Theory, Management System – System management is a theory of a systemic approach to management. It has several basic assumptions.
Organization is a social system
What is a system? A set of elements, having some kind of relationship between them, connected together by a border.
When we normally talk about a social system, we usually mean that it is a system consisting of people (family, work group, group of friends in a bar...). I lean towards the concept of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, who (following other authors) says that social systems are systems of communication. Its elements are not people, but individual speeches or 'acts of communication', the relationships between them are contiguities (ie they follow each other in time and maintain one theme), and the limit of such a social system is its meaning. Such social systems do not contain people, even though they cannot do without them; people are, so to speak, an absolutely necessary environment for them. A social system - similar to a biological system - constantly stands at a crossroads, at which a decision is made about its maintenance or termination. In this concept, it means maintaining a theme that is meaningful for this system. Because when the topic changes, the meaning changes and with it the whole system. Since each system has the three mentioned characteristics (elements, relations between them and boundaries) that distinguish it from non-systems (environment, other system), it arises and disappears with the change of its elements: in our case, communication acts and their connections.Social systems arise and disappear over time, they are formed from the connection of individual speeches and are 'held together' by a meaningful theme.
For example: the team leader starts the regular Monday meeting by announcing that it is necessary to use up the rest of the subsidies by the end of the year, and that it turns out that there will be funds for education. He is interested in who would be interested in being sent by his organization to a training course of his own choice. His representative - following the last meeting - objects that it would be good to use the funds to purchase equipment that the team does not receive. After a short discussion, the boss reminds who is the boss here. A young member of the team enters the discussion by remarking that they are like two roosters in one dump, and that they should go to the pub for money. Everyone laughs.
The example is intended to illustrate the transformation of the social system by changing the topics - from the discussion on the use of money, through the topic of hierarchy in the team to the topic of personal relationships and human sharing. At the same time, people remain (at least to some extent) the same. Depending on the observer's ability to distinguish individual topics, several social - conversational - systems arose and disappeared here. We also see that with the change in the topic - the meaning of communication - the possibilities of how to join the topic and what means to choose also change. It also tells us something about roles - ie. a system of more or less stable expectations and possibilities of this connection. Some are formalized (the boss starts the meeting, comes first with the topic, for example), his representative functions as the opposition (and we can ask if he wants to collect 'political points' from his colleagues, how constructive is this opposition) and the role of the young colleague is, it seems, purely informal, yet very impressive, powerful. We can therefore consider the organization as a social system, ie. a summary of various conversations conducted by people across different positions (ie, the person with the highest position does not automatically have the most power). Where there are mostly role-based conversations (as we saw with the team leader opening the meeting), we talk about institution. Typically, in organizations we encounter both formalized, ritualized, institutionalized, stereotypically repeating conversations, topics and other communication acts that the institution needs for its 'life' and people to confirm their roles, but on the other hand we also encounter informal connections that give people the feeling that they are together as people. The system (organization) is then a kind of 'meaning-making machine'. People who join the organization then 'hold' in it with their themes, which give them the feeling that they 'are right here' and with their themes they also 'hold' and reshape the system.
'Instructive interaction is not possible.'
It is a quote from the Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana, who introduced terms into the biological theory of systems that were eventually used by the already mentioned Luhmann. Maturana talks about the so-called autopoiesis (self-creation) of a system that maintains itself on the basis of its own regularities, not the regularities of the environment. The needs of the system are precisely its needs. If an organism dies due to lack of food, then it is not caused by the presence or absence of food in the environment, but by the inability of the organism to survive without a supply of energy. This apparent jargon has several important consequences in the field of social (communication) systems, let's name at least the ethical dimension. It leads us to pay attention to decision-making in the context, to trust in competence and responsibility for our own actions. A person must be aware that he is making a choice, it is not possible to refer to external circumstances. Which are, as I believe, highly practical topics.
Therefore, it is not possible to act on the system in a targeted manner with the confidence that it will fulfill the instruction and assignment without any problems. But this skeptical view obviously does not correspond to our experience, at least not completely! People will often do what they are told, but as managers you certainly have experience with the fact that it often has a very different level. We say that it is possible to rely on such and such a person, that with such and such it is necessary to expect a longer 'delivery period', etc. The theory gives us a hint for this: the system behaves on the basis of its internal regularities with the aim of maintaining itself, and for this it chooses from the environment what will become a stimulus for it and what will not. And for the system we can put a cell, a group of cells, an organ in the case of, for example, a pharmacotherapeutic influence, the whole organism, a person, often considered as a bio-psycho-social-spiritual unity - we see how the complexity grows - a family, a work group, where people are connected by other complicated ties and at the same time motivated by often completely non-work obligations and goals...
So, what possibilities do managers have to influence the 'run of things', so to speak, if it is not possible to directly influence people and, moreover, the system has turned into a kind of sequence of conversations, individual speeches?
A systemic view points out that it is not possible to stand outside the system and act on it. What is possible is to accept a position within the system and participate in its self-formation (autopoiesis). In other words, it is not necessary to strategically try to move the system in a direction that suits or likes it, but to ask yourself and others where we are actually going and how we feel about it. A manager, like anyone else, brings his own topics to the communication system (primarily the topic of management!). Some belong purely to his role - for example, they are given by the job description, organizational manual, etc., others are purely personal. As already mentioned, their mutual ratio depends on the degree of institutionalization of the given organization. It can be assumed that our personal themes have some relation to the themes of the organization, ultimately allowing us to become part of it. My personal ambitions, needs for professional growth, material needs, etc. to some extent, they are transformed into the themes of the institution (serving people, showing economic growth, etc.) and are the basis for my loyalty to a particular organization. If the job of a manager (in the most general sense) is to lead people, then his decision-making is a solution to the question 'how to lead?' In this regard, at Monday's meeting, the boss decides how his connections help the organization's goals, at the same time help him remain the boss and the person he wants to be and how he encourages others to similarly join the company's goals so that it helps fulfill their goals.
In the example from Monday's meeting, we saw that the greatest influence was gained by a young colleague who, by joining, brought lightness to the whole situation and made it possible to prevent an impending conflict. We could say that she was a master of interviewing. This is also an option for a manager.
Currently, there is talk of management using coaching tools, the manager is understood as a coach of his subordinates. We understand coaching as such stimulation of the conversation, which enables workers to be better involved and motivated towards the organization's goals than when using classical tools of control and direct influence. An important role is played here by the use of resources, pointing out strengths, aligning personal goals with organizational goals. In this regard, the systemic approach has various models of practice. The most well-known are the solution-focused approach and the narrative approach. What both approaches have in common (despite significant differences) is the orientation towards 'positive deviations'. That is to such ways of behaving, experiencing, such times when things are successful'. Rather than solving the problem, we work on the construction of the solution. We ask rather 'how did you do it?', than 'who is to blame?'.
To help the manager-coach here, one of the key tools is the distinction of 'help' and "control'. This is a very rough, but useful distinction of the way to join the conversation. 'Help' and 'control' are a kind of framework for reflecting on what is happening and an aid in considering the tools that lead to the intended goal.
In the 'control' work mode, we 'take care of things', so to speak. In an interview, this means, for example, that I define the basic framework: the meeting will last so and so long, the topic will be this and that, I need to get such and such information. It can be said that every professional conversation begins with elements of control. In the course of the conversation, the control takes the form of a notice about the organizational rules, handing over tasks, checking the deadline, etc.
We are in professional 'helping' mode when we offer assistance and wait for our partner's orders. A good equivalent for this more narrowly understood 'helping' is offering cooperation. The significant difference between control and help is that control can be carried out, help can be negotiated (it is actually a concurrence of offers and orders of partners in the conversation).
Essential for this distinction is that the manager-coach should be aware that he is making this choice. Decision-making should be reflected and transparent. It happens on the basis of the manager's assumptions, which include: - trust in the possibilities of cooperation with the worker in question, - the goals of the organization as a whole (vision, strategy, tasks) and its current situation.
In other words: if I cannot offer cooperation, if I do not have confidence in mutual possibilities to reach a consensus, if I cannot believe that it is meaningful to ask my colleagues about their goals, then I inevitably reach for control tools. But I should be aware of my inability to see the required competence in my counterpart and express it transparently.
I also want to mention one specific methodology for the solution-oriented approach, the authorship of which is attributed to Steve de Shazer. He was a social worker who, together with his partner Insoo Kim Berg and other colleagues from the Milwaukee team, developed a short, solution-oriented therapy, and their ideas are still used today in various applications of working with people: social work, psychotherapy, education and training, management, supervision... This is the so-called principles of a usefully formulated goal.
Work is mainly done with the help of questions, which in itself can have an unexpected effect in the context of management. But it's the way we get to what people really want: we just ask.
The first set of questions concerns the fact that the goal should be significant. Together with a colleague, we need to make sure that what we are going to work on is mutually beneficial and valuable. A good guide is that the goal should be small enough. This means that it should be realistic, manageable, not overwhelming. It is important that the goal be specifically, best observable on some behavior. So, what will we be able to witness if the goal is achieved? What will anyone ever do? It is important to know that the goal has been achieved, vague formulations based on feelings, etc. this is only possible with difficulty. Relatively unexpected can be the emphasis on the fact that the goal means the beginning not the end, that it refers to the evidence, the occurrence, not the absence of something undesirable. We don't want to hear that 'I won't be late', but 'I'll be on time tomorrow'. We don't want to know that 'I'll stop talking to my lover on the phone during work hours', but 'I'll use the saved time to complete reports'. And finally, it should be clear that the fulfillment of the goal will cost hard work, effort. Goals that do not have this element in them do not have such value, it is difficult to appreciate them, and a person does not even know that he has a goal in front of him. Then it is difficult to want to fulfill it. A goal that is worth the effort is a real challenge and a clear signal of change.
The best practitioners are those who have firmly internalized some theoretical system. The systemic approach, as well as other approaches to management or to working with people in general, offers the acceptance of its principles as an opportunity to adopt a firm attitude. It is then a guide, a solid rope that helps us concentrate. The everyday life of an executive (as well as anyone else) is not a sequence of ingenious solutions and well-thought-out moves, but just everyday life. And we are more likely to be guided by a firm belief saturating our attitudes than by a set of clever techniques. Which, of course, does not exclude the use of smart techniques. They work, but best if we ourselves are behind them. Let's ask ourselves what helps us every day?
Author: Jan HesounThe contribution was made at the International Conference on "Management in Social Work and Case Management", which was held on June 21, 2010. The organizer of the conference was the University of Health and Social Work of St. Elizabeth, n. o.
