Can Engineers Be Good Managers? – The Management Test for Engineers

Download in PDF format

In his books (The Heart of Enterprise, Brain of the Firm), S. Beer generally emphasises that, drawing on the ways in which living organisms develop strategies to cope with the complexity of their environment, corporate management should also follow a similar approach in its control and decision-making processes. The essence of the viable system model (VSM, living system model), which he developed and which is still applied by many consultancy firms today, lies in its drawing inspiration from the functioning of the human organism. For those interested in the details of the Living System, I recommend reading the books mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. Unfortunately, there are no Turkish translations. Our renowned management consultants and automotive conglomerates have been too busy selling their management advice to their clients and suppliers to find the time to translate such reference books into our language. 

The theoretical foundation of the management model applied by S. Beer draws on the concept of structure and 

organisation in organisms, as well as on new concepts such as autopoiesis, cultural behaviourand structural coupling (German: strukturelle Koppelung), jointly developed by the Chilean neurobiologists H. Maturana and F. Varela. [4] 

Living organisms and human social organisations must sustain their existence and preserve their identity in the face of the influences of their environment. As we have mentioned previously: the influences of the environment and the states it may assume are infinitely complex. As formulated by the cyberneticist Ross Ashby, the Law of Requisite Variety states that a complex system (the environment) can only be controlled by a system possessing an equally complex mechanism. [6] In systems theory, this characteristic of organisation is referred to as structural plasticity . [4] Neutralising changes occurring in the environment is possible through structural changes within the organisation and the acquisition of new forms of behaviour (learning). 

In advanced organisms, the structural connections required for structural change are provided by their nervous system. In human social systems, however, communication takes the place of the nervous system in providing these structural connections 

The key feature of the VSM is the management of diversity. People within a company require information to carry out their work effectively. However, overwhelming company staff with an excessive amount of information leads to a number of adverse consequences. What is actually required is the reduction and enhancement of diversity. New technologies, new laws and regulations, and competitors' new working methods and products—it is neither necessary nor essential for all such information relating to external diversity to be relayed to the relevant parts of the organisation. There is a need for people—namely managers—to classify and filter this diversity of information for the decisions the company must make. It is through this process that diversity is pruned down to a manageable scale. In parallel with this, the system's own diversity—that is, its options—must be increased. Examples include carrying out the company's external advertising and promotional activities, and, internally, the formulation, communication and implementation of plans, procedures and policies. 

The characteristics of VSM can be listed as follows: 

- Granting maximum autonomy to company units 

- Minimising bureaucracy 

- Ensuring control over core activities 

At this point, I would like to delve into the details of the concepts of 'structure' and 'organisation', which I consider to be of great importance for company management. 

Organisation refers to the relationships that determine the interactions and transformations between the components of a system. The organisation of a system is independent of the characteristics and nature of its constituent components. It is not possible to alter the organisation of a system without changing its characteristics or eliminating the system entirely. The purpose of a system, its subsystems and all actions is the maintenance of its organisation—that is, its identity and structure. 

Structure , on the other hand, refers to the components and relationships that constitute a system as a single unit and enable it to realise its organisation. 

Concrete examples may help to clarify these two concepts. For a chair to be defined as a chair, the components we refer to as legs, seat and backrest must have certain relationships between them in order to fulfil the function of seating. Here, you can alter the structure. For example, instead of wooden parts held together with nails, you could construct a steel or plastic chair using bolt and nut connections. The structure is different. However, the organisation—that is, the characteristics that allow it to be defined as a chair—remains unchanged. 

Another example is the toilet flush, a simple machine. This is a system that cuts off the water supply when the desired level is reached in the cistern and, when flushing is required, allows the water to drain via a mechanism. The fact that the components constituting the flush system's structure (cistern, valve, float, lever, etc.) are made of different materials does not affect its recognition as a single unit (the toilet flush). On the other hand, you can use the same materials to realise the organisation of another unit, such as a bathroom cabinet. 

Living organisms, despite differing structurally from one another, share the same organisation. Structure is constantly changing. Organisation, however, remains constant. If organisation cannot cope with structural changes occurring over time, and if a change in organisation becomes inevitable, the system ceases to exist. 

Figure 3: Structure and organisation

An example from human social systems: In a football club, players are bought or sold, but the club's identity remains unchanged. 

6. Structural Change, Spontaneous Organisation 

'Culture or cultural behaviour refers to patterns of behaviour that are ontogenetically acquired within the communicative dynamics of a social environment and may remain unchanged across generations.' (Maturana H., Varela F. The Tree of Knowledge). 

In recent years, some consultants have introduced the concept of 'horizontal organisation' for institutional organisations. The aim was to reduce communication breakdowns in multi-tiered, multi-layered systems and to speed up decision-making processes. Instead of the old-fashioned, rambling organisational models packed with hierarchical tiers (managing director, deputy managing directors, department heads, supervisors, foremen, section leaders and workers), this time horizontal organisation schemes stretching out like a train have been developed. 

An even newer concept is that of self-organisation. This, too, was developed outside our country, but has since become a model marketed by a host of management consultants who possess no theoretical or scientific basis or understanding of the subject. 

