changes induced by such automation.
Rapid technological change means an entirely new day-to-
day role fox strategic planning in guiding the enterprise.
Thhs, Diebold argues:
234
It is here that automation is making profound
change and it is here that we must look for
the essence of the managerial meaning of this
new industrial revolution. For here lies the
heart of enterprise— ascertaining and filling
human need— not the techniques of management,
however important the latter may be in today's
giant and changing organizations. Vitality
and survival are determined by the ability of
the organization— whether private or public—
to perceive and fulfill these, now rapidly
changing, human needs.4
For public policy, automation is more than a
problem of unemployment, retraining, and advancement.
The economically privileged position of the United States
rests on its drive for technological leadership; and it
is a necessary drive for world leadership. It is neces
sary because with increasing frequency and forcefulness
statements of the Soviet political and economic theory
refer to automation and technology as the means by which
mankind will achieve the highest of estates. Actually,
Marxist-Leninist doctrine has long valued technology as
a determinant of social change. Moreover, the developing
nations, as well as highly developed countries of the
world, look to the new technology as a major solution to
the problems of development and growth.
4John Diebold, “Automation— Perceiving the Mag
nitude of the Problem," Advanced Management Journal,
XXIX (April 1964), pp. 29-33.
235
Major Ingredients of
Office Automation
As it was pointed out earlier, technological prog
ress takes the form of material and nonmaterial innova
tions. These may simply be new action-oriented ideas —
new methods, new ways of doing things in organizations,
new patterns of scientific knowledge to be utilized for
better performances of activities and procedures — or
they may come in the form of new materials, tools, ma
chines, and so forth, which are developed in the external
or the internal environment of the system, and adopted
thereby, usually for the purposes of efficiency.
Every new development — innovative idea or mate
rial invention— which takes place in a society or in other
societies, may be considered to be a technological change
input for organizations since a society, and even the
larger social systems, are simply collections of organiza
tions. Technological inputs of organizations are count
less. Nevertheless, we are concerned here with the most
important recent technological changes which have consti
tuted the change inputs of organizations. Such develop
ments can be labeled as "office automation" or "organiza
tion technology."
The three major ingredients of office automation
236
are (1) the systems concept, (2) source data automation,
c
and (3) the electronics technology. We have discovered
the systems concept in the first part of this work. As
we know already, it places emphasis upon the entirety,
yet stresses the harmonious interrelationships of the
parts making up that entirety. The development of the
systems concept is a natural outgrowth of the electronics
technology which has made available the equipment which
can unify office operations among departments, distribute
information between widely separated locations, and in
terrelate data-processing efforts among the traditionally
established functional divisions of an enterprise.
The second major part of organization technology
is "source data automation." This is identified primarily
with data processing, which ties together various types
of office machines by common media, and integrates the
respective operations so as to form a whole from the vari
ous machines utilized. This is done by putting source
data into a form so that they may be reused as needed
without the necessity of rewriting it each time they are
needed. Moreover, if this form could be made common to
all the standard machines of an office or department, it
^George R. Terry, Office Management and Control
(Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1966), pp. 189-
190.
237
would be possible to process the data, utilizing the type
of machine needed without having to rewrite or reenter
the information for each machine. In that way, the proc
essing could also be integrated. The punched card is a
widely known example of such information. Computers can
be included, but they are not a necessary part of source
data automation equipment.
Electronics technology is the third and most sig
nificant part of office automation. Many people feel
that it is synonymous with organization technology. Com
puters — in which we are most interested here — account
for the biggest share of electronics technology. In fact,
this is a significant improvement over the source data
automation; and it is computers or electronic data proc
essing (EDP) equipment which are most likely to have the
greatest implications for organizational change. Here,
EDP is defined as a system of changing or altering of
data or information from the original form to a desired
form through machines or computers which have the capa
bility to automatically perform several different proc
esses simultaneously — sorting, collating, and calcu
lating. By previous instructions, they are stored in
ternally in the machines.
238
Development of Electronic
Data Processing (EDP)
The development of the computer may be described
as “a succession of improvements in the tools used by man
to assist the mind in mathematical calculations, storing
of data, and the transmittal of these calculations and
data.M^ The first computer, the ENIAC (Electronic Numer
ical Integrator and Calculator), was built at the
University of Pennsylvania in 1946, and calculated at the
rate of 5,000 additions per second.? Meantime, Professors
Eckert and Mauchy of the same university designed the
BINAC (Binary Automatic Computer) for Northrop Aircraft,
Inc. In 1950, the Eckert-Mauchy Computer Corporation
became a subsidiary of Remington-Rand. In 1951, the first
UNIVAC (Universal Automatic Computer) was installed in the
U.S. Bureau of Census. The first IBM 702, a large scale
computer, was installed in 1955.®
In the following years, there was a voluminous
production of computers and peripheral equipment. The
®John William Sullivan, “The Electronic Computer:
A Challenge to Organization in Public Administration”
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, School of Public Administration, 1961), p. 65.
7
R. Hunt Brown, Office Automation (New York:
Automation Consultants, Inc., 1959), p. II HI.
8Ibid., p. II H 2.
239
most recent developments in the field are sometimes
described as third generation computers. These were in
troduced about 1961 and differ from the first and the
second generation computers by utilizing an internal
thin-film computer memory to nano-second (billionth of a
second) switching speeds. The first generation utilized
vacuum tubes while the second generation was associated
with the advent of the transistor and ferractors which
replaced the tube.
Computers, in most instances, also used the
punched card as data input media to mathematically cal
culate, compare, correlate, and so forth, these data in
a prescribed manner. In such cases, punched card machines
are being used as peripheral equipment to an electronic
computer. These card tabulating machines were basically
developed to transfer information from a variety of
sources to a punched card. Recently, various kinds of
equipment have been manufactured to automatically transfer
data from original sources directly to tape (magnetic or
paper), without using a punched card as the input media
to the computer.^
^William A. Carr (ed.), Office Automation News
Bulletin (New York: Automation Consultants, Inc.,
December 31, 1960), p. 2.
240
Optical scanning of the source document is
an example of a system of automatic data
input to a computer and indicates the trend
of development for the next several years.
This system employs a method of automatic
reading of printed figures from an input
document and the automatic internal trans
fer of these data to a punched card,
punched tape, or directly into a computer,
thus eliminating the usual procedure of
the transferring of data from a document
by a mechanical key depression machine
such as a key-punch to a punched card for
data input into a computer system.10
Now, a great number of manufacturers have rushed
into the field and a large variety of machines, which
makes it possible to choose one with adaptability to many
different types of applications, have been made. One
machine is capable of reading entire type-written page
at 1,800 words per minute, and prepares the information
for teletype transmission.
Computer Use in Government
The first electronic computer installation was in
a Federal Government agency, as was the first punched
card equipment. Essentially, due to the need for advanced
electronic devices for national defense, the Federal
Government has taken the lead in utilization throughout
the development of computers. The National Government
10John H. DeJong, "Optical Scanning Equipment,"
Data Processing. 3:11-12 (January 1961).
241
has not only been the leader in development, but also,
by a great margin, the largest single user of electronic
computers.
Computer use in state and local governments has
likewise advanced rapidly since 1960. New developments
in the field of manufacturing have greatly reduced both
the size and the cost of the equipment. No longer is the
field of electronics limited to large applications.
Almost any operation which has a modest investment of
about $10,000.00 in office equipment is a potential cus
tomer for the small scale computer. The largest area of
application in state government is in state highway de
partments. About 50 percent of all computer time at the
state and local government levels is devoted to engi
neering or scientific calculation, while the remainder is
in business-type data processing. There has been a steady
and rapid trend in government accounting toward conversion
from bookkeeping machines to use of punched card equipment
and electronic computers.H
This research has revealed that a large amount of
computer utilization in local government is by a service
11
Use of Mechanized Equipment in Government Ac
counting. Special Bulletin I960 G (Chicago: Municipal
Finance Officers Association, November 16, 1960), pp.
1-2.
contract, wherein the government or government agency,
purchases usage by the hour, or item of data processed,
and then transports the data to and from the computer,
wherever it might be.
CHAPTER VII
A CASE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
IN THE CITY OF BURBANK
In 1911, the City of Burbank was a small farm
community with a few thousand acres of land and a popula
tion of 500. The growth was fast. The population in
creased to 16,000 by 1930; 53,000 by 1943; 78,000 by 1950
and climbed to 100,000 by 1966. New land was purchased,
and the total area of the City was increased in 1967 from
an originally small farm community to 17,135 square miles.
Along with these developments, the city government
also grew in size and complexity. In 1967, the number of
government employees was more than 1,300. Rapid indus
trialization and population growth brought new functional
areas into the jurisdiction of the government activities.
The quality of services also progressed; over that period
of time, the City of Burbank came to be known as one of
the most effective governments in Southern California.
In 1913, the City purchased the electric and water
services. The Public Service Department was created for
the administration of these services. The growth here was
243
244
fast and almost independent of the rest of the city gov
ernment. It gradually took over some functions of other
traditional departments; and an increasing dichotomy came
about between the Public Service Department and the rest
of the city government. In the 1940s, the Public Service
Department rented several pieces of data processing equip
ment: a key punch, a sorter and a counter (for printing
purposes). In 1952, they installed a rather complete IBM
punched card system. There were two 402 accounting ma
chines, a 602 calculator, several sorters, key punch
machines, verifiers, and so forth. The department used
this equipment to issue the electric and water bills and
also for payroll and accounting purposes.
The efficiency of the Public Service Department
in providing such services as water and electricity in
creased and thus was viewed as a large profit-making
department. The rest of the city government was in need
of money. Because of the growing independence of the
Public Service Department, the other departments were not
able to utilize the modern equipment, as well as all of
the other modern administrative practices of that depart
ment. As a result, during the years of 1949-1953, the
City*s reputation suffered. There was a sharp increase
in population following World War II, and the need for
245
municipal services increased tremendously. The effi
ciency of the City, in providing services other than gas
and electricity, sharply declined. The councilmen were
conservative and were not willing to make any modifica
tions or take any major action. People started to lose
interest in their government.
However, this period came to an end when, finally,
a committee of local people initiated a movement which
resulted in turning out of office the badly reputed coun
cilmen. A new City Manager (Mr. Harmon Bennett) was also
appointed.
To overcome some of the difficulties witnessed
during the 1949-1953 period, particularly those of pur
chasing, budgetary control, and accounting, the new city
administration, led by the new City Manager, Harmon R.
Bennett, hired the Booz-Allen-Hamilton Management Con
sultants to survey and determine what opportunities for
improvement might be available in each of these adminis
trative operations. The Booz-Allen-Hamilton study was
completed in December, 1958. In regard to the City*s
purchasing system, a centralized procuring and stores
operation was recommended. This would consolidate the
buying units then existing in the general government and
in the Public Service Department, as well as integrate
246
responsibility for major stores and warehousing operations
then performed independently in the public service, public
works, parks and recreation, and communications depart
ments. Responsibility for office supply stores, then
controlled by City Hall, also would be consolidated with
other stores. These recommendations would provide more
effective control of inventories and provide a basis for
improved buying through consolidation of purchases and a
broader base of products and vendors.
In regard to control of Burbank’s budgetary oper
ations, recommendations provided the basis for closer
scrutiny of expenditures during the process of fiscal re
view, prior to final approval. Improved control reports
were suggested, and it was recommended that the use of
performance standards fox measuring work accomplishment
against funds be extended. These would assure the City
not only that its funds were being spent on an approved
budget, but that it was getting the most value fox the
money spent.
Finally, the analysis of the City’s accounting
activities led to the recommendations which urged the
formation of a single accounting department to provide
such services for the City as a whole. This would con
solidate the then existing accounting units in the general
247
government and in the Public Service Department. Other
recommendations suggested procedural improvements in the
adaptation of accounting processes and in the tabulating
equipment so as to reduce costs, increase the speed with
which the reports were published, and generally improve
fiscal control.
Booz-Allen-Hamilton Management Consultants be
lieved that from an overall standpoint these recommenda
tions would give the City a more closely knit organiza
tion, and would provide central service units which could
serve all departments on an equitable basis.
These recommendations were directed mainly toward
closing the gap between the Public Service Department and
the rest of the city government, and toward destroying
the independence of that particular department. Although
the Booz-Allen-Hamilton1s recommendations were not fully
implemented, the separate purchasing and accounting of
fices, as well as payroll and warehousing activities,
were consolidated and centralized into single units by
1961, under the direction of the then Finance Director,
Joseph Ferick.
To carry out the increased load of the newly cen
tralized activities, there was need for data processing
equipment. Thus, the City Manager decided that the
248
material of the Public Service Department should be
transferred to the Finance Department which would then
carry out most of the newly centralized activities. The
latter department then moved into the same building as
the Public Service Department and took over all data proc
essing equipment and the personnel attached to it.
By early 1964, two members of the Remington-Rand
Corporation, systems analysts, approached the Finance
Director and the City Manager and expressed their desire
to study and analyze the city government in regard to its
use of electronic data processing equipment. Because the
previously used equipment was IBM and the employees were
used to it, the city administration informed IBM of
Remington-Rand*s intention to conduct such a study.
Thereafter, both companies made city-wide studies and pre
sented their individual findings and proposals to the City
Manager. He than requested the Finance Director to make
recommendations on the proposals submitted by both con
cerns. After studying the submissions, the Finance Di
rector, Joseph Ferick, together with Clarence E. Dettman,
another employee of the same department, recommended that
the IBM-1401 be adopted. This plan was rejected by the
City Manager.
Mr. Ferick and Mr. Dettman were then asked to re-
249
consider their recommendation, but again they suggested
that the IBM-1401 be adopted. Due to pressure exerted
upon the City Manager by Remington-Rand, the second recom
mendation was also turned down.
At the time these discussions were taking place,
IBM developed a computer for which Remington-Rand has no
equivalent, the IBM-1440. Although the IBM-1401 was
faster and had a vast capacity for handling data, the new
IBM-1440 was more flexible and able to handle a greater
variety of data. After extensive study of this new ma
chine, Mr. Ferick and Mr. Dettman recommended to the City
Manager that the IBM-1440 was most suited to the City's
needs, thus it was finally adopted for use.
The computers were ordered in 1965. The City Man
ager retired in the same year, and the complete responsi
bility for installation of, and changeover to, the new
computers rested with the Finance Director.
In 1965, the City of Burbank had regained its
reputation for providing its citizens with effective local
government. Burbank was a municipally wealthy community
with a large middle class. It had a large industrial tax
base, and it was this fact which had provided for the high
quality of service in the past. However, the era of suf
ficient financing was coming to a close in mid-1960s.
250
The local people had been employed by the City
in the top positions and for long periods of time. The
City officials were able men, proud of their departments
and the City as a whole, and had shown a high degree of
leadership in guiding Burbank through the difficult years
of its rapid growth. However, the administrative problems
were also growing. To face these objectively and construc
tively, certain steps were taken. The first was the Booz-
Allen-Hamilton study. Second, it was decided to bring in
computers or electronic data processing systems. Finally,
recognizing the fact that for the last thirty years the
City did not have any infusion from the outside, and that
there was an urgent need for new blood to get the organiza
tion going in an age of rapid change, the City decided to
bring a man into the position of the City Manager who had
a wide reputation for being a change-agent. The new man
ager, Robert E. Turner, had gained wide experience in
organizational change, essentially during his work in
Boulder, Colorado, where he was the City Manager; he was
hired on the basis of creating change.
Upon his arrival in July, 1965, seven months after
the computers had been ordered, the major alternatives
open to the new manager were three: to go along with in
sufficient services; raising taxes; or achieving material
251
improvements in the operations of the City. Mr. Turner
was a computer expert as well. He felt that IBM had
spent all its efforts to train the members of the city
government in its own way, disregarding the City’s needs.
The immediate objective of computerization was to mecha
nize the accounting and payroll activities. Although Mr.
Turner felt that the IBM-1440 was not a good piece of
equipment for this purpose, it was too late for him to
make other arrangements, and to get the decision canceled.
The wrong computer had been bought, and the IBM-1440 was
delivered in November, 1965.
The decision to adopt the EDP actually had been
made without taking many of the related organizational
variables into consideration. For example, the space to
install the computers had not been thought of as yet, and
it took another five months to set them up. Because it
was decided that the computers were to be operated by the
finance department, the installation had to await the com
pletion of the City Hall Annex which was to be assigned
to that department, but was then still under construction.
Moreover, there was not manpower sufficiently
trained to operate the computers. Therefore, the first
eight months, following the installation, was a period of
confusion and chaos. Every, day new troubles emerged, and
252
little could be done about them. Essentially, the confu
sion was the result of attempts to impose a new system
upon an old structure without prior preparation and with
out further changes.
As soon as the computers had been installed, the
finance department dropped some of the old machines.
Therefore, since the new EDP system was not able, right
away, to undertake the jobs of the old machines, the
activities and operations of the finance department slowed
down considerably. They were three months behind the
schedule. Cash did not come in on time, there were no
investments made in that period, and money was lost. Thus,
it was said that "IBM had perpetrated this disaster upon
the City."l
In 1966, to prevent further delays in accounting
operations during the time of confusion, an accounting
machine — NCR 395 — was rented. However, because of
the lack of trained employees for the operation of this
machine, it could not be used either. The NCR 395 has
remained idle, and the rental contract will soon be ter
minated.
