Evolution of Socio-technical Concepts and its Design Principles

As seen in Mumford (2006), from the start of 1950s, several socio-technical researchers have tried to test and develop the theory. Later on, Open System was an initial and important concept of the socio-technical theory which recognized that every socio-technical system is deeply rooted in its surroundings and this has a strong influence on the way it behaves. For instance, if the environment is the department of a university, it will also include the surrounding departments (e.g. other academic departments) and all other activities that enable the university as an organization to function effectively. In addition to the internal environment, it will also include the external environment of the university. Such notion of an ‘Open System’ was greatly influenced by the work of the European biologist (Bertalanffy, 1950). This open system concept accepted the theory of ‘homeostasis’ which suggested that systems evolve and become increasingly complex but eventually settle for a steady state in which they can accommodate change without disruption (Davis and Taylor, 1972). The idea of homeostasis is still argued today. The opponents of this theory argued that stability is not inevitable; problems may happen in systems as they progress from one state to another.

Mumford (2006) further argued that the idea of open systems regarded both technical systems and social systems as one inclusive system. The researcher or practitioner must always consider them together whereas, the relationships between the two systems, and between them and the external environment, must also be carefully analyzed. Such approach led to the development of a complex method for analysing work systems, which went through a number of several stages. The groups of tasks or unit operations which can be fitted logically together to become a work activity were first needed to be identified. Each of these unit operations has the responsibility of such work group. Next, each workgroup has the power to make progress in the production process if they find necessary. Supporting activities for instance maintenance and purchase of supplies etc., were also brought into the analysis and these were also the responsibility of work group. Also, the key management functions such as coordination and control of the system were left to the executives. Attention

was given to the interpersonal relationships and workers were also asked to explain how they saw their roles.

The socio-technical ideas were then developed by the innovative thinking of Fred Emery, who was an earlier member of the Tavistock Institute in London. The author produced the concept of ‘redundancy of functions’ or ‘multiskilling’. According to Emery (1978), individuals or group workers must have the aptitude to perform several different tasks even though they do not require them in daily working life. Emery believed that such redundancy would make the organization more responsive to coping with undesirable occurrences. The author also believed that unstable environment needs redundancy as it enabled the organization to be adaptive, and that such redundancy was also easier to achieve in self-managing groups rather than in individual work arrangement. These ideas by the author resulted in the development of adaptive strategic planning. Therefore, planning now involved the combination of the value and goals of the organization. This would require the recognition of shared values.

Similarly, as seen in Mumford (2006), Herbst (1974) developed a new concept of minimal critical specifications. The idea of this concept was that “workers should be told what to do but not how to do it; workers should take their own initiative. The author also developed an alternative to work hierarchies which involved work groups, matrices, and networks. Whereas in a work group, all group members should learn and perform their work tasks, in matrices a number of tasks are performed by all the group members and other tasks require specialists. In networks, workers collaborate from a geographical distance. These approaches were used and developed in 1962 in the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project”.

According to Mumford (1985), the use of socio-technical design methods of analysis in many different work situations led the Tavistock group to develop a set of principles for good design. Cherns (1976) in an article in human relations described these principles which were then presented by (Mumford, 1985) as:

Compatibility: In this first principle, the author states that the design process must be compatible with its main objectives. This implies that, if the objective is to establish democratic work structures (DWSs), then democratic processes must be used from these (DWSs).

Minimal Critical Specifications: This principle contains both negative and positive aspects. The negative aspect is that ‘no more shall be specified than is absolutely essential’. This means that a considerable amount of discretion is left to a work group. The positive aspect is that ‘what is essential needed to be identified’.

The Socio-technical Criterion: This is that deviations from expected norms and standards must be controlled as closely as possible. Problems of this kind must be resolved by the team which is being affected and not by the supervisor.

The Multi-function Principle: This principle is that people should not be given fractionated tasks. It is more adaptive and less wasteful for each individual or group to have a range of tasks.

Boundary Location: This principle is that in an organization, departmental boundaries have to be drawn. In the work process, boundaries must be set where work practices pass from one group to another. All groups should learn from each other despite the existence of the boundary.

The Principle of Information Flow: In most of the organizations, information about the company’s efficiency etc., is usually collected and given to the top management. However, it is preferable that such information should go towards the workgroup whose efficiency is important and is being monitored.

The Principle of Support Congruence: The social support system must be designed to support social behaviour. If workers are expected to cooperate

The Principle of Design and Human Values: The objective of the organizational design should be to provide a high quality of working life for the members. The high quality of work requires:

o job to be demanding o opportunity to learn on job o involves decision making o social support

o opportunity of relating work with social life o opportunity to a desirable future

The Principle of Incompletion: This final principle states that the design is an iterative process which never stops. High demands in the work system require continual rethinking of structures and objectives (Cherns, 1976; Mumford, 1985).

Another author named Pasmore (1985) wrote an article in Human Relations in which he provided a positive assessment of socio-technical theory and what the theory has achieved over the past three decades. In his study, the author suggested that the work system must need to be viewed as a group of activities to facilitate the whole, and not as a set of individual jobs. In this way, the work group will become more significant than individual job holders. Control must be given to the work group members not to the external supervisors. Such practice would increase the efficiency as well as democracy within the organization. The author also discussed the concept of multi- skilling which was described by the author as work group members should have more skills than a normal production required. Lastly, as the core objective of socio- technical theory is to spread knowledge within the organization; work system should be designed in such a way that learning would take place within both group workers and the individual job holders.

The design principles of the socio-technical theory were first adopted by the organizations in 1960s; with the passage of time, these principles became more helpful and were then applied in later decades by several organizations in different

countries around the globe (Mumford, 2006). In the following section, we present some examples of international developments of socio-technical theory.