Abstract
One of the most intricate and yet not entirely resolved questions regarding the VSM is its conceptual relationship to the organizational chart. This chapter tries to shed light on this fundamental question. It clarifies firstly, the function of the organizational chart and secondly, illustrates how the organizational chart is generated from the VSM. The reader will learn in-depth how the formation of the corporate functions and organizational chart structure causes the fragmentation of the viable systems and leads to the fundamental tension between specialization and the preservation of a holistic perspective on the organization. How should one deal with this polarity? Is a holistic approach already the solution or do “silos” that mark our organizations also have a positive value? One thing is certain: A more nuanced approach is required.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
All figures in this chapter related to the VSM are or contain and if not stated otherwise, adapted (detail) views from Beer (1995, p. 136, Fig. 37).
- 2.
In the meantime, one might even assume that some of the standard management functions can be replaced by computer programs and that the “boss” might no longer be a human being but an algorithm dictating what to do (see O’Connor, 2016).
- 3.
See Schewe (2018), for whom the job design is a process in the creation of the organizational chart structure, in which tasks are aggregated to be taken over by a human agent (“[die Stellenbildung ist ein] Vorgang zur Gestaltung der Aufbauorganisation, bei dem durch Aufgabenanalyse gewonnene Teilaufgaben im Wege der Aufgabensynthese für jeweils einen gedachten Handlungsträger zu einem Aufgabenkomplex bzw. zu einer Stelle zusammengefasst werden.”)
- 4.
The deliberate choice in the organizational chart to reduce accountability to one line creates its inherent problems: Often, one finds that the responsibility for a specific decision and action is distributed among many employees, managers and executives. Decisions in organizations are usually the result of a collective reflection and discussion process than just of one individual. Organizations should thus be better viewed as “networks of shared responsibility.” Here, the organizational chart masks an ambiguity that can result in residual variety (e.g., in the form of unjust accusations).
The VSM is sometimes criticized for not providing a place for the concrete employees. However, its purely systemic and thus somewhat impersonal perspective also has its advantages, since it reminds us that the exercise of a system function can be larger than just the nominated person in the organizational chart. A system function comprises all who exercise it or contribute to it and not just the person named in the organizational chart.
- 5.
The term “area of responsibility” that is frequently used in organizations merits a deeper analysis since it also is the source of numerous tensions. The term leaves the specific responsibilities of an employee relatively unspecified, and so, the employees must adjust their job profiles accordingly to the concrete needs and issues. The advantage for the organization is clear: It relieves the organization from the duty to continually (re-)adjust all job profiles.
It also alleviates the organization from its own incalculability and lack of transparency: It is one of the great fallacies to believe that an organization knows what it is doing (i.e., what tasks need to be accomplished). Unfortunately, this is not the case and the concept “area of responsibility” here helps the organization to temporarily regain some of its calculability. It leaves the incalculable and spontaneous part to the individual employee. Being the owner of an area of responsibility, he or she then becomes responsible for processing the spontaneously emerging issues that cannot be defined by the organization in advance.
The problem, however, is only deferred, since the understanding of what is part of an area of responsibility and what not might differ between the employee(s) and the organization. Widespread are the cases where no or, to take the opposite case, too many employees see themselves simultaneously responsible for a particular issue. The result of this ambiguity is conflicted. Organizations quickly resort to making the individual employee(s) responsible. This might be justified in some cases, but in many others not. They are only the visible symptoms for the underlying incalculability and lack of transparency that the organization tries to mask through the construct “area of responsibility.”
At this point, a fundamental tension between two extremes in which organizations find themselves becomes visible: Either organizations formalize every task and responsibility and, consequently, become buried under their own bureaucracy, or they judge any kind of formalization as futile and refuse to keep track of changes in the job profiles. The latter extreme, however, increases the lack of transparency even further: No one knows who is doing what.
- 6.
This does not imply that in specific contexts, other tasks might also be necessary.
- 7.
As a general model the VSM does not and cannot specify the tasks for each factual aspect and context (e.g., what specific audits are necessary for the finance department). This would exceed the nature of such models. The VSM only demands that, for example, there be an audit for each aspect of an organization, whatever this might be in the concrete case, such as for the finance, production, or procurement function. It is then the task of those designing the organizational structure to verify for each factual aspect (see Chap. 1) that all the necessary systemic tasks are defined, developed, and executed.
References
Beer, S. (1995). Diagnosing the system for organizations. The managerial cybernetics of organization. Chichester [West Sussex], New York: Wiley. (Figures 21, 25 and 37 republished with permission of John Wiley and Sons Inc. and the permission conveyed through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.).
Carelli, J. (2019). Le chief happiness officer n’est pas celui que vous croyez. Harvard Business Review France. Retrieved from https://www.hbrfrance.fr/chroniques-experts/2019/04/25563-le-chief-happiness-officer-nest-pas-celui-que-vous-croyez/.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell Business.
Messinger, L. (2015, August 26). Is a chief happiness officer really the best way to increase workplace happiness? Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/26/chief-happiness-officer-cho-employee-workplace-woohoo-google.
O’Connor, S. (2016). When your boss is an algorithm. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/88fdc58e-754f-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35.
Schewe, G. (2018). Stellenbildung. Retrieved from https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/stellenbildung-43284.
Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. American Philosophical Society, Proceedings,106(6), 467.
Slaghuis, B. (2017). Den Glücksbeauftragten im Büro braucht kein Mensch. Welt. Retrieved from https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/bilanz/article170997146/Den-Gluecksbeauftragten-im-Buero-braucht-kein-Mensch.html.
Spicer, A., & Cederström, C. (2015, July 21). The research we’ve ignored about happiness at work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/07/the-research-weve-ignored-about-happiness-at-work#.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lassl, W. (2020). The Organizational Chart and the VSM: How Does One Get from One to the Other?. In: The Viability of Organizations Vol. 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25854-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25854-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25853-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25854-2
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)