 |
| SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM |
What Is A Socio-Technical System?
Historical Background of the Idea of the Socio-Technical Systems
This concept was developed by Eric Trist and Kenneth Bamforth in mid-twentieth century. Why not earlier? Because at the beginning of the twentieth century there was no need for that kind of approach to organizational design. Ford’s assembly line and Taylor’s scientific management triggered off a chain of changes, some of which are still present in today’s business world.
Unfortunately, they did not bring only new formula for gaining much bigger profit, but also a lot of problems and undesirable side effects. Meaningless simple tasks were not much of an inspiration for workers. Strict rules, clearly defined roles and relationships inside organization killed every spur of joy and enthusiasm in employees. On the other side, technology developed at a great speed and it was not possible any more to operate in relaxed, cosy atmosphere where everyone worked as a big happy family.
Companies expanded, they needed more complex organization, but bureaucracy just did not seem as the right answer to every problem. Socio-technical design offered new solutions. This concept was not developed only to assure that employees earn their living in a more pleasant environment, but also because researchers, such as Elton Mayo, discovered human factor and became aware of its importance in the race for profit. (Ropohl, 1999) Has the socio-technical system managed to fulfil both its purposes or failed to do it?
The Advantages of Socio-Technical Systems
This brief historical introduction implies that just the inventing of the socio-technical system was a radical and constructive move. The social aspect of this system brought many positive changes. Work is now based on collaboration of employees, not on fulfilling segmented assignments.
The feeling of joint effort in achieving goals creates more pleasant working environment. Employees find themselves doing meaningful work in an interaction with their colleagues. As the impact of formalization and standardization has been reduced, it is expected from workers to show greater knowledge and deeper understanding of what they are doing.
This leads to greater number of opportunities for enhancing skills and professional improvement. Of course, it is not something that each employee sees as an advantage. Trist himself (1981) wrote about his observations that there are individual differences in motivation pattern.
Some people need strict orders and defined place in company’s hierarchy or otherwise they will feel insecure and frustrated. The socio-technical design managed to overcome this problem, as members of each group occupy certain positions and have tasks to complete, but have greater freedom to do so and also have better insight in their own contribution.
Not just that there is an increase in the degree of satisfaction among employees, but also in the amount of productivity. These groups mentioned above are one of the most famous ‘products’ of socio-technical theory. They are called autonomous groups. They have not be widely accepted and applied, but they have proved to be efficient. One of the most famous cases – The Mannley Innovation is an explicit example that socio-technical systems functions well in reality, not just in theory.
Another plus for the socio-technical system is that the number of managers who occupy higher positions in hierarchy can be reduced, as focus of the control is partially in the groups themselves. This means that less money is needed for highly-educated managers whose skills must be well paid.
Also, leaders of the groups are in better position to detect problems during production process, as they have the technical knowledge that most external controllers do not have. This means that less money and time will be spent on dealing with the unexpected situations.
In my opinion, the greatest value of this system lies in the fact that it is concerned both with those who gain profit and those who create it. It is designed to meet the social and psychological needs of employees in order to increase the profitability of the work and make it all compatible with the technology in use.
Ideas of socio-technical design are not applicable only in the mining industry, oil refineries, but also in completely different segments of industry, such as textile (Trist, 1981) and even in hospitals. This can be considered as a great advantage, as this approach is broad enough to offer a suitable framework for organizing a whole range of different types of organizations.
The Disadvantages of Socio-Technical Systems
The broad framework of socio-technical system can also have a negative side. Some authors, such as Dillon (2000), claim that this system is not good enough for implementation in companies whose area of work is technology and that applying it can even cause a communication breakdown!
This sounds as a paradox, but Dillon gives a quite reasonable explanation: technology companies are changing fast, becoming more and more customer-oriented and need a usable system, so in order to achieve that they need defined sequence of steps in solving specific problems they face.
Socio-technical system cannot offer something like that. In its strongest spot lies its greatest weakness – the freedom of choice and responsibility. Not all the organizations can rely on the sound mind and decisions of their employees, sometimes the consequences are too serious and no risk is allowed.
Apart from not being applicable to all kinds of organization, there are some other negative sides of socio-technical system. One of them is the fact that it is far from being easy to create autonomous groups which will fulfil their purpose. Some of their characteristics previously mentioned as advantages can be perceived in a different way.
Task differentiation lies in the core of the autonomous groups. It refers to the extent to which the group’s task is itself autonomous forming a self-completing whole. The more autonomous the group’s task, the more differentiated its task boundary from other organizational units (Cummings, 1978). It is easy to define, but hard to accomplish. For some managers it is a great source of trouble to form groups which characteristics distinguish them from others, but not too much, as they are still part of a wider context.
If there is no balanced differentiation, socio-technical system can be not just ineffective, but also damaging for the organization. The problem lies in the fact that there are no strict rules how to form autonomous groups, because it is up to members to build their structure and up to managers to find them place in the organization. If there are no clear boundaries and connections with others groups, its members will not experience the benefit of meaningful work, as they will not be able to perceive the whole picture of the process, which is the purpose of this system.
Another problem also stems from the concept of autonomous group: task control, as defined by Cummings (1981), refers to the extent to which employees can regulate their behaviour to convert raw materials into finished products. Simply, this means that group members choose on their own work methods and sequence of work activities.
If the groups consist of specialists, this is an excellent method for dealing with the unexpected and stressful situations, because there is no need for permission for changing the working routine when the time is of great importance. But on the other hand, too much freedom cannot be given to all groups and reasons can be different. Managers may believe that the staff is qualified enough to take that responsibility, but then in the in the end it can turn out that they were wrong.
0 Comments