3.6.5 The Three Elements In Organisations

Now, after all the introductory material in the first few posts, we are going to get a little technical.

The next post looks at organisations [1] that work with people and how the three elements, inclusiveness, boundedness and creativity, determined by the traits of the people in them, contribute to the culture of the organisation as a whole.

While organisations are just collections of people, the organisation seems to have a power of its own over and above the power of the individuals that make it up.

We have come across this already; quoting Aristotle’s statement the whole is greater than the sum of the parts when we were discussing emergence and the family.

And in terms of sense of belonging, (inclusiveness) how often have we heard people within an organisation giving out about the organisation, as if it was all other people’s fault!

[1]. There is an entire Chapter on Organisational Matters in Section Five.

In the lists at the end of this Chapter, the characteristics or traits of an organisation are divided up as to whether they enhance or inhibit a particular element.

For instance fear is a trait that will enhance a boundary but inhibit both creativity and inclusiveness.  On the other hand spontaneity is a trait that enhances creativity (and possibly inclusiveness) but will usually inhibit the formation of a boundary.  It will be obvious to most of you that the extreme of one or another is unhealthy.

The optimum situation is to have a balance between all three, the balance determined by the continual ever-changing tension, as described in the Introduction to this Chapter, above.

In practical terms, and as an example of an unhealthy situation, consider an organisation that is totally accessible (so that it will be very inclusive).  In this case there is the danger that there will not be a healthy distance between people looking for help and those who are offering help.  Therefore a high burn out rate might be a feature in such an organisation – because people are always available.

So while we can say that accessibility enhances inclusiveness we can also say that too much of it is actually harmful to an organisation.  Sometimes organisations that start off, and are intended to be, inclusive, get more and more bounded as time goes on so they are not inclusive at all after a few years.

It is an interesting exercise to see why this is so, and it is explored further in Why Agencies Get Less Inclusive as Time Goes On in the post below.

Note that the lists at the end of the Chapter are divided up into enhancers and inhibitors. 

Each one is a trait that has an impact on the overall character of, or norms that prevail within an organisation.  For example, rigid rules usually make an organisation less inclusive. On the other hand, autonomy will usually encourage creativity in an organisation.

In road-testing the lists I found that people took a while to understand them.

So have a look at them and take a bit of time to get used to them.  I will not dwell on the lists here because there is an exercise at the end of the Chapter that will assist in understanding further.

Suffice to say, for the time being, that:

An inclusive enhancer means that an organisation is more likely to be inclusive.

A creativity inhibitor means that an organisation is less likely to be creative.

There are many organisations that, we feel, would be better if they were more inclusive, more creative, etc. and we all have opinions on these matters depending on our values, our previous experiences, and our core beliefs. These will be explored in a later post.

In addition, and before we move on, I’d like to consider also the impact of largeness [1] when it comes to the three elements, as it is of particular interest.

The corporate world has recognised that size is an important factor in the fostering of each element, that is, small size fosters creativity and inclusiveness, and large size fosters boundedness.

Large multinational companies employing thousands of people worldwide generally have research and development departments (which need a high level of creativity), and advertising departments, (which need both creativity and inclusiveness) as small human scale units so that they can function better.

However they retain their manufacturing departments as large units because they need a lot of control and boundaries, and, usually very little creativity in this area.

(Getting away from family support and such matters for a moment – does that not say a lot about the modern corporate world and how it exists only for profit. It is obvious that people like being creative, but that, generally, is not available for people who are on the assembly line! [2])

[1]. I will discuss the impact of largeness in organisations that support families in our Focus Group in the Section Five, Organisational Matters, Size.

[2]. Like every aspect of life there are, of course, exceptions. But assembly line work was first developed to manufacture a product as quickly and cheaply as possible with minimum scope for initiative, or departures from the norm, for the worker, and maximum profit for the corporation.