This point was strongly argued by the City Man
ager, Robert E. Turner, in an interview conducted by the
author on September 20, 1967.
253
The new City Manager pointed out:
For the first eighteen months of my service
as a manager in the City of Burbank I was sign
ing tons of forms; decisions were being made,
and contracts were going on without my knowl
edge. The procedures were outdated, traditional.
There was no concern for effectiveness, for end-
goal. Almost all of the departments were pro
cedure-oriented. The City Council wanted change,
but did not want any kind of controversy which
goes with it. I did not move fast; I was slower
than ever not to undermine the confidence of the
Council. It was necessary to move slowly, and
people reacted rather well. I feel that I moved
too slowly, although people say that I was too
fast.2
In order to correct the situation, Mr. Turner took
the following steps:
1. To develop the needed staff: Mr. Turner could
not find any one sufficiently qualified to help as Assist
ant Manager. So, he brought Mr. J. N. Baker who was from
Missouri and had originally worked with him in Boulder
where he was a manager. Then, they started to work to
gether as a team with the ambition to make Burbank a model
city in the nation.
To open the City to outside developments, Turner
attempted to bring young people into the organization from
the outside. Thus, he recruited a planner and a research*
er; and new interns were brought in and placed in the
^Interview with Mr. Turner, conducted by the
author on October 6, 1967.
254
managers office, budget office, and many other depart
ments such as finance, personnel, and police.
2. Essentially to help the manager, a new Re
search and Budget Office was opened in February, 1967,
which consists of a director, full-time secretary, part-
time typist, and an intern.
The office has two major functions: first, to
undertake and perform all research activities in the or
ganization; to investigate problems, and to search for
alternative ways of solution; and to make recommendations
for change in the organization and present them to the
City Manager. Second, this office was created to help the
manager in coordinating all the budgetary procedures in
the city organization, and act as a central unit in pro
viding such coordination. The Research and Budget Office
would naturally help the City Manager to increase his con
trol over the departments and operations of the City as
a whole.
3. Through the use of administrative interns,
further increase of the manager*s control over the depart
ments was attempted. Such interns were under the direct
supervision of the City Manager, and directly responsible
to him. Their placement and participation in various
departments provided close ties between the manager and
255
such departments. Consequently, the managers control
over the city departments was increased to a significant
extent.
4. The City of Burbank signed a contract with the
Municipal Systems Development Project of the University of
Southern California, School of Public Administration,
which was being financially supported by the U.S. Federal
Government. The USC project, according to the contract,
would use the government as an experimental organization.
It would conduct systems analyses for the design of an in
tegrated information system, and would implement that
integrated information system in cooperation with the City.
Actually, the staff of the USC, Municipal Systems
Project, which started to analyze certain departments of
the City, were preparing the organization and its members
for the changes yet to be made, and, thus, were quite
helpful to the City Manager in dealing with the existing
situation.
5. To make the use of the computers organization-
wide, the Bureau of Electronic Data Processing was sepa
rated from the department of finance and placed directly
under the City Manager*s office.
6. The City paid for a training course to increase
the technical knowledge of administrators (department heads
256
and their assistants) so that they might have extended
and more efficient use of the computers.
7. After Mr. Turner discovered what was going on
in the organization, what decisions were being made, and
by whom, he eliminated much of the paper work and the
overlapping and unnecessary forms.
Resistance to all of these changes came right
away. The first, and perhaps the greatest source of
resistance, was the problem of communication — the tradi
tional language versus the young and new one. The local
employees of the City, particularly the department heads
who had been in such positions for long years, actually
did not have any idea of what was going on outside their
community.
After the new manager gained control, some of the
department heads retired and others left their jobs,
sometimes for better positions. This came about either
because it was difficult for them to adjust to the changes
going on in the organisation, or because they did not want
to give up their comfortable traditionally established
procedures. There was an unusual turnover — a turnover
of nine top executives in two years.
It took the new management eighteen months to
overcome the existing problems and assume control of all
257
departments of the City. By March, 1968, the City reached
the stage of readiness for an integrated information sys
tem, and to cope with real problems of the community.
However, the complete design of the integrated information
system, which was going to be recommended by the USC,
Municipal Systems Development Project, has now been post
poned, at least temporarily, because of the lack of neces
sary funds for its maintenance. Nevertheless, the City
seemed psychologically ready, then, for any kind of change,
and particularly for a reorganization for the proper util
ization of the information system yet to be proposed and
implemented.
The City Manager left his job for the position of
the Executive Director of the South East Michigan Council
of Governor in Detroit. Mr. Turner was a man of action.
He wanted to move fast toward achieving change in his
organization, but he left because he preferred conflict,
change, and criticism, rather than monotony and a com
fortable position. He felt that his new position in
Detroit would offer the opportunities which he desired.
The Assistant City Manager, Mr. Baker, assumed the
top position. He, like Mr. Turner, is also action- and
change-oriented. It seems that he will follow in the same
path. This was obvious from his immediate attempts to
258
resume the USC, Municipal Systems Development Project,
and its analyses, in Burbank.
CHAPTER VIII
THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
IN THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM
OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
Development of the Technological Change
Inputs of the City System
The above case of organizational change could be
analyzed within the framework which we have developed in
the second part of this work. We could take the human,
structural, and technical aspects of change separately and
study each in detail, also considering their interactions
and interdependence. However, such a study would require
a more extensive research and longer time than we could
afford. Therefore, we have decided to concentrate on a
single aspect of this case of organizational change,
namely technological change, and study its relation to,
and implications for the human and structural elements of
the city system. We have further specified the field of
our study by taking the adoption of computers or the EDP
system by the City of Burbank to represent technological
change. This act — the adoption of computers or the EDP
259
260
system — is taken to be the initial change; and we are
concerned with its effects on the total organization, and
the process of change in the organization which was in
itiated by the adoption of computers and which is still
going on.
The City of Burbank has been a part of the dynamic
environment sketched in Chapter VI. It has been going
through a revolutionary technological change, particularly
in the field of electronic data processing equipment.
Hence, it was this environment which generated the forces
and pressures for change in the organization of the city
government. Such an environment requires an organiza
tional system to be flexible, and also to be able to
adapt itself to the changes in the surroundings in order
to survive and function effectively.
Although at the time when the idea of bringing
computers into the government organization, or adopting
the EDP system was developed, the City of Burbank was
known to be quite effective in providing community ser
vices, there were necessary changes, essentially in the
field of information and communication which were long
overdue. The large industrial tax base could no longer
afford the traditional methods of data processing. Almost
all of the, top city administrators had been recruited
261
from the local population and had been in the same posi
tions for many years. Our survey of the city adminis
trators, at top and middle management levels, revealed
the following results:
TABLE 1
YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE CITY
GOVERNMENT OF BURBANK
Number of
Administrators
Percent of the
Respondents* Years of Service
8 24 20 or more
4 11 15 - 20
10 30 10 - 15
7 21 5-10
4 11 1 - 5
1 3 Less than 1 year
♦Indicates approximate percentages.
Most of those who had been working with the City for less
than three years had been recruited after 1966 by the new
manager, Mr. Turner. When the late recruits are elimi
nated, the figures show that about 37 percent of the
present administrators have been working with the City
for 15 years or more, and almost 70 percent for 10 years
or more.
Moreover, about 45 percent of the responding
262
administrators have been holding the same positions in
the city government ever since their recruitment. As
can be seen in Table 2, if we do not take into consider
ation those who have recently been recruited to hold
administrative positions in the city government, over 50
percent of the administrators have been holding the same
positions for at least 10 years, or longer.
TABLE 2
YEARS SPENT IN THE SAME ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF BURBANK
Number of
Administrators
Percent of the
Respondents*
Years Spent in the
Same Position
3 9 20 or more
11 35 10 - 20
7 22 5-10
7 22 1 - 5
4 12 Less than 1 year
■^Indicates approximate percentages.
Interviews with the administrators of the City
indicated that In the 1960s, the City Council, as well
as the city administration, had felt the need for change,
but obviously did not have sufficiently qualified man
power to achieve it. They were aware of the techno
263
logical changes taking place in their environment, and
desired to adopt such ones, but they did not have the
competence to do the job. The reason for this was that
on the one hand, the city government was composed almost
completely of local people and thus, in this sense, had
a closed character. On the other hand, the level of edu
cation for the administrators was enough to make them
familiar with recent developments in their environment,
but not sufficient enough to give them the necessary
specialized competence for the adoption of the newly
developed methods, procedures, and systems in the differ
ent areas of organization and management. The distribu
tion of education for the responding administrators was
as follows:
TABLE 3
T-EVEL OF EDUCATION FOR THE CITY
ADMINISTRATORS IN BURBANK
Level of Education
Number of
Administrators Percent*
Some college** 9 30
Bachelors degree 14 47
Master’s degree 3 10
Master’s degree plus some
graduate work
4 13
* Indicates approximate percentages. **F?w of those who
had some college had also taken some specialization
courses in their fields.
264
We also attempted to measure the attitudes of the
administrators toward change in general. Our analyses
revealed the following distribution:
TABLE 4
ATTITUDES OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATORS
TOWARD CHANGE IN BURBANK
Attitude Toward Change Percent*
Those who favored change 29%
Those who strongly favored change 8
Those who favored change 11
Those who slightly favored change 10
Those who were against change 71%
Those who were slightly against change 15
Those who were against change 43
Those who were strongly against change 13
*Indicates approximate percentages.
As it can be read from Table 4, it would not be a mis
statement to conclude that perhaps one of the most im
portant factors behind the maintenance of the traditional
methods and procedures in the City of Burbank, in an age
of rapid technological change, was the conservative
nature of the city administrators.
While it is true that the organizational change
inputs of Burbank originally developed in the external
environment of the City, through technological changes
265
in the field of electronic data processing (EDP), it is
not easy to explain how the idea of adopting the EDP sys
tem developed, and how the decision was made in the con
servative internal environment of the City. Below, we
shall attempt to answer that question.
As we have pointed out previously, the techno
logical change inputs of an organizational system appear
in the form of new action-oriented ideas, new methods of
doing things (new patterns of scientific knowledge to be
utilized for better performances of organizational activ
ities and procedures) — or in the form of new materials,
tools, and machines (material consequences of the scien
tific knowledge utilized in the organization).
In this case of technological change, the change
inputs of the city government were (1) the idea of uti
lizing electronic computers for the betterment of its
information and communication system, which eventually
would enhance the efficiency of the City and its overall
survival, and (2) importation of the electronic computers
into the organization of the city government.
Our survey indicated that the idea of adopting
EDP system emerged essentially as a withinput — that is,
it was first originated within the city organization it
self and by its own members. Almost 82 percent of our
266
respondents — who had been working for the city govern
ment and who were familiar with the system at the time
the idea of adopting EDP first developed — agreed that
this idea was a product of the internal environment of the
system. About 94 percent of them denied the probability
of the development of the idea to have come from outside
the city organization and then later imposed upon or
forced into it. Moreover, only about 20 percent of the
responding administrators who had been with the City for
at least five years or longer recognized the probability
that the origination of the idea of adopting the EDP sys
tem in the city organization could have been aided by
outside forces (individuals or groups).
Since the idea of importing electronic computers
was essentially a product of the internal environment of
the system, it is important that we identify the contri
butions of different levels of management in the city
organization to this development. Another 82 percent of
the respondents, who were employed by the City at the
time the idea was developing, agreed with the statement
that the idea of adopting the EDP system was first orig
inated in the organization at- top level of management.
Only about 33 percent of the same category respondents
indicated the probability that the idea could have been
267
developed at the middle management level, and 100 percent
of them rejected the possibility that it developed as an
answer to the existing problems at the level of rank and
file in the organization (see Appendix I, questions 11,
12, and 13)*
These findings imply the significant role the top
management team can play as change-agent in an organiza
tion. In the City of Burbank, it was this team that
attempted to change the organization. The late City Man
ager, Mr. Bennett, somewhat similar to his successor Mr.
Turner, was a man desirous of change. During his thir
teen-year term as City Manager, he, together with the
Assistant City Manager, Mr. Frederick, were engaged in
many small changes. Mr. Frederick died from a heart at
tack, and Mr. Bennett retired. However, before his
retirement, Mr. Bennett had wished to initiate some sig
nificant change programs — a battle for which he was not
ready, and for which he wanted someone else to do the
fighting. Thus, one of the most significant change pro
grams he initiated was the adoption of the EDP system.
He called upon an outside man, Mr. Turner, who was famil
iar with computers and who was known as a change-agent,
to carry it out. The actual reason for bringing an out
sider into the top management position was Mr. Bennett*s
268
awareness of the closed and traditional nature of the
City. In such an environment, the burden of carrying on
such a significant program would be in the purview of the
City Manager, This would require a strong, change-
oriented personality to hold the position* Obviously,
Mr. Turner was such a man.
In the City of Burbank, with its traditional en
vironment, and with most of the administrators having
negative attitudes toward change, one would expect the
administrators, particularly the middle managers, to op
pose the idea of adopting the EDP system into the organ
ization because of the implications for further change.
However, with the exception of one of the respondent
administrators in our sample and contrary to expectations,
all stated that they were pleased with the idea when it
was first developed. The reasons for their favoring it
were as follows, as shown in Table 5.
With the exception of one, all of the respondents
in the survey stated — most of them strongly — that they
did not oppose the idea of bringing electronic computers
in and making the subsequently required changes in the
organization. They rejected all of the reasons listed on
our questionnaire which could cause opposition (see
Appendix I, questions 24-28).
269
TABLE 5
REASONS FOR FAVORING THE EDP
IN THE CITY OF BURBANK
Percent of
Reasons Agree
Because the EDP system would pro
mote their (administrators*)
positions and status 4
Because the EDP system would pro
mote the positions and status
of their friends and others
in the organization
Because the EDP system would
ease their jobs in the
organization
Because the EDP would ease the
jobs of their friends and
others in the organization
Because the EDP would help the
city government to provide
better community services
Because it would reduce the
operation cost of the
city government
Because they would like to
see the city government
adjust itself to the
technological develop
ments in its environment 100
7
35
39
97
75
Respondents
Disagree
96
93
65
61
3
25
270
Moreover, about 77 percent stated that their im
mediate supervisors were also pleased with the idea of
adopting the EDP system into the city organization when
it was first originated. About 90 percent of them dis
agreed with the statement that their immediate super
visors were indifferent to, or against, the idea at the
inception. In even more general terms, 77 percent indi
cated that most of their superiors in the city organiza
tion were quite pleased with the idea of adopting EDP;
about 84 percent of them thought that most of their supe
riors were not indifferent. Almost 100 percent rejected
the. statement that most of their superiors were against
the idea of bringing in electronic computers.
In general, these findings indicate that there
was little or no opposition to EDP on the part of admin
istrators at the top and middle levels of the government.
At first look, there seems to be a contradiction
between our findings of negative attitudes (in terms of
majority) toward change and almost complete positive
attitudes toward this particular idea of adopting the EDP
system, which had implications for further change in the
City of Burbank. Nevertheless, this contradiction can
be explained:
1. Having negative attitudes toward change does
271
not necessarily imply that an individual will oppose all
kinds of change and at all times.
2. No matter to what extent they dislike change
per se, the city administrators were aware of the urgent
need for better community services, and it was recognized
that computers could help the City improve such services,
and also reduce its operational cost.
3* The city administrators were also aware of
the fact that the City was still operating under tradi
tional methods, while the environment was going through
rapid technological change. In such an environment, it
was a great necessity for the survival and efficiency of
the system that the organization adapt itself to that en
vironment and make such basic changes as computerizing
the operations of the civic body.
4. Initially, and most important of all, the
arguments were all centered around the adoption of a small
electronic computer to be used in the finance department,
essentially for accounting and payroll purposes. This
limited usage of the computers, obviously, was not
thought to have important organization-wide implications.
Therefore, many administrators in the organization did not
think that it would have negative effects on their posi
tions, or status, in the organization. Actually, they
272
thought that the EDP would be fox the good of the organ
ization and its employees rather than being something
evil.
In the case of the attitudes of lower-level em
ployees toward the EDP system, as reflected by the heads
and assistant heads of departments and agencies, there
was a greater diffusion. Only about 55 percent of the
responding administrators thought that most of their sub
ordinates were in favor of the idea of adopting EDP.
Another 55 percent agreed with the statement that most of
their subordinates were indifferent to the idea, and 90
percent rejected the thought that most of their subordi
nates were against the change.
In general, there was neither an opposition to,
nor a significant support for. EDP on the part of the
lower-level employees. They were more indifferent to the
idea than their administrators, and not so much interested
in electronic computers or their implications. However,
one needs to be careful not to be misled by this finding
because the EDP would essentially affect the personnel of
the finance department in which the computers would be
located and utilized. The number of employees in the
finance department constituted only a small fraction of
all the city personnel.
273
Transformation of Change Inputs into
Actual Organizational Change
The idea of adopting electronic computers for use
by the City of Burbank emerged after the Booz-Allen-Hamil-
ton study was completed. Hence, the need for additional
data processing equipment to process the extra data load
created by the centralization of accounting, purchasing,
warehousing, and payroll activities was immediately felt.
