Organization or Ecosystem?
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 15, 2002
Organizations of various design and size operate in industries across the world fulfilling missions
ranging from generating profits for owners and stockholders to serving communities in need.
However, all organizations, according to Jones (1998), are commonly conceived as “a tool used by
people to coordinate their actions to obtain something they desire or value-to achieve their goals.”
Thus, leaders of organizations hire skilled people and provide specialized training and financial
incentives to align professional growth with achievement of organization goals. And organizations,
much like family units, exert pressure on its members to conform to a prescribed set of behavioral
norms and values. Weighing the factors collectively, one can argue that organizations have effectively
become the principal medium for human evolution.
Building an academically sound case to prove my hypothesis is neither easy nor possible in a few
short pages; however, observed empirical evidence does at least point to the supposition as an
interesting possibility. For example: Growing up, when leaving the home I often heard my parents
say, “Be careful whom you’re with, because you will soon become like them.” Experience has
proven this to be sage advice indeed, because I have found myself much influenced by organizations.
From institutes of higher learning to for-profit corporations, each has left an indelible imprint on how
I perceive and interact with the world. Which, in turn, leads me to question if one can become a
member of an organization and remain unchanged by the experience. Moreover, that people of
diverse cultures and values systems co-existing together must, it appears, influence one another.
Millions of employees across the world are daily influenced by organizations created based on another
person or group’s ideals and experiences: ideals that may stand in total opposition to their own.
According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), “When people set up an organization they
will typically borrow from models or ideals that are familiar to them” (p.161). Even founders and
leaders are influenced, because “The organization…is a subjective construct and its employees will
give meaning to their environment based on their own particular cultural programming”
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p.161). People are generally aware of the importance of
working for the “right” organization, but do they truly comprehend the potential ethical dilemmas the
choice may bring? It is a profound realization that accepting a position equates to choosing an
environment to influence and be influenced by: to potentially be selecting the cultural medium for
personal evolution.
The dimension of cultural diversity introduces yet another layer of complexity. As stated above,
organizational culture is “shaped not only by technologies and markets, but by the cultural
preferences of leaders and employees” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 161). The work
environment, therefore, is actually co-created. As reported by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1998), “differences between national cultures help determine the type of corporate culture
‘chosen.’” (p.61). And different national cultures are often “fundamentally different in the logic of
their [organization] structure and the meanings they bring to shared activity” (p.161). But what
happens when the ideals and culture of the founder or leaders do not match those of employees? The
divergence between an individual’s culture and the norms and values of a corporate culture alters the
course of personal development and can result in cultural dissonance.
North America, with many of the world’s cultures represented, serves as a good case for examining
cultural dissonance in the workplace. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turners model for analyzing
corporate cultures provides the framework. The model is based on four types of corporate culture:
Family, the Eiffel Tower, the Guided Missile, and the Incubator, which “vary considerably in how
they think and learn, how they change and how they motivate, reward and resolve conflicts”
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 162). Although the model primarily compares
international differences, it follows that both citizens and immigrants would seek to establish a
version of their native corporate culture in America. For instance, most American managers likely
hold some concept of what an “ideal” organization should be; yet there is no guarantee of agreement
on what constitutes an ideal American organization.
The American organization, therefore, is an excellent theatre for experiencing the complex drama of
evolution and diversity in action unfold. Following is an example. After several weeks of difficult
discussions about a large technology purchase, the final meeting occurs. The meeting participants
include a second generation Chinese-American network engineer employed by a first generation
Greek-American business owner in the high-tech industry. The different roles they play in the
organization, areas of technical expertise, and cultural backgrounds reveal a range of cultural
differences that can lead to conflict or synergy. The two present their arguments: the engineer insists
the technology must be purchased “now” to remain operational and competitive, while the owner
presents his tentative decision to postpone the purchase because the financial risk involved may
impact his family and the business.
This scenario is meant to illustrate “that businesses will succeed to the extent that…reconciliation
occurs, so we have everything to learn from discovering how others have traveled to their own
position” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 187). Core issues surfaced when the “guided
missile” culture of the high-tech industry collided with the “family” culture of the owner. The
decision forces the owner to use political power to settle the issue or adopt a participative approach.
