The Hybridity of Organisations
The Hybridity of Organisations
Embedded and Nested Personal Networks of Organisations
By Dr. Reg Butterfield
16 — minutes read
Image: Butterfield & Wirth 2022.
In the previous article we focused on different forms of organisational structure and suggested that it was time to move from the traditional hierarchical structure and management system and move towards the more flexible organic and socio-organic models. Given the changes in technology and the emerging expectations of workers, we believe that most people would agree that changing the way businesses operate makes sense. The challenge to solve is to determine what this means?
Now, we move forward and start to make sense of some of the key elements that are important to understand as we progress towards new ideas and thoughts about how organisations can capitalise on their skilled workforce. This needs to be achieved without falling into the traps of the past where compliance was a major and dysfunctional component of organisational life.
For some readers it may seem strange that my colleague Dr Ross Wirth and I have placed so much emphasis on the types and roles of informal personal networks found in organisations. We do so because they are part of the organisational ecosystem and play important roles depending on the type of personal network, the conditions pertaining, and the desired outcome.
To help make sense of this I will refer to natural ecosystems and how they adapt and survive in what can often be viewed as a hostile environment of extremes in weather, fire damage, predation damage and so on. The world of people organisations is no different. There are all sorts of environmental extremes in the marketplace, the political and legal landscapes, geographical positions, and technology, to name just a few.
In 2013 I reflected on how I personally work with organisations involved in change and I assembled those thoughts into a small booklet. When pulling those thoughts together I viewed and framed them within the context of nature’s ecosystems, as I found so many parallels with human organisations. Many people view the natural world as one that is predominantly a Darwinian perspective of the survival-of-the-fittest (Origin of the Species, 1859). If only it was that simple.
I will draw on some of my earlier work, together with some of the papers by Carolina Carvalho, a network ecologist, plus many other sources that have investigated the richness and behaviour of natural ecosystems.
Within biological ecosystems many species are linked by flows of resources and of information. These interactions range from highly specialised, where one species alone can provide goods or services that another requires, to highly generalised where multiple species can provide this need. They can also range from highly beneficial to quite detrimental. The following describes the main relationships that are found in the ecosystem:
Mutualisms — Mutualism is a type of symbiotic relationship where all species involved benefit from their interactions. While mutualism is highly complex, it can be roughly broken down into two types of relationship: antagonistic (e.g., food webs, some aspects of parasitism) and mutualistic (e.g., pollination, seed dispersal).
Commensalism — is an association between two organisms in which one benefits and the other derives neither benefit nor harm.
Competition — is a relationship between organisms that strive for the same resources in the same place. The resources might be food, water, or space. There are two different types of competition:
· Intraspecific competition occurs between members of the same species. For example, two male birds of the same species might compete for mates in the same area. This type of competition is a basic factor in natural selection. It leads to the evolution of better adaptations within a species.
· Interspecific competition occurs between members of different species. For example, predators of different species might compete for the same prey.
Organisations are no different to biological ecosystems. Interactions linked by flow of information and resources can also vary as to the benefits or harm that they produce. Mutualisms exist to provide benefit to both parties, sharing scarce resources or sole supplier relationships for example. However, antagonistic relationships also occur as they are predicated on being modular (having subgroups that interact mainly amongst themselves and very little with other groups) often leading to the term “functional or business silos”. It follows that you can have both antagonistic and mutualistic in the same part of an organisation.
Equally, commensalism can also take place without having any discernible negative outcome on the other party; a software division providing an operating platform for competing products within the same organisation can be seen as an example here as it removes the need to go to an alternative outside provider in one or both cases.
Competition can have both positive and negative outcomes depending on the circumstances, which are influenced by norms, rules, and institutions; biological ecosystems do not have these social phenomena and as such the outcomes can be viewed differently:
Interspecific competition can lead to extinction. The species that is less well adapted may get fewer of the resources that both species need. As a result, members of that species are less likely to survive, and the species may go extinct. However, when interspecific competition and specialisation are combined, instead of extinction, interspecific competition may lead to greater specialisation. Specialisation occurs when competing species evolve different adaptations. For example, they may evolve adaptations that allow them to use different food sources.
In human organisations we have the ‘power of expertise’ (specialism), which we discussed in our 26 June newsletter — Control of Organisations. Knowledge is often used as a competitive tool to gain advantage amongst peers seeking for a position or control of a situation. One approach to reducing this competitive behaviour is to specialise in specific areas within the breath of the specialist subject. In this way the ‘survival’ of the specialist is improved, and the mutualism needs to increase for the organisation to gain the benefit of such narrow specialisms. This increased mutualism is discussed in more detail later when we investigate the concept of ‘nested’ functions.