The arguments and feasibility studies lasted for five
years (1960-1965). In spite of the competition among
several companies, in all three recommendations presented
to the City Manager, the final director favored and
strongly recommended IBM equipment for the very reason
that the city employees were accustomed to it, and that
changeover to a completely different type of equipment
would be difficult.
In 1965, the decision to adopt the EDP system and
lease the IBM-1440 (small scale computer) was made. The
decision was made in a homogeneous environment. There was
neither a significant opposition, nor an obvious power
struggle between those who favored and those who were
against the proposed change in the City of Burbank. Al
though there were a few department heads who objected to
the whole idea from the beginning, about 87 percent did
274
not see any kind of obvious struggle in the city organiza
tion in regard to that particular change. Moreover, there
was no significant opposition, or support either, coming
from individuals and groups outside the organization for
the adoption of EDP.
As indicated by the respondents in our sample sur
vey, the reasons for making the decision to adopt the EDP
system are shown in Table 6.
As Table 6 indicates, the most significant reasons
for making the decision to adopt the EDP system for use by
the City of Burbank, in order of their significance, are
(1) to improve the services produced by the city govern
ment; (2) to solve some particular problems faced in the
city government then; (3) for the City to adjust itself
to the technological developments taking place in its en
vironment; (4) to satisfy the needs and demands of top
management; (5) to satisfy the needs and demands of middle
management; and (6) to reduce the operational costs of
the city government.
The decision to adopt electronic data processing
system was essentially an answer to the desires of the top
management team and, to some extent, of the middle man
agers. The City Manager had faced certain problems which
blocked the effectiveness of the city*s operations in
275
TABLE 6
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS REASONS IN MAKING
THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE EDP SYSTEM INTO
THE CITY OF BURBANK
The decision to adopt Percent of the Respondents*
EDP System was made: Agree** Disagree**
to satisfy the needs and de
mands of top management 93 7
to satisfy the needs and de
mands of middle management 73 27
to satisfy the needs and de
mands of personnel at the
level of rank and file 13 87
to satisfy the needs and de
mands of outside individuals
and groups 17 83
to reduce the operation cost
of the city government 73 27
to improve the services pro
duced by the city government 100
to solve some particular
problems faced, at the time,
in the city government 97 3
for the City to adjust itself
to the technological develop
ments taking place in its
environment 97 3
♦Indicates approximate percentages.
**These are the combined percentages of the three
levels of agreement (Strongly Agree, Agree, and Slightly
Agree) and disagreement (Slightly Disagree, Disagree, and
Strongly Disagree).
276
providing better and faster services to the community.
A major problem was the growing division between the
Public Service Department and the rest of the city govern
ment. This department had adopted data processing equip
ment (punched card) in the late 1940s, and used it for
its own needs only. It had become an efficient profit-
making department, while the rest of the City was always
in need of money. The Public Service Department had mod
ern administrative practices. It was becoming more and
more separated from the rest of the government. Hence,
there was an urgent need to unify the activities of the
Public Service Department and the other elements of the
government. The idea of adopting electronic computers
was developed primarily to achieve this end.
Another problem which urged the management to
adopt the computers was that of accounting in the Finance
Department. The methods then being used were outdated,
the process was slow, and there was a delay of from three
to five months in putting out accounting reports. This,
in turn, caused delays in revenue collection, investments,
and overall inefficiency. The situation became even
worse after the different accounting activities were cen
tralized.
The above reasons for adopting EDP are not too
277
different than the ones found in other organizations.
Various studies have indicated that organizations in gen
eral decide to install EDP equipment for essentially the
same reasons: increasing their productivity and their data
handling capacity. For example — studying the introduc
tion of automation in 20 offices which employed a total
of 2,800 people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found the
following reasons for installation: (1) savings in the use
of clerical labor (though not necessarily involving reduc
tions in the size of the clerical work force); (2) savings
in the amount of equipment, space, and time needed for
data processing; (3) greater accuracy; (4) the solution of
clerical labor shortages; and (5) the provision of new
information.^
Similarly, an insurance company studied by Craig,
changed to EDP in order to cope with an increasing volume
of work, a shortage of suitable clerical personnel, and a
need to keep costs down.^
Our findings in Burbank indicated that there was
neither a significant negative, nor positive, reaction on
• ^ Adjustment to the Introduction of Office Automa
tion. Bulletin No. 1276 (Wasnington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Dept, of Labor, I960).
^H. F. Craig, Administering a Conversion to Elec
tronic Accounting (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Harvard University,
1955).
278
the part of the lower-level personnel to the decision
made.
Computers were delivered to the City in November,
1965. Following the examples of other cities, the elec
tronic computers were to be placed in the Finance Depart
ment. Because of the transfer of this department to a
new building, the computers could not be installed until
March, 1966. Thus, they were completely idle for four
months•
Upon the delivery, the Finance Department stopped
using some of the old machines; this added new confusion
to the already existing complications in regard to the
difficulties in finding an appropriate location and
trained manpower for the operation of the new machines.
The City was not ready for the immediate use of electronic
equipment, and it seemed that the feasibility studies had
neglected the organizational side of the problem* The
interviews revealed that IBM had, in a sense, imposed Its
decisions on the city administration concerning many rele
vant issues. A new system was being enjoined upon the old
structure, and it was natural that some confusion and in
efficiency would follow. About 98 percent of all the
respondents agreed that whatever confusion and ineffi-
ciecy which followed the adoption of EDP was a direct
279
consequence of the lack of trained personnel required for
the operation and administration of the electronic com
puters.
The Effects of EDP on the Human Elements
of the City Government
A great deal of attention has been put upon dis
placement of employees caused by computers. The findings
os social scientists in regard to this problem are not in
complete agreement. Some fear that the computers will
reduce the total need for labor and create mass unemploy
ment. For example, Wiener states:
The factory of the future • . . will be
controlled by something like a modern
high-speed computing machine. . . . We
can expect an abrupt and final cessa
tion of the demand for the type of fac
tory labor performing repetitive tasks
. . . an intermediate transitional peri
od of disastrous confusion. . . . Indus
try will be flooded with the new tools
to the extent that they appear to yield
immediate profits, irrespective of what
long term damage they can do. . . .It
is perfectly clear that this will pro
duce an unemployment situation, in com
parison with which the present recession
and even the depression of the thirties
will seem a pleasant joke.3
It is obvious that the introduction of EDP permits
the same amount of work to be done with fewer people than
%orbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings
Cambridge, Mass., 1950), pp. 180-181, 186, 188-189.
280
before, or the same number of people to handle more work.
For example, in the U.S. Treasury Department, after cer
tain operations were transferred to an electronic computer,
there was a 14 person increase in the work load, and a 48
percent decrease in the number of operating employees.
The output per employee then increased by 120 percent.
On the other hand, it has been argued that though
EDP makes many employees redundant, there are very few
layoffs. For example, in the empirical study of 20 of
fices, as mentioned above, carried out by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, it was found that only 13 employees out
of 2,800 had been discharged, and 9 laid off in the first
year after the introduction of EDP.
Although in social science literature, most atten
tion has been centered upon displacement of clerical
employees, some scholars have asserted that EDP has its
greatest impact upon management, for the forces produced
within the computerized organization which exert them
selves on managers at all levels. These demand new pat
terns of behavior from them. Usually, such problems as
retraining, and replacement emerge at managerial levels
as a result of introducing the system.4
^Herbert A. Simon, The Shape of Automation for
Men and Management (New York: Harper and How, 1965),
pp. 44-47.
281
Out of thirty-five administrators in Burbank who
were interviewed or answered the survey questionnaire,
two had changed their jobs, four had been promoted to
positions with greater duties and responsibilities, and
two had received salary promotions as a result of the new
system. About 74 percent indicated that so far, their
positions and status in the city organization had not
been affected by the new EDP system. The remaining 26
percent (ten out of thirty-four administrators) had been
affected by the computers in one way or another. However,
no one had been demoted or transferred to a job with
fewer duties and responsibilities, and no employee*s
salary had been reduced. Moreover, the importance of no
person*s position had been reduced in the organization as
a result of the new system.
If it is true that the EDP equipment permits the
same amount of work to be done with fewer people than
before, why then the infrequent dismissals and layoffs?
There are two major reasons: (1) an increase in produc
tivity will throw men out of work only if the output does
not increase. The adoption of EDP is generally confined
to expanding organizations, whose new operations can ab
sorb most of the "excess*1 personnel. (2) Normal attrition
and the absorption of excess personnel in other ways makes
282
layoffs unnecessary.5
As the findings of some other studies also indi
cate, the indirect effects of the change to EDP create
new avenues for upgrading, as well as for new positions
with a higher skill content. This requires retraining
of candidates for the new jobs.
As indicated earlier in the case of Burbank,
there was not a ready reserve of trained manpower in the
government for the efficient utilization of computers at
the time they were delivered. The new EDP system neces
sitated the training of those who were the potential
users of computers — particularly the heads and the
assistant heads of departments and agencies. To meet
this need, several training programs were offered. First,
there was a three-day long training program conducted by
IBM and paid for by the City. It was attended be a
representative from each governmental department. Second,
several employees attended the IBM school of training for
several weeks, and their expenses were paid Ly the City.
Finally, several persons took separate computer courses
from different universities. Our survey reveals that
twenty-seven out of thirty-four responding administrators
5K. G. Van Auken, Jr., "A Case Study of the Im
pact of Automation on Skills and Employment,1 1 Man and
Automation (The Technology Project) (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1956), pp. 32-39.
283
participated in at least one of these programs.
Considering that the EDP system in Burbank was
relatively new, and that many administrators could not
have been significantly influenced by it as yet, we asked
them if they thought that the system might have some ef
fects on their positions and status in the city organiza
tion in the future. With the exception of one, all denied
the possibility of any kind of negative effects which
could be exerted by the EDP upon their future positions
and status. About 65 percent thought that although the
new system had not yet affected their positions and
status, it might have some positive effects on them in the
future. Thus, it was obvious that there was no fear or
frustration on the part of the city administrators in
regard to the electronic computers, neither then nor for
the future.
In addition to the training programs and to meet
the manpower needs of the EDP system, new personnel have
been recruited by the City. In general, the transfer of
personnel in the organization from one job to another
has been greater since the adoption of the EDP system
(as agreed by 67 percent of the respondents). However,
there has not been a significant change in the rate of
turnover essentially as a result of the new system (as
284
agreed by almost 100 percent of those questioned).
Many scholars in the field of organization and
management have argued that computers create a class of
highly educated specialists and technicians in the organ
ization who enjoy greater prestige and status than their
equivalents in other departments. Several studies have
indicated that there has been empire building in the de
velopment of data processing departments
In our case, it was agreed by all of those ques
tioned that the new EDP system has now created a greater
need for highly educated specialists and computer tech
nicians in the organization. However, about 70 percent
felt that the EDP personnel or computer technicians in
the city government do not enjoy greater prestige and
status than their equivalents in other departments.
Nevertheless, a new Bureau of Electronic Data Processing
has been established, first as a part of the Finance De
partment and then as a separate bureau directly under the
office of the City Manager (since July 1, 1967). To meet
the needs of this bureau, old personnel have been trained
and new ones recruited.
Several studies in the field have indicated that
the greatest effects of computers in organizations fall
^Edward Weber, rtThe New Empires in Data Proc
essing,1 1 Advanced Management (April 1964), pp. 75-79.
285
upon the middle management level. Fox example, Leavitt
and Whisler have axgued that the xanks of the middle man
agement would be xeduced and many of theix functions
would be made xoutine, thus downgxading many middle man-
7
agexs. In the case of Buxbank, howevex, about 85 pexcent
of the xespondents — mostly middle managexs — disagxeed
with the statement that the new EDP system had now
cxeated a feax in the organization on the paxt of the
pexsonnel at the middle management level, which would
indicate that the electxonic computers would eventually
undertake an essential part of their jobs and thus cause
their downgrading. Fewer respondents (about 62 percent)
denied that there was such a fear on the part of the
lower level employees of the City.
It was obvious from both the interviews and the
responses given to the questionnaire, that the computers
in Burbank have had no negative effects on the middle
management, although the middle managers were not com
pletely free of their influence. Moreover, these managers
did not see any possibility for negative effects of com
puters in the future. On the contrary, they thought that
John A. Postley, Computers and People (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., I960), p. 96. See also,
Melvin Anshen, "The Manager and the Black Box,*1 Harvard
Business Review, 38:87 (November-December I960).
286
the machines would eventually have some positive effects
on their positions and status in the system. About 38
percent of the responding administrators thought that the
computers would have greater implications (mostly negative)
for the lower level personnel of the city government
rather than the middle management.
A study by Hoos, conducted in the San Francisco
Bay area, found that EDP application tends to make an
office a "paper processing factory." Work becomes more
routine, more monotonous, pressured, and confining with
a greater demand for accuracy and concern for detail.
Work routine and pace become closely tied to the machines
and the organization becomes less tolerant of errors. The
system then becomes more rational as it puts a premium on
regular attendance and imposes specific deadlines and work
quotas. As a result, workers with a high productivity
experience a great deal of tension on the job. Employees
and supervisors often complain that they lose some of
their autonomy.®
Moreover, Kraut reports:
It has been found, for instance, that with
the advent of EDP, key-punch operators, who
O
Ida R. Hoos, "The Impact of Office Automation on
Workers," International Labor Review (October 1960), pp.
363-388. See also, Ida R. Hoos, ,bWhen the Computer Takes
Over the Office," Harvard Business Review, 38:106 (July-
August 1960) .
287
increase in number, are subjected to produc
tion quotas and to a considerable amount of
pressure for maintaining accuracy. Many of
them develop psychosomatic symptoms because
of this stress, and complain of being
“chained to the machine.'* The “factory
like atmosphere" of their work is further
heightened by the noise of the key punching
equipment and other m a c h i n e s . 9
As far as it could be seen by the administrators
of the City of Burbank, EDP created no such tension on
the job. This was indicated by about 70 percent of the
respondents, although 53 percent agreed that there was
some confusion and stress on the job right after the com
puters had been adopted. This lasted from five to eight
months.
Another finding of empirical research in the
field of computerization has been that the EDP causes the
redivision of labor, and this, in turn, destroys the in
teraction and interdependence of workers, disrupts group
cohesiveness and hampers the formation of new relation
ships.^ As evidenced by the answers of 84 percent of
those queried, and up to the time this research was con
ducted, this was not the case in Burbank. Furthermore,
about 90 percent of the administrators did not think that
the EDP has so far reduced jobs to simple tasks, and that
^Alen I. Kraut, "How EDP Is Affecting Workers and
Organizations," Personnel, XXXIX (July-August 1962), pp.
38-50.
■^Hoos, "When the Computer Takes ..."
288
employees have become the feeders of machines, thus
starting to lose their individualities.
Nevertheless, more than 80 percent of the respond
ents felt that EDP has not so far had any positive effects
on the employee morale in the city organization. Approx
imately 67 percent did not agree that most of the personnel
are now happy about the new system. Another 66 percent
rejected the possibility that the EDP system may have
greater negative effects on the employee morale and hap
piness in the City in the future.
Finally, in regard to the effects of the electronic
computer on the human elements of organization, the views
as to the kind of managers to be found in future computer
ized organizations are somewhat conflicting. It has long
been argued that the electronic computers will have a
tremendous impact on the role of managers at all levels in
the organization. Prior to the use of computers, managers
spent much of their time making decisions that required
intuitive reasoning which was born of their long experi
ence ana basic intelligence. Properly installed, the
computer brings new facts to bear on these decisions which
never before had been available to them. In such volume,
their proper use necessitates exercise of new skills of
leadership;H and the managers are required to be profes-
Upeter W. Melitz, "Impact of Data Processing on
Managers," Advanced Management (April 1961), pp. 4-6.
289
sionals and, to some extent, computer experts. ^
Others argue that computers have created new
skills and new demands for mathematicians, computer ex
perts, systems analysts, operation researchers, and so
forth. Many of the traditional jobs of management are
affected by these newcomers. Most of the planning activ
ities are undertaken by computers, and thus the executives
find themselves dealing more and more with interpersonal
relations — either with customers or their own staffs —
getting correct information, and so forth, and having more
leisure time than they previously had.^-3
Finally, others maintain that the kind of managers
to be found in the future organizations, particularly
those at upper levels, will receive substantially more
formal education than the average administrator of today.
The emphasis upon fundamental theoretical knowledge will
make the top men more like today’s "staff" men, and less
like the bosses of yesterday. This will be in terms of
behavior, attitudes and interests. Their orientation
will be more that of the outward-looking professional,
who is interested in the problems of others in the pro-
l^Simon, pp. cit., pp. 44-45.
13Alice M. Hilton, "Full Employment and Human
Tasks," Data Processing. 6:33-36 (July 1964).
290
fession, more visible to others, and probably more in
clined to be mobile.^
In the City of Burbank, our study revealed that
there was now a greater need created by the new EDP system
for the top management personnel to become more profes
sional and to possess more technical knowledge (as agreed
by 91 percent of the respondents). Therefore, the new
EDP system has so far not created more leisure time in
the organization, this, contrary to theoretical arguments
(as agreed by 98 percent of the respondents).
The Effects of the EDP on the
Structural Elements of the
City Government
Effects of the EDP on Different
Levels of Management
It has been argued by many scholars that EDP in
organizations creates a sharper and an impenetrable de
marcation between the top and the middle management
levels. While the latter may thin out, the former will
burgeon — especially during the transition period when
the technologists of electronic data processing cluster
■^Thomas L. Whisler and George P. Shultz, “Auto
mation and the Management Process," The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science. CCCXL
(March 1962), pp. 81-89.
