following a model similar to what was done at Detroit Edison, is the foundation and underlying philosophy of the majority of OD work, particularly survey feedback methodologies. This model forms the basis of the OD process that we will discuss in greater detail in Chapter 5. Employee surveys are now a common strategy in almost all large organizations, and action research feedback programs have become one of the most prevalent OD interventions (Church, Burke, & Van Eynde, 1994). We will discuss the use of survey methodologies specifically as a data gathering strategy again in Chapter 7.
Sociotechnical Systems
Sociotechnical systems (STS) was developed in the 1950s, driven by the action research philosophy described earlier, at about the same time as the Detroit Edison survey research project was taking place. The concept of sociotechnical systems is generally traced to a study of work groups in a British coal mine reported by Trist and Bamforth (1951), and was further pioneered at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London by Fred Emery (1959). The Trist and Bamforth study outlined social and psychological changes in work groups that occurred during a transition to more mechanized (versus manual) methods of extracting coal. They write that the study of coal workers shows that there is both a technological system (the mechanics) and a social system (relationships in work groups) in organizations that exert forces on an individual worker, and that the health of the system must take into account these two factors. The technological system consists of not just information technology as we might think of it today, but the skills, knowledge, procedures, and tools that employees use to do their jobs. The social system consists of the relationships between coworkers and supervisors, communication and information flow, values and attitudes, and motivation. In STS, OD interventions examine more than the social system, but in addition “arrangements of people and technology are examined to find ways to redesign each system for the benefit of the other in the context of the organizational mission and needs for survival” (Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, & Shani, 1982, p. 1182). Cherns (1976), in describing and summarizing common sociotechnical design principles, acknowledged that those involved in work design often focused heavily on only one of the two systems, writing “that what they are designing is a sociotechnical system built around much knowledge and thought on the technical and little on the social side of the system” (p. 784).
Importantly, the technological system and social system interact with one another. An important principle of STS is that of joint optimization, which explains that “an organization will function optimally only if the social and technological systems of the organization are designed to fit the demands of each other and the environment” (Pasmore et al., 1982, p. 1182). One method by which joint optimization can be achieved is through an autonomous or semiautonomous work group, where members have some degree of ownership, control, and responsibility for the tasks that need to be performed. To jointly optimize both the social and technical systems of the organization requires an understanding of
1 the social processes that occur in organizations and the variety of theories and methods that exist to make more efficient use of human resources;
2 the technological processes used by the organization and the constraints that it places on the design and operations of the social system;
3 the theory of open systems, because no two organizations are exactly alike or are faced with the same environmental demands; and
4 the mechanics of change, both in the execution of the initial sociotechnical system design and in provision for the continual adaptation of the organization to new environmental demands. (Pasmore & Sherwood, 1978, p. 3)
Once a thorough diagnostic stage is completed to understand the social and technical system, the practitioner might propose interventions that could include “restructuring of work methods, rearrangements of technology, or the redesign of organizational social structures” (Pasmore & Sherwood, 1978, p. 3). As we will learn about more in the next section, findings of studies conducted at the time provided empirical evidence that involvement and participation in both the social and technical systems contributed to employee motivation and productivity.
Sociotechnical systems theory and practices are followed today by OD practitioners. Several global versions or variants have been developed as North American STS, Scandinavian STS, Australian STS, and Dutch STS, all with foundationally similar yet distinct approaches and philosophies (van Eijnatten, Shani, & Leary, 2008). Despite the fact that early studies of STS may have concentrated on manufacturing or physical production environments, there is increasing recognition that STS concepts have an important role to play today in our understanding of knowledge work, or how information technology and automation combine with social collaboration practices to affect our work environments.
Management Practices
Based in part on findings from survey feedback and sociotechnical systems projects, several research programs in the 1960s prompted researchers and practitioners to adopt different ways of thinking about management practices. The aim of these research programs was to offer alternative ways of managing in contrast to the dominant methods of the time. Four notable research programs include (1) MacGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, (2) Likert’s four systems of management, (3) Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid, and (4) Herzberg’s studies of worker motivation.
Douglas MacGregor, a scholar at MIT and a colleague of Lewin’s during his time there, significantly affected thinking about management practices in 1960 with the publication of his book The Human Side of Enterprise. In it, he suggested that “the theoretical assumptions management holds about controlling its human resources determine the whole character of the enterprise” (p. vii). He believed that managers held implicit and explicit assumptions (or “espoused theories”) about people, their behavior, and the character of work, and he noted that it was quite easy to hear how those theories influenced managers. In fact, he gave each of his readers an assignment:
Next time you attend a management staff meeting at which a policy problem is under discussion or some action is being considered, try a variant on the pastime of doodling. Jot down the assumptions (beliefs, opinions, convictions, generalizations) about human behavior made during the discussion by the participants. Some of these will be explicitly stated (“A manager must himself be technically competent in a given field in order to manage professionals within it”). Most will be implicit, but fairly easily inferred (“We should require the office force to punch time clocks as they do in the factory”). It will not make too much difference whether the problem under discussion is a human problem, a financial or a technical one. Tune your ear to listen for assumptions about human behavior, whether they relate to an individual, a particular group, or people in general. The length and variety of your list will surprise you. (MacGregor, 1960, pp. 6–7)
MacGregor argued that managers often were not conscious of the theories that influenced them (remarking that they would likely disavow their theories if confronted with them), and he noted that in many cases these theories were contradictory. Not only do all actions and behaviors of managers reflect these theories, MacGregor believed, but the then-current literature in management and organizational studies also echoed these assumptions. He categorized the elements of the most commonly espoused assumptions about people and work and labeled them Theory X and Theory Y.
Theory X can be summarized as follows:
1 The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if [possible].
2 Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives.
3 The average human being prefers