Importance of networks
If we consider the cooperative interactions in the natural world, you may be surprised to read that they happen in networks. The use of networks is something that is very familiar to humans as we undertake all manner of things in networks, ranging from business, trade, socialisation, and communication. We can learn a lot from these natural networks. For example, Carvalho discusses how mycorrhizal networks in old-growth fir forests help create and support the establishment of young saplings and highlights the connection between having more resources and the mycorrhizal network’s ability to help others to flourish.
Plants can also have cultural transmission and learn from their neighbours. For example, trees can communicate with each other through a network of mycorrhizae, a fungal structure invisible to the naked eye that connects their roots, transporting nourishment, messages and even teachings, (Simmard, S. W. 2018).
In human organisational terms we learn that if you have resources and share them you will help others to flourish. Also, we need multigenerational human networks: elders have a lot of wisdom to impart, and if youngsters are connected to them to “absorb” it, they are more likely to thrive. Equally, we have learnt that you should not isolate yourself since connecting and collaborating with others allows you to more likely thrive in your community, benefitting yourself and others.
An important part of the forest symbiosis is more than just relationships between two or more organisms. Carvalho explains that it, “is a complex assemblage of fungal and plant individuals that spans multiple generations. In them, fungus species form “living links” connecting trees and allowing them to communicate and exchange resources and benefitting from the exchange as well.”
When viewing the network of human connections, they are not restricted to mere flows of information or products. Importantly for this discussion, they can be other people (facilitators, engineers, designers, sales, networkers, and so on), living links that enable effective exchange of any kind between other people or groups.
Whilst the forest is robust in terms of perturbations, they are fragile if the large trees (hubs) are removed. In human terms, if the elders are removed the ecosystem is likely to collapse.
Earlier, I mentioned two types of network groups in the natural world: antagonistic and mutualistic. The antagonistic being more modular (silos), whereas the mutualistic networks are more cooperative and are strengthened by the process of being a “nested” structure. Before discussing what the term nested means it is important to explain the term embedded insofar as organisations are concerned.
Embedded Organisational Functions
Whilst dictionaries often describe both terms nested and embedded in a similar fashion, they have different meanings when using them to describe organisational structures. This difference is important when we discuss the interactions of the various players in an organisation, particularly informal personal networks.
If we view an organisation using a very basic systems map (figure 1) we can see that everything that is a part of that organisation is within the boundary of that organisation. This is because all the functions that are necessary for the organisation to operate are within the control and jurisdiction of that organisation. This means that all the functions are embedded within the organisation, even the external contractors and freelance staff. In today’s increased use of remote working and working from home (WFH), it is important to note that even if these players are not co-located with the other parts of the organisation, they are still embedded within the organisational structure and operational systems; without them the organisation could not function.
Figure 1: General Systems Map of an Organisation.
Image: Butterfield & Wirth (2022)
In figure 2 we illustrate a simple basic systems map of the R & D function of the larger organisational system illustrated in figure 1. Each of the areas within the R & D function are embedded in the R & D function. They are embedded because they are discrete areas of specialist activity that when combined through projects and processes become an output of the R & D. Embeddedness here means that each part is working independently within its own specialism and is not integrated other than through the project or processes.
This embeddedness applies in a similar way to all the other functions shown in the figure 1 example.
Figure 2: Systems Map of the Specialist Areas within the R & D Function.
Image: Butterfield & Wirth (2022)
Thus far the systems maps show the embeddedness of the functions within an organisation. We will now move to the importance of “nesting” of functions and/or activities.
Nested Functions or Activities
There has been a lot of debate and research into the concept of nestedness within the world of natural ecosystems. They are complex and beyond the scope and space in this newsletter. Suffice to say that our interpretation of the concept in terms of human organisations is an important part of today’s discussion.
Using the concept of nested activities assists organisations in achieving a more resilient and cooperative business structure. In the context of this discussion, this means that instead of relying on the traditional ‘groupings’ of specialists in the antagonistic mutualism form mentioned earlier (silos) it is better to create a mixture of specialists and generalists in ways that nest them together in the work activities. The following two examples are offered to assist in understanding how this can be achieved.