291
thickly about headquarters. The general effect will be
to transfer most of the thinking and planning specialists
toward the upper levels as their planning spheres become
locked together and consolidated. The duties and re
sponsibilities of the top management are increased; the
middle management level goes down in importance; and there
comes a decline in clerical, secretarial and semi-tech
nical employment in the organization as a result of
computerization.
In the case of Burbank, there was not a signifi
cant change in the number of personnel at the middle
management level. Ninety percent of the administrators
did not think that the EDP system has so far reduced the
importance of that level of management. Moreover, all
the respondents but one denied that a sharper and im
penetrable demarcation between top and the middle manage
ment levels has been created under the influence of the
new system.
On the other hand, there was a general agreement
among the respondents that the number of personnel at the
top management level has increased since the adoption of
1
John T. Dunlop (ed.), Automation and Techno
logical Change (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1962), p. 59; also, Anshen, op. cit., pp. 85-92.
292
1 f\
computers, and that the new EDP system has caused an
increase in the duties and responsibilities of the top
management.
Furthermore, the respondents did not see any de
cline in clerical, secretarial, and semi-technical em
ployment in the city organization as a result of the new
EDP system.
Effects of the EDP on the Man
agerial Decision-making
The executive decision-making has been said to be
analogous to the behavior of the computer. When the re
quired information, and the criteria and the rule neces
sary for determining the course of action which is most
likely to produce the desired results are provided to a
computer, it assumes the ability to process data and make
decisions.^
The computer1s value is greater for programmed
routine and repetitive decisions where the information
can easily be programmed. However, even in novel and
1 f i
However, we cannot be sure that the EDP was the
cause of the increase of personnel at the level of top
management. It is quite possible that there were some
other factors such as the managerial drive for centrali
zation of operations in the City, and so forth.
17
Herbert A. Simon, The New Science of Management
Decision (New York; Harper and Row, 1960), pp. 5-6.
293
complex non-programmed decisions, some components can be
programmed. Thus, Simon states, *'Our analysis shows that
there is every prospect that we will soon have the tech
nological means . . . to automate all management deci
sions, non-programmed as well as programmed.
It has also been argued by others that the effects
of computers on the decision-making system in organization
is quite significant. First of all, some of the decisions
previously made by the middle managers may be undertaken
by the computers. Greater responsibilities for decision
making and planning may be transferred to top management,
and the decision-making functions, and responsibilities
of the middle managers, may be reduced. Second, decisions
made in the organization may be faster and more effective
because of the fast and accurate data to be provided by
computers. Third, greater emphasis may be placed upon
participative group decision-making because the inter
disciplinary nature of EDP requires central team decision
making.^
Our findings in the City of Burbank revealed the
fact that the use of computers there was not as yet so
18
Simon, The Shape of Automation » . ., p. 47.
■^Valliant M. Higgerson, Managing with EDP, A
Look at the State of Art (American Management Associa
tion, Inc., AMA Research Study, No. 71, 1965), p. 77.
extensive that it could affect the system of decision
making. The several reasons for that outcome seemed to
be, firstly, the freshness of the system (about three
years), and, secondly, the scale of the computers (IBM-
1440 small scale computers). Therefore, the computers
in Burbank are still performing repetitive clerical jobs; ,
and there has not been any attempts as yet to program
decisions into the computers. Thus, there was no sig
nificant evidence indicating that some of the decisions
previously made by the middle managers are now being made
by the computers, or that the decision-making and planning
functions and responsibilities of the middle management
has been reduced as a result of the new EDP system.
Furthermore, there was neither significant evidence to
indicate that greater decision-making and planning re
sponsibilities have been transferred to top management,
nor any important sign of greater emphasis on participa
tive group decision-making since the adoption of the
machines.
However, 61 percent of our respondents agreed
that administrative decisions in the city organization
are now being made much faster, and about seventy indi
cated that decisions made in the city organization are
now more effective than the ones prior to the adoption of
295
electronic computers. This is essentially a result of
the new EDP system.
Effects of the EDP on Communi
cation Network in the City of
Burbank
It has been predicted that as a result of the
creation of a centralized information systems department,
or a central electronic data processing office, communica
tion channels will vastly be c h a n g e d .20 More information
will flow downward through the new man-machine hierarchy;
the communication system will become more multi-direc-
tional. Information will flow in all directions from a
single center, and more and more information will go to
the top and be screened by the management and staff of
the electronic data processing d e p a r t m e n t.21 Conse
quently, the communication network will function more
effectively.
Our findings in Burbank did not indicate any sig
nificant change in the communication system as a result
of the new EDP system. It was true that a new Bureau of
Electronic Data Processing had been opened. However, it
20
S. C. Blumenthal, "Breaking the Chain of Com
mand," Business Automation (December 1964), pp. 30-33.
21Harold J. Leavitt, Managerial Psychology
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 72.
296
was, most probably, too new to bring about any signifi
cant change in the channels of communication, or its
overall effectiveness.
Although the new system had contributed adminis
trative decisions to be made more timely and more effec
tively, only around 50 percent of our respondents felt
that there were some improvements in the transmission
network; this was in the sense that more information now
flows downward and in all directions. Thus, more accurate
information goes upward to the top management.
The idea of feedback has now become an essential
part of communication, and it has long been argued that
it is an inevitable part of all social systems. The in
stallment of the EDP in Burbank has brought a new, but
not significant, emphasis on feeding the available in
formation from internal and external environments in
form of reactions to the activities and operations of,
and decisions made by the City, as well as services pro
vided (as agreed by about 60 percent of the respondents)
back into the City for further improvements.
However, it is important to point out that con
trary to expectations, there was no significant sign to
indicate that the managers of the new Bureau of Electronic
Data Processing or the EDP experts in the city organiza-
297
tion had acquired a more influential position or greater
power and authority than their equivalents in other de
partments. Furthermore, there was no sign indicating a
significant screening or withholding of information by
the EDP personnel.
The EDP and Formalization
Another major area in the organization which is
quite sensitive to the effects of EDP is the formalization
of procedures: the degree to which the formal aspects of
organization (rules and regulations, work procedures, and
so forth) are emphasized.^
In the City of Burbank, about 61 percent of our
respondents agreed that the new EDP system in the City
has led to a greater formalization of procedures in the
organization, though it has not reduced the importance of
the informal side of the organization. As it was re
vealed through interviews — although not significant —
there is now a greater demand for accuracy, more concern
for details, and more rigid enforcement of deadlines in
the city organization essentially as a result of the EDP.
However, opinions were almost equally divided when the
respondents were asked if they felt that there was a
^Dunlop, op. cit., p. 58.
298
greater emphasis on rules and regulations substituted for
individual discretion in making administrative decisions,
if the standard of performance was now higher than it was
prior to the adoption of the EDP system, and if the en
forcement of rules and regulations, performance standards
and deadlines in the organization has now become more
rigid than it was prior to the adoption of the electronic
computers.
In regard to work procedures, it was obvious that
the implications of computers were not too wide. The work
practices, methods and techniques had been significantly
altered in departments which utilized the machines or
which were functionally closer to the Bureau of Electronic
Data Processing. However, only a small percentage of the
respondents agree that work in the city organization has
become more routine and monotonous (16 percent), and that
the organization was becoming more and more a paper proc
essing factory (26 percent).
The EDP and Centralization
Several empirical, as well as theoretical studies,
have found that the use of EDP has reversed the trend
from decentralization toward more centralization. For
example, Hoos argues that EDP has stimulated two types of
decentralization. "One related to the integration of
specific functions and affect primarily the internal or
ganization of the company. The other involves regrouping
of the entire units of the operation and causes sweeping
changes of the external structure as well."23 Similarly,
Whisler and Shultz point out that when a new technique
of handling information is introduced — one which chan
nels the information into and out of a computer — the
grouping of activities which makes up the divisions and
levels of an organizational structure will be affected
in two ways: first, to combine some currently separate
activities and second, to separate others which are con
current. However, the composite effect should be stronger
since it is the nature of computers to integrate and en
capsulate the flow of information. The tendency is to
reduce the number of organization links. The authors
continue, therefore, to present several cases of such
integration.24
In the case of Burbank, 67 percent of the respond
ents felt that the new EDP system has led to greater
centralization in the organization. About 62 percent felt
23hoos, "When Computers Take . . p. 107. See
also Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961), p. 210.
OA
Whisler and Shultz, op. cit.
300
that there is now greater need for the consolidation of
the operations in the city organization — essentially
to meet the requirements of the EDP system. Approximately
74 percent agreed that the EDP has created a greater need
for enlarged integration of departments, offices, and
units in the city organization.
Thinking that the use of computers in an organi
zation may require more professional knowledge and, in
turn, a greater number of staff personnel, we asked the
interviewees if there was any change in the size of the
staff and line personnel in their departments, as a re
sult of the new EDP. Ten out of twenty-nine respondents
stated that there had been a decline in the number of
line personnel, and an increase in staff personnel since
the computers had been adopted. However, they did not
indicate to what extent.
The EDP and Organizational
Control
It is likely that the integrating and rational
izing force of the new technology will lead to a greater
centralization of control within the organization. The
impetus for tighter controls may result from both an
effort to fully load an expensive machine, and the elec
tronic computer*s enormous capacity for very rapidly
301
analyzing a wide range and quantity of interrelated data.
Our research findings indicate that the new EDP
system in Burbank has created a tighter control over the
lower level operations of the organization, as agreed by
71 percent of the respondents. Only about 50 percent
thought that there has been a centralization of control
in the hands of top management, under the influence of
EDP. About 71 percent rejected the statement that "the
EDP personnel in the organization now exercise signifi
cant control over the operations of the City."
The Effects of the EDP on the Goal
Elements of the City of Burbank
After the interviews with the city administrators
were conducted, the following goals of the City of Bur
bank were identified: Efficiency — provision of better
and faster services and lower costs — and effectiveness
— satisfaction of the needs and demands of employees in
the city organization, satisfaction of the needs and de
mands of the individuals and groups outside the organiza
tion, maintenance, growth and development of the govern
ment, and adaptation of the City to the changes and
developments in its environment.
As we attempted to measure the effects of the EDP
on these goals, through the opinions of the administrators
302
of the City, the results were as follows:
About 78 percent of the respondents felt that,
overall, the government organization of Burbank has be
come more efficient in its operations since the computers
have been brought in. However, when it was operational
ized, only about 60 percent agreed that the services now
provided are much faster. About 52 percent thought that
the services now provided are better than they were prior
to the adoption of the computers. Almost 80 percent did
not think that there was any reduction in the operation
costs of the City.
In regard to effectiveness, only about 50 percent
agreed that the computers have helped to satisfy the
needs and demands of the employees in the city organiza
tion, or those of outside individuals and groups. About
the same percentage of the respondents (50 percent)
thought that the EDP has contributed to the maintenance,
growth, and development of the city government. Approxi
mately 61 percent believed that the EDP has aided the
government significantly to adapt itself to the changes
and development in its environment.
In short, although there were improvements in the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the city system, they
were not too significant; and there was little indication
that the improvements, since the adoption of the elec-
303
txonic computers, were the direct results of the new EDP
system.
Finally, in relation to the association of EDP
and the “systems” idea — made in theoretical discussions
— it was revealed by our research that the idea of "or
ganization as a total system composed of parts and ele
ments" has not yet gained a common ground in the city
organization, although 87 percent of our respondents
thought that organizations would be more effective and
more efficient if they were constructed, studied, and
analyzed based upon the principles of the "total system"
concept.
Summary and Conclusions
In this part of the dissertation, we have pre
sented and analyzed a case of organizational change within
the framework provided by the systems model of organiza
tional change which has been developed in the second part
of this work. We have studied the organization of the
City of Burbank as a total integrated system with its in-
terdepenBent and interacting elements and parts. We have
seen that the city organization is located in a dynamic
technological environment which has been going through
rapid change and which has required continuous change and
304
adaptation on the part of the organization.
To specify the area of organization fox analysis,
we have narrowed down the whole range of organizational
change in the City’of Burbank to a case of planned tech
nological change. Following the presentation of the case,
we have attempted to analyze the whole process ox organ
izational change in the City of Burbank which started
with the adoption of the electronic data processing equip
ment about three years ago.
First looking at the technological change inputs
of the city organization, the environment in which such
inputs developed has been analyzed and the technological
change inputs, their sources and reasons have been iden
tified.
Second, the transformation of change inputs into
actual organizational change, including the adoption of
the planned change, the power structure through which the
change was adopted, the effects of EDP on the human ele
ments, the structural elements (levels of management,
decision-making, communication, formalization, central
ization), and goals elements of the organization, have,
been analyzed.
Finally, the effects of EDP on the organizational
control and feedback have been given some consideration.
305
We can summarize the findings of this part of the
study as follows:
1. Most of the administrators in our case organ
ization have been in their present positions for quite
some time. Although this fact increases the stability
and equilibrium of the system, it also reduces the growth
and is an obstacle to the effective process of its change
and adaptation to the rapid technological changes in the
environment* Therefore, a method of job rotation for
shorter periods of time seems to be necessary in order to
allow individuals to have experience in different posi
tions, and also to increase their abilities so that they
may deal with change and thus qualify for higher adminis
trative positions*
2* Most of the administrators in our study come
from the local citizenry. Although this is an essential
principle of self-help, and of local government, it tends
to isolate the system from the rest of the society thus
making it a closed rather than an open system. Elimi
nation of the disadvantages of the former requires the
recruitment of change agents from outside the system.
3. Although most of the city administrators have
an education of a Bachelor*s degree, or more, it seems to
be necessary for the government system to make provisions
306
for its leaders to take courses in organization and man
agement, administrative behavior, systems analysis, and
so forth, and to participate in training programs which
put a special emphasis on sensitivity or laboratory ses
sions, to overcome their conservative nature and to
familiarize them with the latest developments in their
administrative environment.
4. The top management team plays a significant
role in the process of organizational change and seems to
be the most effective change-agent in the body. The tech
nological change in our case organization was essentially
an intellectual product of the internal environment of
the City and it was an answer to the needs and demands of
top management. Therefore, this function of top manage
ment needs to be given due attention.
5. Some of the significant reasons for the adop
tion of EDP for use by the City of Burbank were:
a) To improve the 'services produced by the
city government,
b) To solve some particular problems faced
in the city government (i.e., to increase cooperation and
coordination between the Public Service Department and
the other departments of the city government, to carry the
increased load of data processing, and to deal with out-
dated accounting procedures),
c) To adjust to the technological changes
in the environment,
d) To reduce the operational costs of the
government, and so forth.
6. There were several mistakes made by the city
administrators during the feasibility studies:
a) The problem of qualified or sufficiently
trained manpower was not given due attention,
b) The city administration was deeply influ
enced by outside groups in its decisions with respect to
the type of computers to be adopted,
c) The present, rather than the future, needs
of the system had been taken into consideration in select
ing the type of data processing equipment to be employed,
and
d) The needed space and appropriate location
for the computers had been miscalculated.
7. There were several mistakes made by the city
administrators during the changeover process:
a) Delivery of the computers was poorly
timed so that the computers were completely idle for
several months,
b) Formal training of the personnel was not
adequate,
c) While it is usually necessary and useful
to have a period of "parallel operation" of old and new
systems, the City stopped using some of the old machines
immediately upon the arrival of the computers, thus adding
to the confusion, and
d) To temporarily overcome the emerging
problems, the NCR-395 accounting machine was rented with
out any consideration for the availability of qualified
manpower to operate it. Thus, this machine also remained
idle until the termination date of the lease contract.
8. The following effects of the EDP on the human
elements of the system were observed:
a) Transfers from one job to another,
b) Promotions to the jobs with greater
duties and responsibilities,
c) Salary advancements,
d) Training and retraining of old and new
personnel,
e) Recruitment of new personnel,
f) Greater need for highly educated special
ists and computer technicians,
g) Creation of a new Bureau of Electronic
Data Processing,
309
h) Some confusion and stress on the job fox
several months following the installation of computers,
i) Greater need for the members of the top
management to become more professional and possess more
technical knowledge.
9. The effects of the EDP on the structural ele
ments of the system were as follows:
a) Increase in the number of personnel at
the top level,
b) Much faster and more effective adminis
trative decision-making,
c) Improvements in the communication network
and the information system, and a new emphasis on feed
back,
d) Greater formalization of procedures in
the system; greater demand for accuracy, more concern for
details, and more rigid enforcement of deadlines,
e) Greater need for consolidation of the
operations and greater centralization and integration of
departments, offices, and other units,
f) An increase in the number of staff per
sonnel and a slight decline in the number of line per
sonnel, and
g) A tighter control over the lower level
310
operations of the system) and a greater centralization of
control at top management level.
10. The goal elements of the system were effected
by the EDP (the initial change) as follows:
a) Greater efficiency in the operations of
the system: better and faster services provided by the
city government, and
b) Greater effectiveness in the operations
of the system: greater satisfaction of the city personnel
as well as of the local citizens, increased ability of the
city government to adapt itself to the changes in its en
vironment, and facilitated growth and development of the
system.
11. The effects of computers were greater in the
departments or offices of the city government which were
functionally and/or structurally closer to the newly
formed Bureau of Electronic Data Processing.
12. The electronic computers in the City of Bur
bank were too new and their scale was not large enough
to create significant effects on either the human, or
structural, or goal elements, of the system.
PART IV
METHODOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER IX
EMPIRICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MODEL
AND THE PROSPECTS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
This chapter is organized into four sections.
The first is an attempt to summarize the study and inte
grate what has been said thus far. The second identifies
some analytical concepts which can be used as a means to
differentiate a systems approach to organizational change
from other conventional or reductionist approaches. The
third developes some general tests of*achievement in
bringing about organizational change. The last is a pro
posed research design for empirical testing of the model.
Summary
This study has been no more than a preliminary
step in the broader effort of devising a realistic ap
proach to the study of organizational change. The probe
starts with the recognition that today1s world is a
rapidly changing one, and today1s organizations are
located in a dynamic environment. In such surroundings,
312
313
organizations are obliged to change and adapt themselves
to the changes in their environs. Given this fact, there
fore, what is the so-called ’ ’organizational change" and
how can it effectively be brought about? These questions
have constituted the core of this study.
In order to understand, explain, and predict the
phenomena of change in organizations, we have looked at
the prevailing theories of, and approaches to, organiza
tional change and have seen that such approaches are un
derlined by a basic weakness: they all have a reductionist
or partial nature. Such approaches reduce the total phe
nomena of organizational change to a single or few
elements. They equate organizational change with alter
ations in either human, technological, or structural
elements of an organization. They do not pay sufficient
attention to the totality of organization and to the in
teraction and the interdependence of the elements and
parts. In this sense, they do not seem to be realistic.
They have been ineffective both in understanding and
bringing about successful organizational change.
V/e have argued that the shortcomings of the ex
isting approaches to organizational change can be overcome
through the utilization of a systems theory* We have
attempted to explore the systems idea.and some-basic
314
concepts related to it. We have elaborated on systems
theory, and its application to organizations, and we have
indicated its contributions in the field of organizations.
Based upon the essentials of the systems theory, we have
attempted to construct a systems model of organizational
change (l) to overcome the shortcomings of the existing
theories concerning such change; (2) to better understand,
explain and predict the phenomena of change in organiza
tions; (3) to bring about successful change; and (4) to
fill the existing gap between the theories of organiza
tional change and the more general theories of organi
zation.
A systems approach to the study of both organi
zations and change is a significant improvement over the
traditional theories. This approach overcomes the reduc
tionist or the individualistic bias.
The systems theory views an organization as a
total mode of operation, composed of interdependent and
interacting elements and parts. It is located in an en
vironment and is subject to its effects. It is an open
system and in constant interaction with its surroundings,
from which it imports change inputs, transforms them into
further changes in various elements and parts, and adapts
itself to the alterations in the environment.
315
A systems or systemic approach to achieving or
bringing about organizational change requires that equal
attention be paid to all the elements and parts of the
system, and its needs, as well as those of its subunits.
All should be taken into consideration. It views organi
zational change not as a single act, but a process, a sum
of all the changes which take place in an organization as
a result of an initial change.
The systems model of organizational change pro
vides a framework which readily can be applied to study
the phenomena of planned change in any organization sys
tematically. It is built upon five basic concepts:
Change Inputs
Change inputs of organization systems are those
imports which have future potential to create changes in
the system. They may come from internal or external or
both environments of organization. Such inputs are orig
inated by human needs and demands, and usually appear in
the form of a problem. Following the identification of
the problem and its causes, alternatives for its solution
are sought; the required change is planned; and objectives
are set up. The change inputs are transferred into the
organization either through human or technological
elements of organization.
316
Throughputs (Transformation of
Change Inputs Into Actual
Organizational Change)
As defined earlier, organizational change is the
whole process of change which takes place in the organiza
tional system as a consequence of an initial change and
it must be differentiated from changes in the elements of
organization. The specific target of the initial change
may be any one or a combination of change areas listed
earlier. However, as a result of the complex and inter
dependent nature of the elements and parts of organiza
tions, the initial change is expected to bring further
changes in the rest of the organization. Both the adop
tion of the initial change for the solution of the problem
faced and the subsequent changes in the organization take
place through a power struggle between the proponents and
opponents of change. What may happen will depend upon a
wide variety of independent and intervening variables.
Change Outputs
Change outputs of an organization system may be
viewed at two different levels: (1) achievement of the
specific objectives of change which may be measured in
two different ways — satisfaction of human needs and de
317
mands which caused the original problem for the solution
of which the change was brought about, and the solution
of the problem; and (2) the contributions made to the
ultimate goals of organization which are survival, main
tenance, growth and development.
Feedback
Feedback requires feeding the information gener
ated about the change outputs, as well as the whole
process of change, back into the organization through an
effective system of communication.
Control
Control system has a crucial importance in the
whole process of change and it requires a systemic check
to be put on change inputs to eliminate disruptive ele
ments entering into the organization, on throughputs to
provide an orderly transformation of initial change into
subsequent changes, on change outputs to assure the
achievement of planned objectives, and on feedback to see
that information is fed back into the organization for
further improvements.
When put together, these elements provide a com
prehensive framework for the study of organizational
318
change and it can be visualized as in Figure 4.
To test the ability of the model to serve as an
analytical tool to understand, explain, and analyze the
phenomena of change in organizations, we have applied the
framework developed by the model to a case of organiza
tional change. The .contributions made by the model to
study and analyze the selected case became evident in
i
several ways: (l) it was fruitful in pointing out the
areas to which the study could be directed; (2) it pro
vided analytical tools against which the performance of
the approach used by the City of Burbank to bring about
organizational change could be checked and its short
comings could be identified; and (3) it has served as an
ideal type according to which mistakes can be corrected
and future plans and practices can be improved.
That which has been done in this study is, no
doubt, a significant improvement over what exists in the
field of organizational change. Change in organizations
can now be better understood, explained, and predicted
and may be brought about more successfully through the
utilization of the systems model developed here.
Nevertheless, being a case, universal generaliza
tions based on this study cannot be justified. Until
empirically tested, our theoretical model should be viewed
Human needs and demands ENVIRONMENT
a - Interna I
b - External
ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT
CONTROL
THROUGH PUTS
(Change Area) CHANGE INPUTS
~ Change
| inputs of
human
o elements
o_
cr
1 / 1 "
C 5 1
C D 5
.a a
— ) C D O
Change '
inputs of
technological
elements
ca
to
to
to
Figure 4
CHANGE OUTPUTS
1. Achievement of specific
change objectives
^ 2. Contributions made to the
ultimate goals of
organization. (Survival
and maintenance, growths
and development)
320
as a set of tentative hypotheses; and, of course, it is
always open to criticism, revision and improvement.
So far, the study has been presented in broad ab
stract terms. As long as it remains on this level, its
utility may be limited. One*s confidence in such a study,
more specifically in the systems model developed, will
greatly be enhanced if it is empirically tested. To pro
vide such a test, the model needs to be operationalized.
In the last part of the dissertation, an effort to
specify the model and put it in more concrete terms was
made and for that purpose a questionnaire was constructed
(see Appendix). However, our purpose there was to demon
strate how the theoretical framework provided by the model
could be used to study and analyze a case of organizational
change rather than to provide an empirical test, in its
scientific meaning, for the model. Although the use of
the model in providing both a theoretical framework for
the study and an analytical tool for the analysis of or
ganizational change proved to be successful, we are not
yet sure that if our systems approach to organizational
change is more effective than the traditional reductionist
or partial approaches to the study of organizational
change in explaining and predicting change and bringing it
about in organizations. For that the model needs to be
321
empirically tested. What follows is an effort first, to
identify the "systems approach to organizational change"
and differentiate it from "conventional reductionist or
partial approaches to organizational change"; second,
develop some general tests of achievement in bringing
about planned organizational change; and, third, make
suggestions for an empirical test of the model.
Identification of Some Analytical Concepts
to Differentiate Systems Approach to
Organizational Change from
Conventional Reductionist
or Partial Approaches
A great portion of the systems approach to organ
izational change is nothing but a systematic description
of the change process in organizations. Nevertheless,
there are some basic differences, although not too clear-
cut, between the systemic approach and the more conven
tional reductionist or partial approaches to organiza
tional change. The identification of such differences
will provide the first basic step toward the development
of an empirical test for the model. Wo have selected the
following guiding concepts to differentiate the two ap
proaches to organizational change. Although we have
attempted to specify each guiding concept for the purpose
of an empirical test, they may further be operationalized
322
depending upon the conditions of the situation in which
research is to be conducted.
1 — Change Agents
Change agent is one or more individual(s) who act
as agents to bring about the desired change in organiza
tions. Change agent may be from inside ox from outside
the organization. He may act with intuition and common
sense or may base his decisions and actions on scientific
knowledge to achieve organizational change.
The systemic approach to organizational change is,
in a sense, an interdisciplinary one; therefore, it re
quires the change agent to be a team composed of indi
viduals who are specialized in different aspects of organ
izational life. Such an approach attaches maximum
importance to the use of scientific knowledge in solving
the problems of the organization and bringing about
change; this requires scholarly help from the outside.
It also infers that the problems of the organization can
be solved most effectively by the members themselves.
This requires them to participate in the process of organ
izational change. Thus, in the systems approach, change
is planned, carried out, and evaluated by an interdisci
plinary team which is composed of the members of the
323
organization as well as outside agents.
On the other hand, a change agent in conventional
reductionist approaches to organizational change is
usually a single, or few individual(s) either members
of the organization or outside agents — who have a cer
tain field of specialization and therefore cannot approach
the problem of the organization systemically by taking the
total organization into consideration. Moreover, the
actions of such change agents are usually based on intui
tion and common sense, particularly when they are members
of the organization.
A case of organizational change, or an approach,
can thus be placed on a scale, such as the one indicated
below which provides a continuum from conventional reduc
tionist (RA) or partial approaches to systems, or sys
temic, approach (SA), according to its characteristics
in regard to the change agent.
Change agent is a single or Change agent is an inter-
few individuals, either from disciplinary team com-
outside or inside the organ- posed of both members of
ization. Their decisions organization and outside
and actions are usually based agents. Their decisions
on intuition and common sense. and actions are based on
the application of scien
tific knowledge.
RA SA
For example, in the case study presented in the
last part of the dissertation, the characteristics of the
approach used with respect to change agent come to be
quite close to the left end of the scale; that is, it has
more the characteristics of a reductionist approach. As
will be remembered, the change agent, in the beginning
was the City Manager, and then the two city officials in
the Finance Department. There was no outside scholarly
help and in many cases intuition was the basis of action.
This point was quite clear in the recommendations made by
Mr. Ferick and Mr. Dettman to the City Manager.
2 — Identification of Change Inputs
Organizational change is usually an answer to the
needs and demands of human beings, either inside or out
side the organization, or both. Thus, the satisfaction
of them necessitates a systematic identification of the
problem or change input as the first step in the process
of change. The alternative solutions which will be
adopted, the changes which will be made, and the methods
used will all depend upon identification of change inputs.
In short, the effectiveness of a change program will be
greatly determined at a problem identification stage.
In a systemic approach to organizational change,
325
the change inputs are determined through systemic re
search; that is, the problem and its causes, the human
needs and demands, and their origins are clearly identi
fied before any further step is taken. In other words,
this is a determination of cause and effect relationships.
In a systems approach such relationships are characterized
by multiple causation.
On the other hand, in reductionist approaches the
problem, its causes and origins usually remain vague. The
change inputs are generally determined through a "look-
and-seeM approach, and the entire problem is frequently
reduced to a single cause.
An approach to organizational change could be
placed on a scale similar to that of the change agent who
provides a continuum from RA to SA, also according to its
characteristics, with respect to the identification of
change inputs. (A similar scale is used for all the ana
lytical variables listed below.)
Change inputs are identified Change inputs are identi-
through a "look-and-see1 1 fied through systematic
approach; problem is fre- research; cause-effect
quently reduced to a single relationships are char-
cause. acterized by multiple
causation.
RA ---------------------------------- SA
326
Depending upon the way in which the problem is
identified, the alternative solution adopted or change
to be carried out likewise will be simplistic or system
atic .
In our case study, the problem emerged right after
the centralization of accounting, purchasing, warehousing,
and payroll activities in the City of Burbank. It ap
peared in the form of difficulties felt in data processing
and was an expression of employee needs and demands. The
causes of such trouble could have been a variety of things
— unqualified manpower, structural irregularities such as
inefficiencies in communication, decision-making, delega
tion of authority, and so forth, technological problems
such as the use of inefficient methods, procedures, tools,
material or machines, inefficiencies in interdepartmental
relationships, or a combination of these. Instead of a
systemic search for the identification of the problem and
its causes and origins, the City Manager hastily concluded
that the problem was a technological one and it would be
solved by the adoption of electronic data processing
equipment (EDP). Thus, the approach to organizational
change, in this case, is once again characterized by
reductionist approaches.
327
3 — Change Target
Change target is the area in the organization to
which the change is directed. It may be one or more ele
ments) or part(s) of an organization (as specified in
the second part of the dissertation), interact! . 1 pat
terns, or a combination of elements, parts, or such
patterns.
In a systemic approach to organizational change,
the organization is considered as an integrated whole,
composed of interdependent and interacting parts and ele
ments. The target of change in this approach is the
whole body as a change in any one element or part of the
organization will bring further change in the rest of the
organization anyway. Unless the whole organization is
considered and necessary precautions taken, a change in
the organization may create confusion and chaos.
On the other hand, the target for change in re
ductionist approaches is usually a specific change area
in the organization. Change areas other than the one
which is specifically selected as the target of change
are not taken into consideration.
Thus, the approaches to organizational change with
respect to the selection of a change target would range in
between the two extremes as follows:
328
Change target is a Change target is the
specific change area total organization,
in the organization.
R A -------------------------------- SA
For example, in the case of Burbank, the target
of change was the technological elements of organization
(to change the methods and procedures in billing, account
ing, purchasing, and payroll activities, as well as
machines and used materials) in a particular part (depart
ment of finance) of the city government. Of course,
identification of the problem as a purely technological
one, and selection of “adoption of EDP equipment" as the
only alternative solution to bring about the desired
changes in a particular department, caused the City to
disregard the integrated and complex nature of the organ
ization, and commit such mistakes as — bringing in com
puters before determining a location for them; not taking
into consideration the lack of trained manpower for the
operation of computers, and letting the computers remain
idle for several months at a heavy cost; dropping old
machines upon the arrival of new EDP equipment; leasing
a new accounting machine (NCR 395) for a temporary period
of time to ease the situation, and once again not being
able to use the latter equipment for lack of qualified
329
employees in the organization, and so on.
Thus, once again, the approach used by Burbank to
bring about organizational change is characterized by the
left side of the continuum (reductionist approach).
4'— Change Objectives
The objectives of a planned organizational change
would also be expected to be different in systems and re
ductionist approaches. A systemic approach would tend to
emphasize the immediate needs and demands of an organiza
tion as well as the ultimate goals; therefore, objectives
of planned change would be both specific (satisfaction of
immediate needs and demands, solution of the specific
problem faced) and general (contribution to the ultimate
ends of the organization which are survival and mainte
nance, growth and development).
On the other hand, the emphasis in reductionist
approaches is on specific objectives of change — to
solve the problem faced and to satisfy the immediate needs
and demands. The ultimate goals of an organization are
either not important or neglected completely. Thus,
The planned objectives The planned objectives of change
of change are specific; are both specific (solution of
solution of the speci- the specified problem and satis
fied problem and satis- faction of immediate needs and
faction of immediate demands) and general (contribu-
needs and demands tions made to the ultimate ends
of organication).
RA --------------------------------- SA
330
This variable may have two other implications.
First, emphasizing specific objectives could also mean
that the whole emphasis is on the present needs and re
quirements of organization while consideration of specific
and general objectives could mean that the emphasis is on
both present and future needs and requirements of the
organization.
Second, it could be argued that the reductionist
approaches would tend to measure the degree of success in
bringing about organizational change by the achievement
of specific objectives alone, while a systemic approach
would measure it by the achievement of both specific and
general objectives.
In our case study, the objectives of the partic
ular change (adoption of EDP) was both specific (solving
the problems of data processing faced in the department
of finance) and general (increasing the effectiveness of
the city government). In that sense, the approach used
can be said to be systems approach. However, the future
needs of the organization had been neglected to a large
extent in planning the change; therefore, the approach
somewhat got away from the right end of the continuum
and cannot be identified with the systems approach com
pletely.
331
5 — Environmental Forces
One of the essential characteristics of the sys
tems approach to organizational change has come to be the
recognition that organizations live in an environment,
and they are in constant interaction with it* There are
certain forces generated by individuals, groups, and
other social systems in both internal and external envi-
f t
ronments of organizations. The success in planned
organizational change will depend to a large extent on
the degree to which such forces are taken into considera
tion during the planning of change and its implementation.
While environmental forces provide an essential part of
change programs in systems approaches, they are either
the least emphasized, or not considered at all, in reduc
tionist approaches.
Examples of such environmental forces are demands
manifested, or pressures generated, by individuals and
groups inside or outside the organization, employee
unions, professional, interest, and pressure groups,
clientele, the general public, and other public or pri
vate organizations. Thus, the continuum is — in
planning and implementing organizational change:
332
Environmental forces are Environmental forces are
either least emphasized - fully considered. They
or completely neglected. constitute a major part
of the change program.
