REPLY Why don't organizations function better? (SD6618)

[SDMAIL nickols (nickols at att.net)]

Posted by  nickols at att.net (nickols at att.net)

Hmm.  I'm a little puzzled by part of Tom Fiddaman's post.  I get the part about the 
difference between individual and organizational evolutionary requirements (I think) 
but I'm puzzled by the "parasitic" notion re organizational members.

One of the best (i.e., most useful) theories of organizations is that set forth 
initially by Chester Barnard and then by James March and Herbert Simon.  A key 
element in the theory is the notion of "contributions-inducements" (i.e., 
transactions or exchanges between the organization and its "members" (not to be 
confused with employees and so "members" is perhaps better termed "stakeholders").

In any event, the organization receives "contributions" from its members in return 
for certain "inducements" (e.g., suppliers provide goods and services in exchange 
for monies; customers provide monies in return for goods and services; investors 
provide capital in return for a return on their investment; etc, etc.).  There is 
of course a recurring cycle of events that defines an organization as a system 
and sustaining that cycle amounts to sustaining the organization.  Another key 
piece of the theory is that the organization fashions its outputs (e.g., goods 
and services) from the contributions of its members (especially suppliers and 
those other suppliers known as employees).

So, if an organization depends on its employees to fashion the goods and services 
it offers to its customers (another contributions-inducements transaction), how 
is it that the employees are parasitic?

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
Posted by  nickols at att.net (nickols at att.net)
posting date  Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:25:21 +0000