This first example is a simple common one that many organisations are starting to use. The first line response to customer service enquiries or complaints is traditionally located in the service function area of an organisation. The rationale for this is that it enables direct contact with other specialist colleagues for support or technical expertise advice (this is an antagonistic mutualism view). However, from a ‘customer service’ perspective it makes sense to co-locate the helpline with the sales office. In doing so, the sales office can understand the relationship between the customer and support systems better post-sales, which improves the continuing sales-customer relationship. In this example, the expert technical specialist is “nested” fully within the sales domain and becomes an integral part of the sales team (mutualism, arguably with a commensalism perspective).
The second example is more difficult to explain and is a different approach to the allocation of experts and specialists in project work. It is common for project organisations to use a matrix structure (figure 3) to ensure that the relevant experts are allocated to projects as and when necessary. This approach can be complicated to operate and lead to experts frequently being moved from one project to another, often at short notice. This leads to the expert having no real ownership of the actual project and its overall success and job satisfaction also suffers, particularly when a less qualified person replaces them in the project after their initial hard work.
This moving people around projects is not good for the people involved nor good for the end customer who never gains a real relationship with the project experts because of this switching around from one project to another. There is also tension between the project or programme manager and the expert’s line manager who is trying to balance expert workloads. The whole process encourages antagonistic mutualisms, and the projects suffer because we now move into competitive behaviour between projects and line management.
Figure 3: Standard Project Matrix Relationship between Experts and Line Management
Image: Butterfield & Wirth (2022)
One way of helping to overcome these conflict and detrimental situations is to use the concept of nesting in projects. Figure 4 is an example of how this can be achieved. In this figure we have two situations illustrated. The left-hand side shows the experts of each discipline being allocated a set number of projects that they support. For example, the figures in black are different technical experts and they are all allocated to projects A, D, and E. The same principle applies for the two groups of experts shown as blue and orange. Each expert stays with their allocated projects throughout the project life, even when not actually engaged in active work on that project. In this way, the expert retains some ownership of the project while self-managing the time allocated to different projects based on the high-level priorities.
Figure 4: Allocation of experts nested in projects
Image: Butterfield & Wirth (2022)
The right-hand side illustrates the same groups of experts shown on the left illustrated as expert nested teams. Each nested team of experts works collaboratively with the other project team members and are an integral part of the project communication process and meetings.
This approach provides expert consistency for the projects as they are an integral part of the overall project team as opposed to a ‘visiting expert’ whose name the other team members do not even know. Equally important is the consistency of expert relationship links with the customers regarding technical matters, which may include the impact of requested changes and timetabling, for example.
The expert decides, in consultation with the line and project manager, the priority of activity for the allocated projects. The balancing between different project activity sits with the expert who is part of the multi-disciplined expert team on the projects and as such understands the impact of doing or not doing something at that time. Traditionally, the line management have a priority based on balancing resource allocation over time as opposed to project success.
This nested approach helps the different expert functions within an organisation to develop a better understanding of their collective project responsibility, how their behaviour impacts on others, clearer understanding of the needs of others, and so on. Collectively, they develop a learning organisation through a Community of Practice, a constant organisational need that is seldom achieved through the traditional matrix approach.
A ’fringe benefit’ of this expert nested project approach is that the line management, typically the highest level of expertise, can free themselves from resource allocation management and focus on delivering technical know-how to colleagues and projects.
When the line management must decide to reallocate a ‘nested’ expert’s time across projects because of other major circumstances, there is a clearer understanding of the impact on the projects, which the expert can discuss with the manager so that improved decision-making is achieved.
This more strategic discussion between the ‘nested’ experts and the line managers also assists in developing a closer relationship across the expert functions, which in turn helps to reduce or remove the commonly occuring antagonistic mutualism (silo) approach to project management.
Summarising
In earlier newsletters we considered the power and control systems, the needs of workers and the role of the knowledge worker, the complexity of work, and the important role of the informal organisations that lay below the formal surface of all organisations.
In this newsletter we continued our journey towards a new form of organisation. We have used some of the emerging knowledge about natural ecosystems to help inform and enrich our understanding of organisational behaviour. In doing so, we explored the ideas of embeddedness to demonstrate that all functions and workers necessary for the successful delivery of the business are integral parts of the organisation and as such embedded within it irrespective of location. This is particularly important as the numbers of people working remotely or from home are higher than ever and must be considered in any new approach. We used the concept of general and expert workers breaking out of their antagonistic mutualisms, often referred to as silos, and becoming nested in different ways to build in increased resilience; we illustrated this with examples of first level service located with the sales department, and a novel approach to remove the more traditional matrix management system for projects.
In making such changes, the informal organisational networks will also develop further as people who are normally separated from one another become working partners and form personal relationships that would otherwise probably not exist.
Originally published on Substack on July 17, 2022.