HA ----------------------------------- SA
In the case of Burbank, there was no significant
consideration of the environmental forces neither at the
planning stage nor during implementation. However, con
sidering that there was little or no pressure from the
environment, it would be difficult to place the approach
used, in that case, anywhere on the scale. The opposition
to the change program came only from one major department
of the city government — public services. It is possible
that change agents did not feel that it was necessary to
give much consideration to that small opposition.
6 — Feedback
One of the major deficiencies of conventional
approaches to organizational change has come to be in the
area of feedback. In such approaches, feeding informa
tion about the consequences of change back into the
organization for improvements and achievement of further
change is only accidental and non-systematic. On the
other hand, feedback is an essential part of systems
approach, and it tends to be a systematic and continuous
333
process.
Feedback is accidental Feedback is systematic
and non-systematic. and continuous.
RA ------------------------------------ SA
For example, in the case of Burbank, there was no
sign of a systematic feedback system which would give
back into the system whatever information was generated
about the outcomes of change, the reactions to it, correc
tions or alterations to be made, and so forth; that is,
there was no information returned to such change agents
as the city manager, assistant city manager, assistant to
the city manager, director of the research and budget
office, and so forth. The only means of feedback was the
irregular oral and written reports presented to the city
manager by Mr. Ferick and Mr. Dettman. However, the
basis of the information presented in such reports was
the personal observation of the reporters. The data were
not systematically collected and reporting was not a con
tinuous one*
7 — Control Over Changes
Finally, an essential variable and a major part
of an organizational change program is control. In both
reductionist and systemic approaches to organizational
334
change, control over the entire process of change is
needed to be exercised if an orderly change is desired.
However, there are certain differences between the two
approaches. First, in the reductionist approaches, con
trol is concentrated on the change area selected as the
target for change; whereas, in case of the systemic ap
proach, control is exercised on the total organization
with a greater emphasis on the change target. Second,
in reductionist approaches, control over change is empha
sized particularly during the adoption phase; whereas,
in a systemic approach, control is exercised at all
phases of the process in order to keep disruptive change
inputs from entering into the system. Also to provide an
orderly transformation of change inputs into further or
ganizational change, to achieve the planned objectives,
and to feed available information back into the organiza
tion systematically. Thus, the continuum of approaches
in regard to control is:
Control is concentrated on Control is exercised over
the particular change area the whole organization
which is selected as the with an emphasis on the
target of change. It is specific change target.
greatly emphasized during
the adoption phase of the
change process
It is equally emphasized
during all the phases of
the change process.
RA SA
335
Moreover, the methods of control may be expected
to be different also. Reductionist approaches tend to
reduce the total organization to one of the human, struc
tural, arid technological elements while striving for
change, and to control change in each of these elements,
a different method of control is used. For example, the
common characteristics of the methods used to control
human elements of organizations seem to be manipulation
— manipulation of individuals either through material or
social and psychological rewards and punishments.
The systems approach, on the other hand, tends to
look at the organization as a whole, integrating the needs
of the individuals with the goals of the organization. It
assumes that control could be achieved effectively if the
members would identify their needs with the goals of the
organization and commit themselves to the achievement of
such goals. Then, control over the entire process of
change could be achieved through such methods as self-
direction and self-motivation.
In the City of Burbank, as was stated earlier, the
attention was concentrated on the department of finance as
the specific target of change. This, however, should not
mean that control over the entire organization was absent,
but rather that sufficient attention was not given to the
336
repercussions of the initial change in the rest of the
organization. The lack of an effective control over the
process of change in Burbank was evident from such facts
as the imposition of wrong computers upon the City by
outside forces, the emergence of chaos and confusion for
several months following the adoption of IBM-1440, delays
in billing and tax collection, and all other ineffi
ciencies *
Relatively more effective control was observed
during the adoption phase of the change process when the
recommendations presented by Mr. Ferick and Mr. Dettman
were twice rejected by the City Manager. However, this
was due to outside pressure put upon the City Manager by
one of the computer companies. As soon as this pressure
disappeared, there came a sudden relaxation on the part
of the city administration in controlling the change.
Later, the attempts to train the city employees
who were potential users of the computers were, in fact,
a recognition of the insufficient control over the change
process. However, it indicated a desire to increase the
effectiveness of the control system in the future.
That which has been done thus far is an effort to
identify some selected variables and to differentiate be
tween reductionist and systemic approaches to organiza
337
tional change using these variables. Each end of the
continuum can be taken to be an ideal model of organiza
tional change, and our systems model is closely identified
with the right end for the above variables. However, in
the actual world, an approach to organizational change
can hardly fit into one of the other of these two extreme
models. It is more probable that all the approaches used
in practice to bring about organizational change will fit
somewhere on the continuum, between the extremes. For
the sake of simplification, therefore, we could divide
the scale into two equal parts and call all the approaches
placed on the right half of the scale "systemic approaches"
and call the ones placed on the left half of the scale
"reductionist approaches."
Reductionist Approaches Systemic Approaches
/----------------------------------
to Organizational Change to Organizational Change
Using this tool, we could conclude that the ap
proach used by the City of Burbank in bringing about
organizational change in the above case was a reduction
ist one, although not an extreme case. However, we should
note that the case of the City of Burbank has been sug
gested here only as an example; and a systematic attempt
has not been made to indicate the exact position of the
338
approach used on such a scale which provides a continuum
between reductionist and systemic approaches.
The two basic approaches to organizational change
thus can be summarized as shown in Table 7.
Development of Some General Tests of
Achievement in Bringing About
Organizational Change
The degree of achievement in bringing about organ
izational change can be measured in a variety of ways,
using quite different research designs and data collection
methods, depending on the purpose of change and the situ
ations in which it is carried out. Below, we will make
an effort to develop some general tests which can be used
either separately or in combination, to measure the degree
of achievement in bringing about organizational change.
Such tests will necessarily remain general so that they
can be applied to the wide scope of organizational change.
The degree of achievement in bringing about organ
izational change can be measured by the degree to which
the specific and general objectives of change are satis
fied. The specific objectives of change may either be
the solution of the specified problem which is designated
as the change target, or the satisfaction of human needs
and demands inside or outside the organization which
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF TWO BASIC APPROACHES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Guiding Concepts Reductionist Approach Systems Approach
Change
Agent
Change agent is a single or few
individuals, either from out
side or inside the organization.
Their decisions and actions are
usually based on intuition and
common sense.
Change agent is an interdisci
plinary team composed of both
members of organization and out
side agents. Their decisions
and actions axe based on the
application of scientific
knowledge.
Identification
of Change
Inputs
Change inputs are identified
through a l,look-and-seeM ap
proach; problem is frequently
reduced to a single cause.
Change inputs are identified
through systematic research.
Cause-effect relationships are
characterized by multiple
causation.
Change
Target
Change target is a specific
change area in the organiza
tion.
Change target is the total
organization.
0)
w
vO
TABLE 7 (Continued)
Guiding Concepts Reductionist Approach Systems Approach
Change
Objectives
The planned objectives of change
are specific: (1) solution of the
specified problem, and (2) satis
faction of immediate needs and
demands which necessitated the
change.
The planned objectives of change
are both specific (solution of
the specified problem and satis
faction of immediate needs and
demands) and general (contribu
tions made to the ultimate
goals of organization).
Environmental
Forces
Environmental forces are either
least emphasized or completely
neglected.
Environmental forces are fully
considered. They constitute a
major part of the change pro
gram.
Feedback
Feedback is accidental and non-
systematic.
Feedback is systematic and con
tinuous.
Control
Over
Change
Control is concentrated on the
particular change area which is
selected as the target of
change. It is greatly empha
sized during the adoption phase
of the change process.
Control is exercised over the
whole organization with an em
phasis on the specific change
target. It is equally empha
sized during all the phases of
the change process.
to
a
o
341
necessitated the change.
The more general objectives of organizational
change may be said to be the advancement of the ultimate
goals of the organization which we assume to be survival,
maintenance, growth and development.
The general tests to be developed may be built
around each of the above categories of change objectives
as follows:
1 — Problem-Solving
The degree to which the specified problem which
is selected as the target of change is solved, may well
indicate the degree of achievement in bringing about the
desired organizational change. The problem specified as
the change target will have major or minor variations
from situation to situation, and so will the measurements
of their solutions. Therefore, it is difficult to fur
ther operationalize problem-solving if we wish to main
tain the applicability of a test to a wide variety of
problems. It may suffice here to say that the degree to
which a problem is solved may be determined by a research
design with pre- and post-measurements and, if necessary,
control groups. In case of human problems, the research
design will be more complicated than the ones to be used
342
fox structural and technological difficulties which may
necessitate only physical pre- and post-measurements.
In each case of organizational change, the deter
mined degree of problem-solving could than be indicated
on a scale such as that given below which provides a con
tinuum, on a comparative basis, from no solution to a
complete solution.
No Complete
Solution Solution
2 — Satisfaction of Human Needs and Demands
We assume that in almost all cases, organizational
change is a function of human needs and demands. There
fore, the degree to which the human needs and demands,
which originally necessitated the change, are satisfied
may also indicate the degree of achievement in bringing
about the change. The measurement of needs and demands
requires several things: first, the human needs and de
mands which originally necessitated the change should be
surveyed and determined. Second, the intensity of those
needs and demands, prior to the implementation of the
change program, should be measured through elaborate
methods* Third, the intensity of those needs and demands,
after the implementation of the change program, needs to
be measured. Finally, the difference between the pre-
343
and post-measurement of intensities of needs and demands
should be carefully determined, for this determination
of the causal relationships between the pre- and post
intensities of needs and demands, and the change program,
requires an elaborate research design which would take
care of the external or interfering variables.
Thus, measured satisfaction of needs and demands
could be placed on a scale which provides a continuum
from no satisfaction to complete satisfaction.
No Complete
Satisfaction ------------------------ Satisfaction
3 — Goal Achievement
The extent to which the planned organizational
change has contributed to the ultimate ends of an organ
ization — which we assume here to be survival, mainte
nance, growth and development — may be taken as another
measure of achievement in bringing about the organiza
tional change. Survival, maintenance, growth and devel
opment are broad terras. Nevertheless, some degree of
operationalization in defining such terms can be achieved
for the purposes of empirical testing.
Survival is the ability of an organization to
counteract the destructive or disruptive forces in its
environment during the process of change. Change, in
fact, includes both positive and negative elements.
Thus, it may result in the breakdown of the organization
or may contribute its growth and development. Survival
is the minimum level of achievement which implies that
the organization comes out of the process of change with
out any net loss in both quantitative and qualitative
terms relative to its position prior to change. This
means that the net loss as well as net gain of an organ
ization is zero (Gains - Losses = 0). A net loss can be
taken to be an indication of failure in bringing about
the change. On the other hand, a net gain connotes that
change has contributed to such ultimate goals of the or
ganization as growth and development, and some degree of
success in bringing about organizational change has been
achieved.
Like survival, maintenance is also a neutral
term. It refers to the preservation of an organization
as it was prior to change, without any net loss or gain.
Both survival and maintenance can be measured in
a variety of ways, one of them being physical measurement
of qualitative and quantitative net losses, or net gains,
in the outputs (physical products and services) or of the
organization over the time period covered by the whole
345
process of planned change.
Growth and devel^ "'ment, on the other hand, are
positive terms and imply ^ .tative and qualitative
gains for the organization as a result of change. Growth
can be measured by net quantitative increases in the out
puts (physical products and services, existing and new)
of organization. Development may be measured by net
qualitative increases in the outputs (physical products
and services) of the organization over a period of time
which is covered by the organizational change.
Thus, it is possible to construct a test for
measuring achievement in bringing about the organizational
change based upon the contributions made by the planned
change in regard to the ultimate goals of the organiza
tion. The degree of achievement measured through this
test could be placed somewhere on the following scale
which provides a continuum from a mere survival and main
tenance, to extensive growth and development for the
organization.
Survival and Growth and
Maintenance Development
Suggestions for Empirical Testing:
A Proposed Research Design
Having developed the means to identify reduction-
346
ist and systemic approaches to organizational change and
the tests to measure the degree of achievement in bring
ing about organizational change, we may now make some
methodological suggestions toward empirical testing of
our systems model.
In attempting to apply the systems concept to
social phenomena, social scientists have always taken
the efficacy of this idea, or of models and theories
which are based on it, to be self-evident. There has not
yet been a serious attempt to subject the efficacy as
sumption to empirical testing. This may be one of the
weaknesses in the literature of systems theory. The
efforts which we have made in this dissertation toward
development of a systems model of organizational change
is based on the same assumption and therefore has the
same weakness. The essential reason for not undertaking
an empirical testing of the model in this dissertation
has been the practical difficult5.es faced in making such
an attempt. Nevertheless, no matter what the diffi
culties, empirical testing of such a model is needed to
substantiate it. Such a test may also provide an exami
nation for the efficacy of the systems idea or systems
theory in general, since the systems model of organiza
tional change has been constructed around the basic
347
concepts and ideas of the systems theory.
Thus, below we present a general outline of a
research design for empirical testing of the systems
model of organizational change as developed in this dis
sertation, with the hope that such a study will be car
ried out in the future.
We hypothesize here that, as an approach to or
ganizational change nears the systems model of organi
zational change, its efficacy for bringing about planned
organizational change is increased.
Testing of this hypothesis requires that the fol
lowing steps be taken:
1. Selection of a number of cases used in
organizational change.
2. Identification of approaches used in each
case to bring about organizational change.
3. Measurement of success achieved by each
approach in bringing about planned organ
izational change.
4. Determination of the degree of correlation
between systematism and achievement for
each approach.
1. For empirical testing of the above hypothesis,
first, one would need to select a number of organizational
348
change cases (10 - 20). One essential criterion to be
taken into consideration during the selection process is
the completion of the planned change program in each case
of change. The initiation and‘completion dates of the
planned change should be known. Although it is impossible
to select more than one case of change from the same or
ganization, made during different periods of time, it may
be more desirable to select each case from a different
organization so that problems such as the overlapping of
two programs in time-space are avoided.
2. After a desirable number of cases in organi
zational change are selected, the next step would be
identification of approaches used in each case to bring
about change along the lines of reductionist and systems
approaches. For that, we should go back to the earlier
parts of this chapter. We may utilize the scales devel
oped around the guiding concepts selected to fifferentiate
between systemic and reductionist approaches to organiza
tional change. However, we need to make a minor altera
tion in those scales; namely, to divide them into four
intervals. As will be remembered, the two ends of the
scales developed for the measurement of the selected
variables represented reductionist and systemic approaches
as follows:
349
Change Agent
V )
Q> '
Identification of Change Inputs £
(o----------------------------------------------- x:
o o
h Change Target g
a m
< Change Objectives a
4- > <
- h Environmental Forces o
C __________________________________ ’ H
£ Feedback ^
o ............ — ... - ............. , to
3 >>
■o Control Over Change w
cc----------------------------------------------
It is possible to divide each of these scales into
four equal intervals and give them rank numbers as fol
lows :
Somewhat Somewhat
Reductionist Reductionist Systemic Systemic
Approaches Approaches Approaches Approaches
According to the characteristics to be found in
the above selected seven variables in each case, an ap
proach can be assigned to any one of these four intervals
on each scale. Of course, it will take the rank number
of the interval on the scale to which it is assigned for
each variable. Thus, an approach to bring about organi
zational change will be assigned seven rank numbers, each
being on one of the seven scales; and a single rank num
ber could be found for each approach by adding all seven
350
rank numbers which is assigned to it and then divide the
obtained number by seven. For example, let us assume
that approaches A and B, used in two different cases to
bring about organizational change, have been assigned the
following numbers for each of the seven variables:
Variables Approach A Approach B
Change Agent
Identification of Change
4 2
Inputs 3 1
Change Target 3 2
Change Objectives 4 3
Environmental Forces 3 1
Feedback 2 3
Control Over Change _4 _2
Total 23 14
=
The final number to represent the rank of ap
proach A on a single scale would then be 23/7 = 3.28, and
for approach B, 14/7 = 2. In that way, each of the se
lected approaches used to bring about organizational
change will be assigned a final number to represent its
rank on a single scale.
The smallest number on the scale implies that the
approaches which fall in the first interval have the
least amount of systemness; and the highest number on the
scale represents the approaches which have the greatest
amount. Thus, we could say that the final numbers on the
351
scale (from 1 to 4) represent the rank of systemness, 1
being the lowest level of systemness and 4 the highest.
After final numbers are assigned to all the se
lected approaches to bring about organizational change,
each used in a case of organizational change, the results
_ can be shown as follows:
dumber of approaches used
in each rase to bring about Rank of
organizational change. Systematism.
1 3.28
2 2
3 2.5
4 1
r
•
3.85
*
•
15
•
2.3
3. After the approaches selected for the study
are identified, the next step is the measurement of suc
cess achieved by each one in bringing about planned
organizational change. For this we may use the general
tests developed in the second section of this chapter.
