Spirit of the New Workplace: Breathing Life into Organizations, The

Organization Development Journal, Summer 2004 by Harder, Joseph, Robertson, Peter J, Woodward, Hayden

Abstract

This paper argues that the environmental conditions of global society are generating a significant change in the nature of the organizational species. In particular, we posit that the mechanistic bureaucratic model of organization is being replaced by a new form of organization that reflects the characteristics of a living being. We first discuss essential properties of all living systems as determined by the "new science" emerging from contemporary research across the natural sciences. This research demonstrates that living systems comprise interconnected components whose interactions generate a self-organizing entity that coevolves with the broader system of which it is a component part. We then identify various "signs of life" evident in the organizational world, as manifested in the numerous changes already taking place that are congruent with a shift towards a living systems perspective. The bulk of the paper then extends these observations by specifying in more concrete terms the key qualities of a healthy organization being. These qualities are discussed in terms of four general themes, namely, purpose, governance, membership, and rewards. We conclude the paper by pointing out that, ultimately, the animation of an organization entails making systemic changes so as to no longer deny the heart and soul of its members, but instead to release their spirits and let them soar.

By the latter half of the twentieth century, modern political economies had become greatly influenced, if not dominated, by large hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations. Weber's (1946) blueprint for rational, efficient organizations, coupled with the ideas and practices of scientific management, served as the basis for the design and management of most of these organizations. As new, small organizations grew into larger, more established ones, this typically entailed a process of "bureaucratization" (Blau, 1970; Greiner, 1972). These classical administrative principles (e.g., Taylor, 1911; Fayol, 1949 tr.) were widely accepted as useful guidelines for the development of effective organizations. Ultimately, the bureaucratic form became institutionalized as the dominant normative model of organization, pervasive throughout modern society (cf. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Zucker, 1983).

As the dysfunctional consequences of bureaucratic hierarchies became more readily apparent, the field of Organization Development (OD) emerged to provide a set of values, theories, and techniques in support of efforts to bring about change in these organizations. Generally speaking, the goal of those involved in OD has been to "de-bureaucratize" organizations and make them more compatible with the needs and interests of their human members. Historically, the primary focus of OD activity has been to redesign jobs so that they are more interesting and motivating, increase the level of participation and empowerment among organizational members, and improve the organization's social processes (e.g., management style, group dynamics, and conflict resolution). In short, the intention was to use applied behavioral science knowledge to implement planned changes that would serve to "humanize" organizations.

Scholarship in the field of OD has contributed greatly to our understanding of the dynamics of planned organizational change. One prominent finding, of course, is that broad, lasting change in a large, complex organization is difficult to bring about. This is particularly true when the desired changes run counter to the core assumptions and values underlying the organization's culture (cf. Martin & Siehl, 1983; McCaffrey et al., 1995). Since OD change agents have typically tried to change organizations in ways that run counter to the bureaucratic principles on which they are based, their efforts have frequently been met with considerable resistance and limited success.

However, environmental forces in the latter part of the twentieth century have also been putting pressure on organizations to de-bureaucratize, primarily so that they can become more flexible, adaptive, and innovative in the fast-paced, hyper-competitive world of the new global economy (D'Aveni, 1994; Mohrman & Cummings, 1989; Peters, 1987). The premise that organizations change in response to environmental conditions is well-established in organization theory. Resource dependence theorists (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Aldrich, 1979) point out that managerial actions are shaped by organizational dependencies on environmental actors for strategic resources. Institutional theorists (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001) explain how organizations strive to maintain their legitimacy by adopting structures and practices compatible with the demands and expectations of the institutional environment. And evolutionary theorists (Baum & Singh, 1994; Hannan & Freeman, 1989) focus on how populations of organizations undergo changes in form as a result of shifts in their environments, adapting in ways that provide a better fit with new environmental conditions.