And the corporate culture may dictate that the engineer await a decision or expect consultation before
a final decision is made. To reconcile, the owner might “synthesize the advantages” of both the
family and guided missile cultures (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 195). Or the
engineer might consider the owner’s perspective, to prevent judging the owner’s behavior as negative
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, 202). Regardless of the outcome, both people have surely
been influenced by the nature of their diverse perspectives and interdependence, and perhaps forever
changed in some way by the experience.
All living organisms must adapt and evolve to survive, because the environment is in a constant state
of flux. According to Morgan (1997), we should “think about organizations as if they were
organisms.” In fact, to begin “thinking about them as living systems, existing in a wider environment
on which they depend, for the satisfaction of various needs.” (p.33) In the human species, however,
the desire to control the environment and each other has been strong, and the response and
willingness to change variable. Nevertheless, inflexible mental models and modes of behavior like
“closed systems are entropic in that they have a tendency to deteriorate and run down” [and] human
kind, much like a cell is likewise“…a system of functional interdependence” (Morgan, 1997, p.40-
41). In effect, humans as a species advance or decline as a system.
In light of the understanding that human kind is a living system, we can no longer ignore or exploit
men, women, ethnic groups, or the natural environment, nor third world economies without serious
global consequences. As stated by Brake, Walker, and Walker (1995), “…the wider environment in
which …culture exists is in a state of flux; economic, political, demographic, and social changes
make their influence felt, and cultures may need to adapt to new conditions” (p.72). Founders and
leaders must become conscious that they are shaping the way people think and act through the
influence of their organizations, and thereby influence the world. Fortunately, new global-minded
business leaders are emerging and appear to be moving towards a deeper understanding of this
reality. Yet, people need a place to experience other cultures, exchange information, innovate new
technologies, and coordinate their actions to implement solutions. This brief analysis of these factors
supports the hypothesis that organizations indeed represent the principal medium for human evolution.
References
Brake, T., Walker, D., Walker, T. (1995). Doing Business Internationally, The Guide to Cross-
Cultural Success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture (2nd ed.)
New York: McGraw-Hill.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 15, 2002
Organizations of various design and size operate in industries across the world fulfilling missions
ranging from generating profits for owners and stockholders to serving communities in need.
However, all organizations, according to Jones (1998), are commonly conceived as “a tool used by
people to coordinate their actions to obtain something they desire or value-to achieve their goals.”
Thus, leaders of organizations hire skilled people and provide specialized training and financial
incentives to align professional growth with achievement of organization goals. And organizations,
much like family units, exert pressure on its members to conform to a prescribed set of behavioral
norms and values. Weighing the factors collectively, one can argue that organizations have effectively
become the principal medium for human evolution.
Building an academically sound case to prove my hypothesis is neither easy nor possible in a few
short pages; however, observed empirical evidence does at least point to the supposition as an
interesting possibility. For example: Growing up, when leaving the home I often heard my parents
say, “Be careful whom you’re with, because you will soon become like them.” Experience has
proven this to be sage advice indeed, because I have found myself much influenced by organizations.
From institutes of higher learning to for-profit corporations, each has left an indelible imprint on how
I perceive and interact with the world. Which, in turn, leads me to question if one can become a
member of an organization and remain unchanged by the experience. Moreover, that people of
diverse cultures and values systems co-existing together must, it appears, influence one another.
Millions of employees across the world are daily influenced by organizations created based on another
person or group’s ideals and experiences: ideals that may stand in total opposition to their own.
According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), “When people set up an organization they
will typically borrow from models or ideals that are familiar to them” (p.161). Even founders and
leaders are influenced, because “The organization…is a subjective construct and its employees will
give meaning to their environment based on their own particular cultural programming”
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p.161). People are generally aware of the importance of
working for the “right” organization, but do they truly comprehend the potential ethical dilemmas the
choice may bring? It is a profound realization that accepting a position equates to choosing an
environment to influence and be influenced by: to potentially be selecting the cultural medium for
personal evolution.