As will be remembered, the three general tests for the
measurement of success achieved by each approach in
bringing about organizational change had been built
around three selected concepts: (l) problem-solving —
solution of the specific problem selected as the target
352
of planned change; (2) need and demand satisfaction —
satisfaction of human needs and demands which originally
necessitated change in the organization; and (3) goal
achievement — the extent to which the planned organiza
tional change has contributed to the ultimate ends of
organization (survival, maintenance, growth and develop
ment). The scales developed to measure the degree of
achievement in each case were as follows;
1 — Problem-solving:
No
Solution
2 — Need and demand satisfaction:
No Full
Solution --------------------------- Satisfaction
3 — Goal achievement:
Survival and Growth and
Maintenance ' Development
These scales may also be broken down into four
equal intervals, each representing some degree of success
achieved by the approaches and with respect to the con
cept around which the test has been developed. Each
interval will likewise be given a rank number. The modi
fied scales, then, will take the following forms:
Complete
Solution
353
To a
To Some Large
None Extent Extent Full
1— Pi ; ‘Solving: 1 2 3 4
2— Need and demand
satisfaction: 1 2 3 4
3— Goal achievement:
(degree of organiza- 1 2 3 4
tional growth and
development)
Any one of these three tests can be used to meas
ure the degree of success achieved by approaches used to
bring about organizational change in each case- However,
the results would be more reliable if the tests were used
simultaneously instead of only one at a time. In that
case, the degree of success reached by each approach
would be assigned a rank number on each of the three
scales. The average of the three rank numbers would in
dicate the rank of achievement for each evaluated approach.
The results can be shown as follows:
Rank of
Number of Test Test Test Achievement
Approaches No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Total (Average)
1 3 3 4 10 3.33
2 1 3 1 5 1.66
3 4 2 1 7 2.33
• • • i • «
* ■ f i » •
15 2 3 1 6 2.00
2c-£
4. Once the degree of systemness and the degree
of achievement have been determined fox each and every
approach, that which remains to be done is the determina
tion of the level of correlation between the two rank
numbers for systematism and achievement. For that, we
need to put the developed data together as follows:
Number of
Approaches
Rank of
Systematism
Rank of
Achievement
1 3.28 3.33
2 2.00 1.66
3
*
2.50
•
2.33
*
*
•
lb
9
9
2.30
•
•
2.00
As for the statistical test, Spearman’s Rank Dif
ference Method could be applied to measure the degree of
correlation between the two sets of ranks. If a signif
icant correlation is found between the two sets of ranks,
then one will fail to reject the research hypothesis,
which states that as an approach to organizational change
nears the systems model of organizational change, its
degree of achievement in bringing about the planned organ-
izational change is increased. If the correlation be
tween the two sets of ranks is not a significant one,
then, the hypothesis will be rejected.
One should not hastily conclude that the systems
model to organizational change is infinitely valid when
one fails to reject the hypothesis, or that it becomes
obsolete when the hypothesis is rejected. In either case,
the model is open to revision and further improvements.
After all, is this not the way in which scientific devel
opments are achieved?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Allen, Francis R., et al., (eds.). Technology and Social
Change. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc.,
1957.
Almond, Gabriel A., and Bingham G. Powell, Jr., (eds.).
Comparative Politics. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.,
1966.
Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957.
_________. Integrating the Individual and the Organiza
tion* New York: John Wii'ey & Sons, Inc., 1964.
Banton, Michael. Roles. New York: .Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers, 1965.
Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966.
_________, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin, (eds.).
Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
196X7
Biddle, Bruce J., and Edwin J. Thomas, (eds.). Role
Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
Black, Max, (ed.). The Social Theories of Talcott
Parsons. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1961.
Blake, Robert, and Jane S. Mouton. The Managerial Grid.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964.
Brown, Hunt R. Office Automation. New York: Automation
Consultants, Inc., 1959.
357
358
Buckley, Walter. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.
Caxr, William A. (ed.). Office Automation News Bulletin.
New York: Automation Consultants, Inc., 1960.
Caxzo, Rocco, Jr., and John N. Yanouzas. Formal Organi
zation: A Systems Approach. Homewood, 111.: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., 1967.
Chappie, Eliot D., and Conrad M. Areusberg. Measuring
Human Relations: An Introduction to the Study of In
teraction of Individuals. Genetic Psychology Mono
graph, No. 22. Princeton: The Journal Press, 1940.
_________, and Leonard R. Sayles. The Measure of Manage
ment. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961.
Coutu, Walter. Emergent Human Nature. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1949.
Data Processing for Administrators: Management Development
Course llJ-60-2.l < Sacramento: Training Division, State
Personnel Board, (November I960).
Deutsch, Karl W. The Nerves of Government. New York:
The Free Press,;a division of The Macmillan Company,
1963.
Drucker, Peter. The Practice of Management. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1954.
Dunlop, John T., (ed.). Automation and Technological
Change. Englewood Cliffs,' N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1962.
Easton, David. A Framework for Political Analysis. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196b.
Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
_________. Studies in Social Change. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1966.
359
Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management. Trans,
by Constance Storrs. London: Sir Isaac Pitman &
Sons, Ltd-?y 1949.
Finkle, Jason L., and Richard W. Gable, (eds.).
Political Development and Social Change. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
The Foundation for Research on Human Behavior. Managing
Major Change in Organizations. Ann Arbor: TKe
Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1961.
Gerth, H. H., and Wright C. Mills. From Max Weber. New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1946.
Goffman, Erving. Encounters. The Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1961.
Grinker, Roy, (ed.). Toward a Unified Theory of Human
Behavior. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers,
1955: —
Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern.
Explorations in Role Analysis* New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1958.
Gulick, Luther, and Lindall F. .-wick, (eds.). Papers
on the Science of Admir.ls-.ralion. New York:
Institute of Public '.ai,ministration, 1937.
Heady, Ferrel, and Sybil L. Stokes. Papers in Comparative
Public Administration. Ann Arbor: Institute of Public
Administration, 1962.
Henderson, Lawrence J. Pareto*s General Sociology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935.
Higginson, Valliant M. Managing with EPF, A Look at the
State of Art. American Management Association, Inc.,
AMA Research Study, No. 71, 1965.
Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms
New York: Harcourt, Brace, 8. World, Inc., 1961.
_________. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
& World, Inc., 1950.
360
Jacobson, H. B., and Joseph S. Roucek, (eds.)* Automation
and Society. New York: Philosophical Library, Inc.,
1959.
Johnson, R. A., F. E. Kast, and J. E. Rosenzweig.
The Theory and Management of Systems. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963.
Kahn, Robert L., et al. Organizational Stress: Studies
in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley
8. Sons, Inc., 1964.
Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology
of Organizations. New York: John Wiley 8. Sons, Inc.,
1966.
Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rrnehart and Winston, Inc., 1966.
Lawrence, Paul R., and John A. Seller. Organizational
Behavior and Administration. Homewood, 111.: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., and The Dorsey Press, 1965.
Leavitt, Harold. Managerial Psychology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1963.
Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society.
New York: The Free Press, a division of The Macmillan
Company, 1958.
Levy, Marion J. The Structure of Society. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1952.
Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961.
Lippitt, Ronald, et ai. The Dynamics of Planned Change.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, 8, World, Inc., 1958.
Maclver, Robert M. Social Causation. New York: Harper
Torchbook, 1964.
March, James G., (ed.). Handbook of Organizations.
Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1365.
361
March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. Organizations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.
Maslow, Abraham H. Eupsychian Management. Homewood,
111.:. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965.
McClelland, David C. The Achieving Society. New York:
The Free Press, adivision of The Macmillan Company,
1961.
McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., I960.
Merton, Robert K., et al., (eds.). A Reader in Bureauc
racy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, a division
of The Macmillan Comp'',r,y,' 1952.
Mooney, James D. Principles of Organization. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1947.
Optner,.Stanford L. Systems Analysis for Business Man
agement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
The., 1960.
Parsons, Talcott. Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., T5F6.
, and Edward A. Shils, (eds.). Toward a General
Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1951.
Peter, Hollis W., (ed.). Comparative Theories of Social
Change. Ann Arbor: Brown & Brumfield, Inc., 1966.
Pfiffner, John M., and Frank P. Sherwood. Administrative
Organization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1960.
Postley, John A. Computers and People. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960.
Presthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York:
Random House, Inc., 1962.
Ramos, Guerreiro. Administracao e Estrategia do
desenvolvimento. Rio: Fundacao Getulio Vargas,
1966.
362
Rice, K. A. The Enterprise and Its Environment. London:
Tavistock Publications, 1963.
Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale Uni
versity Press, 1950.
Roethlisberger, F. J., and W. J. Dickson. Management and
the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1939.
Samuelson, Paul A. Economics: An Introductory Analysis.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1964.
Sayles, Leonard. Managerial Behavior. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., 1964.
Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
_________, and Warren G. Bennis. Personal and Organiza
tional Change Through Group Methods. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965.
Schrodinger, Erwin. What Is Life? London: Cambridge
University Press, 1945.
Scott, William G. Organization Theory: A Behavioral
Analysis for Management. Homewood, 111.: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., 1967.
Seiler, John A. Systems Analysis in Organizational Be
havior . Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1967.
Simon, Herbert A. The Shape of Automation for Men and
Management. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,
1965.
_________. The New Science of Management Decision. New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, I960.
Spencer, Herbert. Principles of Sociology. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1897.
363
Swanson, G. E., et_al., (eds.)* Readings in Social
Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
Inc., 1952.
Taylor, Frederick W. Scientific Management. New York;
Harper & Row, Inc., 1947.
Terry, George R. Office Management and Control. Home
wood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1966.
Trist, L. E., et al. Organizational Choice. London:
Tavistock Publications, 1963.
Use of Mechanized Equipment in Government Accounting—
Special Bulletin, I960 G. Chicago: Municipal Finance
Officers Association, I960.
Vroom, Victor A., (ed.). Methods of Organizational Re
search. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1967.
Wadia, Maneck S., et al., (eds.). The Nature and Scope
of Management. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1966.
Whyte, William F., et al. Money and Motivation. New
York: Harper & Brothers, Inc., 1955.
_________. Men at Work. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press,
Inc., 1961.
Zaleznik, Abraham, and David Moment. The Dynamics of
Interpersonal Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1964.
Articles and Periodicals
Anken, Kenneth G. Van, Jr. "Personnel Adjustment to
Technological Change," Automation and Society. , H. B.
Jacobson and Joseph S. Rouced (eds.). New York:
Philosophical Library, Inc., 1959.
Anshen, Melvin. "The Manager and the Black Box,"
Harvard Business Review. 38 (November-December I960),
86-89.
r
364
Arensberg, Conrad M., and Douglas McGregor. "Determina
tion of Morale in an Industrial Company," Applied
Anthropology, I (January-March 1942), 12-34.
Ashby, Ross W. "General Systems as a New Discipline,"
General Systems, III (1958).
Asoff, Igor. “The Firm of the Future," Harvard Business
Review, XLIII (September-October 1965).
Barnes, Louis B. "Organizational Change and Field Ex
periment Methods," Methods of Organizational Re
search, Victor H. Vroom, (ed.). Pittsburgh: Uni
versity of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
Bavelas, Alex. "A Mathematical Model for Group Struc
tures," Applied Anthropology, 2 (1948), 18-30.
"Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented
Groups," Journal of Acoustical Society of America,
22 (1950), 38-50.
Bennis, Warren G. "A New Role for the Behavioral
Science: Effecting Organizational Change," Adminis
trative Science Quarterly, 8 (1963), 125-165^
, and Hollis W. Peter. "Applying Behavioral
Science for Organizational Change," Comparative
Theories of Social Change, Hollis W. Peter, (ed.) .
Ann Arbor: Brown & Brumfield, Inc., 1966.
Bextalanffy, L. Von. "The Theory of Open Systems in
Physics and Biology," Science, III (1950), 23-28.
“General Systems Theory— A Critical Review,"
General Systems, VII (1962), 1-10.
_________. "General Systems Theory," General Systems, I
(1956), 12-18.
Blalock, M. H., and B. A. Blalock. "Towards a Classifi
cation of Systems Analysis in the Social System,"
Philosophy of Science, XXVI (1959).
Blumenthal, C. S. "Breaking the Chain of Command,H
Business Automation, (December 1964), 30-33.
36b
Boulding, Kenneth. "General Systems Theory: The Skeleton
of Science," General Systems, I (1956), 19-27.
_________. "Political Implications of General Systems Re
search," General Systems, VI (1961), 15-24.
Brillouin, Leon. "Life, Thermodynamics and Cybernetics,"
American Scientist, 37 (1949;, 554-568.
Carzo, Rocco, Jr. "Some Effects of Organization Struc
ture on Group Effectiveness," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 7 (March 1963), 393-424.
Chin, Robert. "The Utility of System Models and Develop
mental Models for Practitioners," The Planning of
Change. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and
Robert Chin, (eds.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, Inc., 1961.
Coch, Lester, and R. P. J. French, Jr. “Overcoming Re
sistance to Change," Human Relations, I (1948),
512-532.
DeJong, John H. “Optical Scanning Equipment," Data
Processing, 3 (January 1961), 11-13.
Devereux, Edward C., Jr. "Parsons1 Sociological Theory,"
The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, Max Black,
(ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1961.
Diebold, John. "Automation— Perceiving the Magnitude of
the Problem," Advanced Management Journal, XXIX
(April 1964), 29-33.
Dorsey, John T. "A;i Information-Energy Model," Papers in
Comparative Public Administration. Ferrel Heady and
Sybil L. Stokes, (eds.). Ann Arbor: Institute of
Public Administration, 1962.
Goleinbiewski, Robert T. "The Laboratory Approach to
Organization Change: Schema of a Method," Public Ad
ministration Review, XXVII (September 1967), 211-222.
Gouldner, Alvin W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Towards an
Analysis of Latent Social Roles," 2 parts. Adminis
trative Science Quarterly. 2 (1957), 281-306, and
444-4W:
Gross, Bertham M. ‘'What Are Your Organization's Objec
tives: A General Systems Approach to Planning,"
Human Relations. London: The Tavistock Institute
of Human Relations, XVIII (1965), 192-216.
Guetzkow, Harold, and Herbert A. Simon. "The Impact of
Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and
Performance in Task-Oriented Groups," Management
Science, I (1955), 233-250.
Hilton. Alice M. "Full Employment and Human Tasks,"
Para Processing, 6 (July 1964), 33-36.
Hoos, Ida R. "The Impact of Office Automation on
Workers," International Labor Review, (October I960)
363-388.
_________. "When the Computer Takes Over the Office,"
Harvard Business Review, 38 (July-August 1960),
105-108.
Jasinski, Frank J. "Adapting Organization to New Tech
nology," The Nature and Scope of Management, Maneck
S. Wadia, et al., (eds *). Chicago: Scott, Foresman
8. Company, I9bb.
Kahn, Robert L., and Daniel Katz. "Concept of Objective
Organization," The Industrial Environment and Mental
Health, Journal of Social Issues, XVIII (1962),42-53
Kraut, Alen I. "How EDP Is Affecting Workers and Organ
izations," Personnel, XXXIX (July-August 1962),
38-50.
Landsberger, Henry A. "Parsons' Theory of Organizations
The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, Max Black,
(ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1961.
Leavitt, Harold J. "The Engineering of Human Behavior
in Industry," Industrial Medicine and Surgery,
(December 1964*7^ 31-45.
"Applied Organizational Change in Industry:
Structural, Technological, and Humanistic Approaches
Handbook of Organizations, James G. March, (ed.).
Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1965.
367
. "Some Effects of Certain Communication Pat-
terns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 46 (January 1951), 38-50.
Lewin, Kurt. "Frontiers in Group DynamicsHuman Rela
tions, X (1948), 5-41«
_________. "Group Decision and Social Change," Readings
in Social Psychology. , G. E. Swanson, et al. (eds.) .
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.., 1952.
Mann, C. F., and K. L* Williams. "Organizational Impact
of White Collar Automation," Proceedings of the 11th
Annual Meeting, Publication No. 22. Madison: Indus
trial Relations Research Association, 1959, 59-69.
McClelland, Charles. "General Systems and the Social
Sciences," ETC: A Review of General Semantics, XIX
(1962), 444-450.
Melitz, Peter W. "Impact of Data Processing on Managers,"
Advanced Management Journal, XXVI (April 1961), 4-6.
Miller, James G. "Mental Health Implications of a Gen
eral Behavior Theory," American Journal of Psychiatry,
CXIII (1957), 777-778.
Mills, Theodore M. "Equilibrium and the Process of Devi
ance and Control," American Sociological Review.
(October 1959), 673-674.
Ogburn, William. "How Technology Causes Social Change,"
Technology and Social Change. Francis R. Allen,
et al., (eds.). New Vork: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc., 1957.
Parsons, Talcott. "Suggestions for a Sociological Ap
proach to the Theory of Organizations," Administra
tive Science Quarterly. I (June-September 1956),
63-85 and 224-239.
Price, Kendall 0. "The Organization as a Social System:
The Changing Role of the Manager," Second Western
Institute on Community Health Administration. Uni
versity of Southern California (August 3, 1965).
368
Roby, Thornton B., et al. "Group Problem Solving Under
Two Types of Executive Structure," Journal of Ab
normal and Social Psychology, 67 (1963), 550-556.
Sayles, Leonard R. "The Change Process in Organizations:
An Applied Anthropology Analysis," The Nature and
Scope of Management, Maneck S. Wadia, et al., (eds.).
Chicago: Scott, Foresman 8. Co., 1966.
