Abstract
This chapter explores the equilibria to be achieved by system 3 to 5, first within the strategic–normative system itself, and second between the metasystem and the remaining organization. Within the strategic–normative metasystem, the involved system functions must maintain three equilibria: First, between the organization’s competencies, opportunities, and obligations, second toward the negated space created through decisions, and third between the organization’s self-reference and external reference. This chapter will describe these equilibria in detail, as well as the possible dysfunctionalities that can emerge. The equilibrium with the remaining organization brings again the role of the algedonic channel and the ethos emerging from system 5 to light. This chapter also shows that leadership needs to be conceived as a circular process whose interruption can lead to sever dysfunctionalities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
All figures in this chapter related to the VSM are or contain adapted (detail) views from Beer (1995b: 136, Fig. 37) if not specified otherwise. For the corresponding permission details, see the reference section at the end of this chapter.
- 2.
This allows us to conceive the size of metasystem as much larger than we normally do. Decisions are not just formed in the board room meetings and strategy projects. Often, they have already been shaped beforehand and outside the official institutional frameworks in all kinds of mutual consultations and conversations among people such as during the casual talks in the corridors and the canteen about the future of the organization. This is where opinions are mostly formed and negotiated.
- 3.
Of course, there are other equilibria to be considered as well, such as political and personal ones.
- 4.
Only by excluding other options and limiting the organization to one, can the organization let the present become past and start the future.
- 5.
The Self is hereby understood as the differentiated unity of self-reference and external reference (see Luhmann (1997: 45).
- 6.
We leave it intentionally open as to in which form the “Self” exists or what it “is” precisely, since this would go beyond the scope of this book. Instead, we limit ourselves to the processes and manifestations, where it can be observed, namely during the process of self-referencing and external referencing and as a unique pattern of values, principles, and behaviors.
- 7.
Even if selection criteria are suggested by external sources such as experts, friends or studies, they always need to be accepted by the organization that decides. Accepting criteria thus requires beforehand internal clarity about the nature of the choice of the criteria (“are these the right criteria?”) and the criteria’s effects on the choice (“are the criteria impartial with respect to all options?”); and this is only possible through self-reflection.
- 8.
The organizational “Self” does not become constituted automatically but is often born only after a very difficult discussion and joint reflection process. How painful this process sometimes can be, we are able to observe in the exclamations after long hours of debate, where no conclusion can be reached: “Finally, what do we want!?” What becomes evident in such a situation is that the organization is still too fragmented and lacks a unified vantage point that allows it to gain a clear perspective on what it wants.
- 9.
Attractors are conditions toward which a dynamic system tends to evolve over time. Strange attractors are characterized by the unpredictable behavior of the system due to the sensitivity at the initial situation of this system.
- 10.
The term “ethos” refers to phenomena such as the spirit, character, culture, and character of an organization. Ethos, in this sense, must be differentiated from ethics, which, as a discipline, reflects about the foundation and validity of moral and societal norms. This self-reflection is part of system 5 too, however, ethicality is not an implied property of an “ethos.” Organizations can have an ethos, even if this ethos is untenable from an ethical perspective.
- 11.
For this reason, the ethos is not represented by any kind of channel in the VSM.
- 12.
In Section 10.3, we have said that the metasystem takes a perspective different from the systems 1. In a logical sense, it acts orthogonally to them. The algedonic channel exercises a similar function regarding the metasystem itself and should not be viewed as any other channel in the VSM. It is the channel that opens up a further logical dimension for the metasystem and its complexity processing: It stands in a logical sense stands orthogonally to the metasystem itself and operates critically to it (see Beer 1995a: 406: “The alerting system is orthogonal to the calming system.”)
- 13.
This, however, does not imply the other extreme; namely, that the installation of teams or communities suffices to solve problems. Communities and teams can fail as well. Just setting up a team does not guarantee its success. Teams also need people who take initiatives and lead them.
- 14.
Translation by the author: [Un politique, c’est un aptitude] „à leur [les gens] faire comprendre que l’on est à la fois comme eux et différent, capable de les comprendre et pourtant au-dessus d’eux.“
- 15.
For this insight, I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Isabell Egger-Peitler.
References
Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Beer, S. (1994). Beyond dispute: The invention of team syntegrity. The Managerial cybernetics of organization. Chichester, New York: Wiley.
Beer, S. (1995a). The heart of enterprise. Managerial cybernetics of organization: Vol. 2. Chichester [England], New York: Wiley. (Figures 21, 36, 37, 51 and 61 republished with permission of John Wiley and Sons Inc. and the permission conveyed through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.).
Beer, S. (1995b). Diagnosing the system for organizations. The Managerial cybernetics of organization. Chichester [West Sussex], New York: Wiley. (Figures 19, 21, 25 and 37 republished with permission of John Wiley and Sons Inc. and the permission conveyed through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.).
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices (1st HarperBusiness ed.). New York: HarperBusiness.
Luhmann, N. (1992). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (1. Aufl). Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft: Vol. 1360. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Luhmann, N., & Kieserling, A. (2002). Die Politik der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch. Wissenschaft: Vol. 1582. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lynn, J., & Jay, A. (1989). The complete yes prime minister: The diaries of the right Hon. James Hacker (BBC ed.). London: BBC Books.
Mintzberg, H. (2006). Community-ship is the answer. Financial Times.
Mintzberg, H. (2015). Enough Leadership. Time for Communityship. Retrieved from http://www.mintzberg.org/blog/communityship.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management (First Free Press): The Free Press.
Pascale, R. T. (1984). Perspectives on strategy: The real story behind Honda’s success. California Management Review, 26(3), 47–72.
Philippe, É., & Boyer, G. (2012). Dans l’ombre: Roman. Le livre de poche: Policier: Vol. 32586. Paris: Librairie générale française.
Schwaninger, M. (2006). Intelligent organizations: Powerful models for systemic management; with 6 tables. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
The Economist. (2009). Alfred Sloan. The Economist. January 30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lassl, W. (2019). “With Mind and Empathy”—Managing the Strategic–Normative Metasystem. In: The Viability of Organizations Vol. 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16473-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16473-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16472-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16473-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)