Self-organisation, in short, refers to the order that arises spontaneously in complex processes. Self-organising systems are highly complex and exhibit fractal characteristics. Self-organisation consists of new, stable and effective structures and patterns of behaviour that emerge spontaneously in open systems. [5] 

Self-organisation is a phenomenon recognised across many branches of science. For example, in chemistry, the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, discovered as early as the 1950s, is an example of the phenomenon of self-organisation. 

The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Ilya Prigogine, meanwhile, demonstrated that in dissipative systems(open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium), a transition from chaotic structure to order is possible on a macroscopic scale. 

The most recent example of self-organisation in social systems is the internet. 

Apart from these, the theory that comes closest to the phenomenon of self-organisation in social systems—composed of human beings, who are themselves living organisms—is the autopoiesis theory developed by Maturana and Varela. 

According to Maturana and Varela, the most important characteristic of living beings is that they possess autopoietic organisation. The structures of different living beings also differ. However, they are the same in terms of their organisation. The structure—that is, the components that make up the system—is in a state of constant change. As those that have reached the end of their life cycle are replaced, new ones are integrated into the system. For example, the renewal of body cells. As long as the organisation maintains its existence, structural changes continue [4]. The most important difference distinguishing a living system from a non-living system is 

its ability to renew itself. To put it in business terms, the collapse of companies that are unable to manage the structural changes required for self-renewal is inevitable. 

This is where the concept of 'structural change' comes into play. In other words, whilst the system's organisation (identity) will not change, its structure will generate appropriate responses to disruptive influences in its environment, develop new forms of behaviour, renew itself, and so on. Autopoiesis is a network pattern in which the function of each component within the system contributes to the production and transformation of other components [2]. Structural change or structural transformation is a phenomenon that occurs at every moment of an individual's life. This change arises either as a result of interaction with the environment or from the individual's own internal dynamics. [4] 

Figure 4: Structural transformations

For structural transformations to occur, the system must be highly complex. Only then can it withstand the disruptive effects of the environment. In complex systems, the mutual interaction and communication between components make it difficult or impossible to predict the outcomes of system processes in advance. Isolating components from one another and scrutinising them—in short, analysing them—with the intention of gaining an understanding of the system as a whole is one of the most common traditional errors. For systems, a holistic approach is required. 

Companies must be viable systems. Living systems are structurally deterministic systems. However, this does not mean that the future states (behavioural patterns) of living systems can be predicted with absolute certainty in advance. 

Human social systems (family, club, association, company, etc.) and organisms belong to the same class ofmeta-systems. The most prominent feature of the concept of a meta-system is the autonomypossessed by its components. Whilst this autonomy exists at a very low level in the components of single- or multi-celled organisms, it is at the highest level in the components of human social systems. Social insects and animal colonies lie between these two extremes of autonomy. However, it would be a mistake to assume that in every human social system, individuals or groups can act freely of their own accord 

. "…. Organisms and human societies are very different living systems. Totalitarian political regimes have generally severely restricted the autonomy of their members and, in doing so, have deprived them of their individuality and humanity. In this respect, fascist societies function more like organisms, and it is no coincidence that dictatorships favour using the metaphor of a living organism when describing a society. [2] 

It is no coincidence that, in our own context, employers and managers frequently seek employees who work like bees and/or ants. This is because, in social insects, members are programmed to serve a single purpose: to work and produce for the survival and continuation of the colony. In other words, the autonomy of the community's members is extremely limited. The mindset of managers who wish to have employees who do not question but merely carry out orders, whilst at the same time expecting them to produce innovation, is riddled with profound contradictions. In fact, 'I want staff who work like bees' —a phrase frequently uttered by managers—deserves to have a wasp sting the tongue that says it. 

Management or leadership is the art of dealing with complexity. According to physicists Ebeling and Feistel, self-organisation is an irreversible process whereby the cooperation of subsystems creates the complex structure of the system as a whole. 

7. Final thoughts 

'That which our calculations fail to account for, we call chance.' Einstein 

We call the outcomes or situations where our calculations fail 'chance'. Management requires dealing with chance and complexity. No matter how experienced or well-educated you are, you will find yourself utterly helpless on your own. You must seek help from the system's components—that is, from people and groups. This necessitates the process of forming a collective mind. In human social systems—that is, within organisations—the collective mind is achieved by granting autonomy to individuals. 

For these reasons, I would like to offer a few pieces of advice to my colleagues who wish to become proper managers: 

Do not forget that company employees are also components of other social systems (such as the family, political parties, professional organisations, etc.). 

Be aware that in contemporary human social systems, the components—that is, individuals—must possess the highest possible degree of autonomy (self-governance). 

You cannot solve every problem on your own. Complex systems require a holistic and systemic perspective and interdisciplinary approaches. 

Do not view self-organising structures as a rebellion that must be suppressed and punished.

Do not look for staff who work like bees.

Managers should be aware that the ability to think analyticallyis not all that it's cracked up to be. 

References: 

1. İNAM, Ahmet. From the Heart to Science. Cumhuriyet Science and Technology Magazine 766/8 

2. CAPRA, F. The Web of Life. Yapı Merkezi 

3. BEER, Stafford. The Brain of the Firm, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons 

4. MATURANA, R. Humberto, VARELA, J. Francisco. The Tree of Knowledge. Goldmann 

5. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selbstorganisation 

6. ASHBY, W. Ross. An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London