Selznick, Philip. "Review Article: The Social Theories
of Talcott Parsons," American Sociological Review,
26 (1961).
Solow, R. M. "Technical Change and the Aggregate Produc
tion Function," Review of Economics and Statistics,
39 (1957), 312-320.
Sutton, F. X. "Analyzing Social Systems," Political De
velopment and Social Change, Jason L. Finkle and .
Richard W. Gable, (eds.). New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1966.
Wadia, Maneck S. "The Administrative Function of Inno
vation," The Nature and Scope of Management, Maneck
S. Wadia, et al., (eds.). Chicago: Scott, Foresman
& Co., 196"E)T
Weber, Edward. "The New Empires in Data Processing,"
Advanced Management Journal, XXIX (April 1964),
75-79.
Weber, Max. "The Essentials of Bureaucratic Organiza
tion: An Ideal Type Construction," A Reader in Bu
reaucracy, Robert K. Merton, et al.^ (eds.) . New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, a division of The
Macmillan Company, .1952.
Whisler, Thomas L., and George P. Shultz. "Automation
and the Management Process," The Annals of the Ameri
can Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCXL
(March 1962), 81-89.
Whyte, William F. "An Experimental Study of Leadership
and Group Life," Readings in Social Psychology, G.
E. Swanson, et alT,(eds.) . New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, Inc., 1952.
369
Unpublished Materials
Biller, R. P. ’ ’General Systems Theory: A Bibliographical
Essay.” Unpublished paper, University of Southern
California, 1964.
Bowers, Raymond V., et al. "Technological Change and the
Organization Man: Preliminary Conceptualization of a
Research Project." Mimeographed paper read at the
55th annual meeting of the American Sociological As
sociation. New York (August 1960).
Gardner, Neely. "Project Management.” Unpublished paper,
University of Southern California, School of Public
Administration, 1967.
Miller, James G. "Living Systems." Unpublished work.
2 vols., 1961.
Nascimento, Tatinge Kleber. "Change Strategy and Client
System: Administrative Reform in Brazil." Unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, School of Public Administration, 1966.
Rogers, Everett. "A Conceptual Variable Analysis of
Technological Change." Mimeographed Journal paper,
No. J-3275 of the Iowa Agricultural and Home Eco
nomics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa, Project No.
1236.
Sherwood, Frank P. "Market Theory." Unpublished paper,
University of Southern California, School of Public
Administration, 1966.
Sullivan, John W. "The Electronic Computer: A Challenge
to Organization In Public Administration." Unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, School of Public Administration, 1961.
APPENDIX
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is part of a research project
designed to study the change phenomena in organizations
in systemic terms. Our particular purpose here is to sur
vey the opinions of administrators on the effects of the
Electronic Data Processing (EDP) system upon the govern
ment organization of the City of Burbank. The report
which will be derived at the end of this study will be
used to satisfy the final requirements for a Ph.D. in
Public Administration at the University of Southern
California.
There are a number of questions within this ques
tionnaire which touch on areas that you will undoubtedly
feel are quite personal. Your openness and frankness is
essential. Do not feel that you are being tested against
arbitrary standards of right or wrong. All of these ques
tions are a matter of degree and there Is no “right*1 or
“wrong** answer. Although there are probably a number of
items which will appear irrelevant to you, e3ch Item was
selected for a specific purpose. It is important that
you answer all of the questions. I must add that no one
other than myself will be allowed to see the completed
questionnaires, and your name is not required for the
purposes of this research.
Your cooperation in the completion of this ques
tionnaire will deeply be appreciated.
Thank you
I. Atilla Dicle
371
372
Below are a number of statements about which you
may have opinion. All of the statements have to do with
your feelings, opinions, or knowledge of the facts that
have taken place in your organization in the past or ex
ist at.present time. In answering the following questions
please use the following response scale:
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Slightly agree
4. Slightly disagree
b. Disagree
6. Strongly disagree
Read the statement and place the number that most
closely corresponds to your degree of agreement with it
in the blank provided to the left of each statement.
(Please note that the term "organization*1 used in many
questions refers to the government organization of the
City of Burbank, the organization which you work for;
and the abbreviation "HDP" stands for Electronic Data
Processing System or the computer system.)
EXAMPLES:
3 1. If I could do as I pleased, I would change the
kind of work I do every few months.
(which means I slightly agree with that state
ment)
6 2. The job that I consider ideal would be one where
the way to do tht - *rk is always the same.
(which means I strongly disagree with this
statement)
Please answer the following questions in the same manner.
1, One can never feel at ease on a job where the
ways of doing things are always being changed.
2. The trouble with most jobs is that you just get
used to doing things in one way and then they
want you to do them differently.
373
3. I would prefer to stay with a job that I know
I can handle than to change to one where most
things would be new to me.
4. The trouble with many people is that when they
find a job they can do well, they don*t stick
with it.
5. I like a job where I know that I will be doing
my work about the same way from one week to
the next.
6. When I get used to doing things in one way it
is disturbing to have to change to a new method.
7. It would take a sizeable raise in pay to get me
to voluntarily transfer to another job.
If you have been working for the City of Burbank for more
than three years, or have been familiar with the system
for so long, please answer questions 8-40. All these
questions relate to the situation existed at the time
when the idea of adopting Electronic Data Processing sys
tem or bringing computers into the system was first orig
inated and discussed in the City.
8. The idea of adopting the EDP system into the
City of Burbank was, first, originated within
the city organization itself, by its members.
9. The idea of adopting the EDP system was imposed
upon the city organization by outside groups
and individuals.
10. The idea of adopting the EDP system was, first,
initiated by a group composed of employees and
outsiders.
11. The idea of adopting the EDP system was, first,
originated in the organization at the level of
top management.
12. The idea of adopting the EDP system was, first,
originated in the organization at the level of
middle management.
374
13. The idea of adopting the EDP system was, first,
originated in the organization at the level of
rank and file.
14. I was pleased with the idea of adopting the EDP
system into the city organization.
lb. I was pleased with the idea of adopting the EDP
system because the new system would promote my
position and status in the organization.
16. I was pleased with the idea of adopting EDP
system because it would promote the positions
and statuses of my friends and others in the
organization.
17. I was pleased with the idea of adopting EDP
system because it would ease my job in the
organization.
18. I was pleased with the idea of adopting EDP
system because it would ease the jobs of my
friends and others in the organization.
19. I was pleased with the idea of adopting EDP
system because it would help the city govern
ment to provide better services.
20. I was pleased with the idea of adopting EDP
system because it would reduce the operation
cost of the city government.
21. I was pleased with the idea of adopting EDP
system because I would like to see the city
government to adjust itself to the techno
logical developments in its environment.
22. At the beginning, I was indifferent to the idea
of adopting the EDP into the city system.
23. The idea of adopting the EDP system into the
city organization did not please me, and I
opposed it at the beginning.
24. I opposed that idea because I thought it would
affect my position and status in the organiza
tion negatively.
375
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
I opposed that idea because I thought it would
affect the positions and statuses of my friends
and others in the organization negatively.
I opposed that idea because I thought it would
undertake, or reduce the importance of my job,
and I would eventually either be demoted or
fired.
I opposed that idea because I thought the com
puters would undertake many jobs and cause-
downgrading and unemployment.
I opposed that idea because I don't like to be
disturbed with change in my work environment.
My immediate supervisor was pleased with the
idea of adopting EDP system into the city when
it was first originated.
My immediate supervisor was indifferent to that
idea when it was first originated.
My immediate supervisor was against the idea of
adopting the EDP system at the beginning.
Most of my superiors in the organization were
in favor of the idea of adopting the EDP system.
Most of my superiors were indifferent to that
idea at the beginning.
Most of my superiors were against that idea at
the beginning.
Most of my subordinates were in favor of the
idea of adopting EDP system.
Most of my subordinates were indifferent to
that idea.
Most of my subordinates were against that idea.
There was an obvious power struggle in the or
ganization between those who were in favor of
the idea of adopting BDP system and those who
were against it.
376
39. There was a significant outside support for the
idea of adopting EDP system coming from indi
viduals and groups outside the organization.
40. There was a significant outside opposition to
the idea of adopting EDP system coming from
individuals and groups outside the organization.
If you were working for the City of Burbank, or familiar
with the system, at the time the decision to adopt EDP
system was made, please answer the questions 41-50 in
the same manner.
41. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
satisfy the needs and demands of the top man
agement ■
42. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
satisfy the needs and demands of the middle
management.
43. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
satisfy the needs and demands of the employees
at the level of rank and file.
44. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
satisfy the needs and demands of outside indi
viduals and groups.
45. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
reduce the operation cost of the government
organization.
46. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
improve the services produced by the city
government.
47. The decision to adopt EDP system was made to
solve particular problems faced in the organ
ization.
48. The decision to adopt EDP system was made for
the city to adjust itself to the technological
developments taking place in its environment.
49. Most of the employees in the city government
reacted positively to the decision made to
adopt the EDP system.
377
50. Most of the employees of the city government
reacted negatively to the decision made to
adopt the EDP system.
The following questions relate to the changes which have
taken place within the government organization of the
City of Burbank since the EDP system has been adopted and
computers brought into the system. Please answer them
in the same manner.
51. There was a complete chaos and confusion going
on in the organization for a 5-8 months period
following the adoption of computers.
52- The confusion and the resulting inefficiency of
the system for several months following the
adoption of EDP was a consequence of the lack
of trained personnel required for the operation
of computers.
53. The EDP system has not so far affected my posi
tion and status in the organization.
54. I changed my job in the organization as a re
sult of the new EDP system.
55. I was promoted to a^qb with greater duties
and responsibilities as—a^result of the new
EDP system.
56. I received a salary promotion as a result of
the new EDP system.
57. X was demoted (or transferred) to a job with
less duties and responsibilities as a result
of the new EDP system.
58. My salary was reduced as a result of the new
EDP system.
59. Although the duties and responsibilities of
my job did not change, its importance in the
organization was reduced as a result of the
new EDP system.
60. I participated in one (or more) training pro-
gram(s) necessitated by the new EDP system.
378
61. Although the new EDP system has not yet af
fected my position and status in the organiza
tion, it may have a positive affect on it in
the future.
62. Although the new EDP system has not yet af
fected my position and status in the organiza
tion, it may have a negative affect on it in
the future.
63. New personnel have been recruited by the city
government to meet the needs of the new EDP
system.
64. More personnel have been transferred from one
job to another in the organization since the
new EDP system has been adopted.
65. The rate of personnel turnover has increased
since adoption, essentially as a result of
the EDP system.
66. The new EDP system has now created a greater
need for highly educated specialists and com
puter technicians in the organization.
67. The computer technicians and the other EDP per
sonnel in the organization now enjoy greater
prestige and status than their equivalents or
personnel in other departments.
68. A need to increase the technical ability of the
personnel already in the organization for the
use of computers now has been created by the
new EDP system.
69. The new EDP system has now created a fear in
the organization on the part of the personnel
at middle management level for which they be
lieve the computers will eventually undertake
an essential part of their jobs and leave
them unemployed ox cause their downgrading.
70. The new EDP system has now created a fear in
the organization on the part of the lower level
employees fox which they believe the computers
will eventually undertake most of their routine
(clerical and secretarial) jobs and put their
positions in danger.
379
71. A great deal of tension on the job has been
created by the new EDP system.
72. The new EDP system has disrupted the group
cohesiveness and destrueted the interaction
and interdependence of employees in the
organization.
73. The new EDP system has reduced jobs to simple
tasks, and employees have become the feeders
of machines and have started to lose their
individualities.
74. The new EDP system has created a greater need
for the top management personnel to become
more professional (to possess more technical
knowledge in regard to EDP).
75. The new EDP system has enhanced the employee
morale in the organization.
76. Most of the personnel in the organization are
now happy about the new EDP system.
77. Although the computers have not yet affected
the human morale and happiness in the organ
ization, they may have a negative effect on
them in the future.
78. The new EDP system has now created more leisure
time in the organization.
79. The number of personnel at the middle manage
ment level has been reduced since the computers
have been brought in.
80. The new EDP system has created a sharper and
impenetrable demarcation between the top and
the middle management levels.
81. The new EDP system has reduced the importance
of the middle management level in the organ
ization.
82. The number of personnel at top management level
has increased since the adoption of the new EDP
system.
380
83. The HOP system has caused an increase in the
duties and responsibilities of top management.
84. As a result of the new EDP system, there has
been a decline in clerical, secretarial, and
semi-technical employment in the organization.
85. Essentially as a result of the new EDP system,
administrative decisions in the organization
are now being made much faster than before.
86. Essentially as a result of the new EDP system,
decisions made in the organization now are more
effective than the ones prior to the adoption
of the computers.
87. The new EDP system has transferred more respon
sibilities for decision-making and planning to
top management level.
88. Greater emphasis has been placed upon partici
pative, group decision-making since the adop
tion of EDP system.
89. The new EDP system has reduced the decision
making and planning functions and responsi
bilities of middle management.
90. Some of the decisions previously made by middle
managers are now being made by the computers.
91. Since the new EDP system has been adopted,
there has been more and more rules and regula
tions substituted for individual discretion
in making administrative decisions.
92. The new EDP system has led to greater central
ization in the organization.
93. Essentially as a result of the EDP system,
there has been a decline in the number of line
personnel and an increase in the number of
staff personnel in the organization.
94. Now, the EDP experts participate in administra
tive decision-making in the organization to a
significant extent.
381
95. The power and authority of the EDP experts in
the organization have been increasing ever
since the new EDP system has been adopted.
96. The EDP system has created a tighter control
over the lower level operations of the organ
ization.
97. The EDP system now requires the top management
to exercise more control in the organization
than before.
98. The EDP personnel in the organization now ex
ercise significant control over the operations.
99. There is now greater need for the consolidation
of operations in the organization, essentially
to meet the requirements of the EDP system.
100. The EDP system has created a greater need for
greater integration of departments, offices,
and units in the organization.
101. The new EDP system has led to a greater formal
ization of procedure in the organization.
102. The EDP system has reduced the importance of
the informal side of organization.
103. Deadlines have now become more important than
they were prior to the adoption of the EDP
system.
104. The standards of performance are now higher
than they were prior to the adoption of the
EDP system.
105. The enforcement of rules and regulations, per
formance standards and deadlines in the organ*
ization has become more rigid than it was prior
to the adoption of EDP.
106. The communication system in the organization
has become more and more effective since the
adoption of the EDP.
107. The amount of downward communication in the or
ganization has increased significantly since
the adoption of the EDP.
382
108. Being influenced by the HDP system, the com
munication system in the organization has now
become more multi-directional, information
flowing to all directions from a single center.
109. The communication and information system in the
organization has not, so far, been more effi
cient and more effective.
110. The work procedure, work methods, and work tech
niques have been changed significantly under
the influence of the EDP system.
111. Under the influence of the EDP system, the or
ganization has now become more a paper proc
essing factory.
112. Under the influence of the EDP system, work in
the organization has become more routine and
monotonous•
113. Demand for accuracy in the organization is now
greater than it was prior to the adoption of
EDP system.
114. There is now more concern for detail essentially
as a result of the new EDP system.
115. Overall, the government organization in the City
of Burbank has become more efficient in its
operations since the computers have been
brought in.
116. Overall, the government organization of the City
of Burbank has not become more effective in its
operations since the computers have been
brought in.
117. Services provided now by the city government
are much better than they were prior to the
adoption of the EDP system. -
118. Services are now provided by the government
much faster than before.
119. The operation cost of the city government has
significantly been reduced, essentially as a
result of the EDP system.
383
120. The computers have helped to satisfy the needs
and demands of the employees in the organiza
tion.
121. The EDP system has helped to satisfy the needs
and demands of the individuals and groups out
side the organization.
122. The EDP system has contributed to the mainte
nance, growth and development of the city
government significantly.
123. The EDP system has aided the city government
significantly to adapt itself to the changes
and developments in its environment.
124. Under the influence of the EDP system, the or
ganization now pays more attention to the effects
of its decisions and services and their conse
quences .on internal and external environment.
t
125. Feeding the information to be obtained from the
local community and the larger society back
into the city government organization has now
become an inevitable part, and a necessary re
quirement for the survival of the organization.
126. The EDP system has now generated the discussion
of the concept of Morganization as a total sys
tem composed of parts and elements** among em
ployees in the organization.
127. I believe organizations would be more effective
and more efficient if they were constructed,
studied and analyzed based upon the principles
of the "total system*1 concept.
128. How long have you been working for the City of
Burbank?
Years___________ Months___________
129. How long have you been working in your present
position?
Years Months
384
130. The name of the department you work in at
Present:_____________________________________
131. Education background:
Some college
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Master's degree plus additional
graduate work
Ph.D.
Others (specify)
THANK YOU very much for your cooperation in filling out
this rather lengthy questionnaire. Your help is deeply
appreciated.
I. Atilla Dicle
(Please use the back of the pages for any additional com
ment you may have.)

Asset Metadata

Creator Dicle, Ilhan Atilla (author)

Core Title Systems Theory And Organizational Change

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Public Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration

Language English

Advisor Storm, William Bruce (committee chair), Brown, Alan A. (committee member), Siegel, Gilbert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-699443

Unique identifier UC11361165

Identifier 6916544.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-699443 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6916544.pdf

Dmrecord 699443

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dicle, Ilhan Atilla

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses