Mon 3 Nov 2008
Socio-Technical Systems
Posted by Greg Waddell under UncategorizedAn intriguing concept that I have come across in the literature of organization development is what is called “socio-technical systems.” It has it roots in a research project conducted by the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s and led by Eric Trist and Fred Emery. The idea is that new technologies always have an effect on the social systems of an organization. By “social systems,” I mean the personal interactions and social networks that are a vital part of any organization. Trist and Emery conducted their research at a coal-mining operation in the UK.
The coal-mining company installed a new system that was supposed to increase productivity. Whereas the miners used to work in small shifts made up of individuals with diverse capabilities who were responsible for completing the entire process. The new approach called for larger shifts of specialized minors who would be spread out over a large area, isolated from one another. It was called the “long-wall” method. During one shift, minors specialized in cutting were sent into the mines. During the next shift, those who were skilled as using the conveyors would replace the earlier shift. Another shift would work on expanding the shafts, creating new entranceways, and shoring up the ceilings.
It all made sense from a logical perspective. Instead of wasting precious time bumping into each other as the minors performed these various tasks, they could concentrate on their specialty and not be bothered by the other workers. The only problem was that productivity plummeted. The workers became more despondent and endured less. This fall in productivity was attributed to the lack of variety and the absence of the camaraderie that the miners enjoyed in the old system. Under the old system they felt more like complete human beings because they could perform a variety of tasks; now they were like machines doing only one thing all day long and without the joking and conversation with others. Appelbaulm (1997) summarized it this way:
The message was clear: a technological change that appears quite rational from a purely engineering perspective can disrupt the existing social system so as to reduce greatly the anticipated benefits of the new technology.
In spite of the fact that this relationship was recognized nearly 50 years ago, today it continues to be overlooked when organizations consider the implementation of new technologies. Often the only criteria that are used to base IT decisions are cost and novelty. The IT people want the latest technologies and management wants the most economical solution. Too seldom is the question asked: “How will this affect the relationships among our workforce?”
Technology is an important aspect of an organization’s processes, but it is not the only consideration, nor is it the most important consideration.
Works Cited
Applebaum, Steven H. “Socio-Technical Systems Theory: An Intervention Strategy for Organizational Development.” Management Decision 35, no. 6 (1997): 452. (6 February 2004).
November 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
The social climate of any organization is probably one of the most important parts of an orgaization to focus on. How people get along on the job, and how people relate and communicate with one another is very important. The social climate sometmes dictates how successful a company will be. Many times people outside of the organization make changes that effect the workers in a negative way. The planners and organizers are not engaged with the day to day work day so when they make technical changes they are not aware of how much of a change it will be for the workers. Fedex is a good example, they continually innovate and make technical changes that allows for them to have one person to do the job that several people use to do. Newer technology makes the job easier, and as a result people put less effort into what they are doing. They equate easier with less, although the severity of the job is the same, peoples lives are still on the line.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Elliott,
You make an important observation about how the top management team can easily lose touch with those on the front line (or on the bottom to use hierarchical terminology). These individuals often have a clearer view of certain organizational realities than do those at the top. So, how might the organization put into place mechanisms that would give voice to those on the front line? Assuming that they see the value of that voice.