The dimension of cultural diversity introduces yet another layer of complexity. As stated above,
organizational culture is “shaped not only by technologies and markets, but by the cultural
preferences of leaders and employees” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 161). The work
environment, therefore, is actually co-created. As reported by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1998), “differences between national cultures help determine the type of corporate culture
‘chosen.’” (p.61). And different national cultures are often “fundamentally different in the logic of
their [organization] structure and the meanings they bring to shared activity” (p.161). But what
happens when the ideals and culture of the founder or leaders do not match those of employees? The
divergence between an individual’s culture and the norms and values of a corporate culture alters the
course of personal development and can result in cultural dissonance.
North America, with many of the world’s cultures represented, serves as a good case for examining
cultural dissonance in the workplace. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turners model for analyzing
corporate cultures provides the framework. The model is based on four types of corporate culture:
Family, the Eiffel Tower, the Guided Missile, and the Incubator, which “vary considerably in how
they think and learn, how they change and how they motivate, reward and resolve conflicts”
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 162). Although the model primarily compares
international differences, it follows that both citizens and immigrants would seek to establish a
version of their native corporate culture in America. For instance, most American managers likely
hold some concept of what an “ideal” organization should be; yet there is no guarantee of agreement
on what constitutes an ideal American organization.
The American organization, therefore, is an excellent theatre for experiencing the complex drama of
evolution and diversity in action unfold. Following is an example. After several weeks of difficult
discussions about a large technology purchase, the final meeting occurs. The meeting participants
include a second generation Chinese-American network engineer employed by a first generation
Greek-American business owner in the high-tech industry. The different roles they play in the
organization, areas of technical expertise, and cultural backgrounds reveal a range of cultural
differences that can lead to conflict or synergy. The two present their arguments: the engineer insists
the technology must be purchased “now” to remain operational and competitive, while the owner
presents his tentative decision to postpone the purchase because the financial risk involved may
impact his family and the business.
This scenario is meant to illustrate “that businesses will succeed to the extent that…reconciliation
occurs, so we have everything to learn from discovering how others have traveled to their own
position” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 187). Core issues surfaced when the “guided
missile” culture of the high-tech industry collided with the “family” culture of the owner. The
decision forces the owner to use political power to settle the issue or adopt a participative approach.
And the corporate culture may dictate that the engineer await a decision or expect consultation before
a final decision is made. To reconcile, the owner might “synthesize the advantages” of both the
family and guided missile cultures (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 195). Or the
engineer might consider the owner’s perspective, to prevent judging the owner’s behavior as negative
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, 202). Regardless of the outcome, both people have surely
been influenced by the nature of their diverse perspectives and interdependence, and perhaps forever
changed in some way by the experience.
All living organisms must adapt and evolve to survive, because the environment is in a constant state
of flux. According to Morgan (1997), we should “think about organizations as if they were
organisms.” In fact, to begin “thinking about them as living systems, existing in a wider environment
on which they depend, for the satisfaction of various needs.” (p.33) In the human species, however,
the desire to control the environment and each other has been strong, and the response and
willingness to change variable. Nevertheless, inflexible mental models and modes of behavior like
“closed systems are entropic in that they have a tendency to deteriorate and run down” [and] human
kind, much like a cell is likewise“…a system of functional interdependence” (Morgan, 1997, p.40-
41). In effect, humans as a species advance or decline as a system.
In light of the understanding that human kind is a living system, we can no longer ignore or exploit
men, women, ethnic groups, or the natural environment, nor third world economies without serious
global consequences. As stated by Brake, Walker, and Walker (1995), “…the wider environment in
which …culture exists is in a state of flux; economic, political, demographic, and social changes
make their influence felt, and cultures may need to adapt to new conditions” (p.72). Founders and
leaders must become conscious that they are shaping the way people think and act through the
influence of their organizations, and thereby influence the world. Fortunately, new global-minded
business leaders are emerging and appear to be moving towards a deeper understanding of this
reality. Yet, people need a place to experience other cultures, exchange information, innovate new
technologies, and coordinate their actions to implement solutions. This brief analysis of these factors
supports the hypothesis that organizations indeed represent the principal medium for human evolution.
References
Brake, T., Walker, D., Walker, T. (1995). Doing Business Internationally, The Guide to Cross-
Cultural Success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture (2nd ed.)
New York: McGraw-Hill.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Organizational Research > Organization or Ecosystem?
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |