A
Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) knowledge compilation exercise on the
notion of relationship-managing organization (RMO)
JOSEPH
KIM-KEUNG HO
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Abstract:
The notion of relationship-managing
organization (RMO) was formulated by Checkland and Holwell (1998) to clarify
the underlying worldview of Soft Systems Thinking (SST).Naturally, to
understand SST and Soft Systems Methodology, it is important to grasp this notion
of RMO, despite its under-developed status. Ho (2014a) made an attempt to
elaborate on and illustrate this RMO notion with the recent Umbrella Movement
in Hong Kong. This paper makes a further attempt to enrich the RMO notion using
a Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) knowledge compilation exercise from
the field of Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research. In this broad
brush knowledge compilation exercise, four management approaches are
considered, namely, Intellectual Capital Management, Stakeholder Management,
Marketing 3.0 and Diversity Management. As a result, a Multi-perspective,
Systems-based (MPSB) Framework is constructed out of the knowledge compilation
exercise. The MPSB Framework on RMO is intended to inform application of the
RMO notion in management practices.
Key words: Relationship-managing organization
(RMO); Systems Thinking; a Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) knowledge
compilation exercise; the MPSB Research; an MPSB Framework; Intellectual
Capital Management; Stakeholder Management; Marketing 3.0; Diversity Management
Please
cite the article as: Ho, J.K.K. 2015. “A Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)
knowledge compilation exercise on the notion of relationship-managing organization
(RMO)” European Academic Research 2(10)
January: 13113-13127.
Introduction
The original notion of relationship-managing
organization (RMO) came from Checkland and Holwell (1998). It has recently been
examined by Ho (2014a), using the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong as an
illustrative case study on the notion. As a follow-up of Ho (2014a), the writer
takes a closer look at the RMO notion from a Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)
Research stance. [The MPSB Research has been explained in Ho (1995; 2013; 2014b;
2014c) which have been published in the European
Academic Research, thus not further elaborated on in this paper.] Via an
MPSB review, the paper intends to further clarify and enrich the RMO notion to
inform its management application.
On the Soft Systems version of the relation-managing
organization notion and other versions of RMO
Drawing on the Soft Systems
literature, the underlying worldview of Soft Systems Thinking (SST) can be explicated
as follows:
(a) Reality is problematical (Checkland
, 1984);
(b) Human organizations are made up of
people[1]
who are by nature purposeful (Ackoff, 1981; Ackoff and Gharajedaghi, 1996), thus conflicts of interest and
disagreements (i.e. problematic situation with soft complexity (Ho, 2014a).)
are inevitable but bridgeable;
(c) Organizations are “social entities
which seek to manage relationships” (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). This is the core
idea of the RMO notion in Soft Systems Thinking, which is conceptually
compatible and relevant to the study of (a) and (b);
(d) Collaborative and interactive
learning in organizations, perceived as RMOs, is feasible and desirable
(Checkland, 1984; Ackoff, 1981);
(e) Using Soft Systems Thinking and Soft
Systems Methodologies to guide and inform learning is appropriate in an RMO, as
the problem situations encountered more often than not pluralistic in nature
(Flood and Jackson1991; Ho, 2014a).
In
this SST worldview, the Soft Systems version of the RMO notion serves to
clarify SST and inform application of Soft Systems Methodologies in pluralistic
problem contexts. Due to its conceptual value in understanding SST, the RMO
notion has been examined by Ho (2014a), using the Umbrella Movement in Hong
Kong as an illustrative case study. The term RMO was coined by Ho (2014a). To
further pursue this academic venture on RMO study of Ho (2014a), this paper
examines the notion of RMO from a Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research
position (Ho, 2013; 2014b) because:
(a) the idea of relationship-managing
can be understood differently based on different strands of systems thinking. Thus,
there is a danger that the RMO notion can be easily misunderstood by both
readers and its practitioners if the alternative underlying systems thinking perspectives
adopted to study it by its practitioners are not made explicit. For instance,
the Hard Systems-based notion of RMO could be misunderstood as the Soft
Systems-based one.
(b) the Soft Systems version of RMO (RMO-ssv)
has conceptual blind spot when applied in real-world situations (Ho, 2014a;
Flood and Jackson, 1991). It is therefore desirable to develop other versions
of RMO based on different systems thinking perspectives to promote
comprehensive, creative and critical problem-solving practices, as guided by
Critical Systems Thinking of Jackson (2003) and the MPSB Thinking of Ho (2013;
2014b).
It is argued in this paper that other than the Soft
Systems version of RMO (RMO-ssv), it is useful to refine and enrich the notion of
RMO based on the MPSB Research perspective by distinguishing other versions of
RMO. In this respect, the writer comes up with four basic versions of RMO
altogether:
·
The Hard Systems version of RMO (RMO-hsv)
·
The Soft Systems version of RMO (RMO-ssv)
·
The Emancipatory Systems version of RMO (RMO-esv)
· The Postmodern Systems system of RMO
(RMO-psv)
To comprehend these four versions of RMO, readers are
required to have at least some grasp of the four strands of systems thinking
involved here. Briefly, Hard Systems Thinking is concerned about how to choose
an efficient means to achieve a defined goal; Soft Systems Thinking’s primary
focus is on collaborative learning and objective exploration; Emancipatory
Systems Thinking aims at eliminating sources of oppression and promoting
empowerment for the disadvantages groups in organizations and society; finally,
Postmodern Systems Thinking is interested in (i) heeding marginalized voices,
exceptions, funs and (ii) engaging emotions in a specific organizational and social
setting so as to promote diversity and creativity (Jackson, 2000; 2003). The
four versions of RMO are explained in Table 1, which draws on the works of
Jackson (2003), Flood and Jackson (1991), Miles (1975) and Feldman (1999).
Table 1 Underlying worldviews of the four versions of
relationship-managing organization (RMO)
RMO (Hard Systems version) [RMO-hsv]
|
RMO (Soft Systems version) [RMO-ssv]
|
RMO (Emancipatory Systems version)
[RMO-esv]
|
RMO (Postmodern Systems version [RMO-psv]
|
Primary organizational concerns (Jackson, 2003)
Efficiency, efficacy, viability, effectiveness
|
Primary organizational concerns (Jackson, 2003)
Effectiveness, elegance
|
Primary organizational concerns (Jackson, 2003)
Empowerment, emancipation, ethics
|
Primary organizational concerns (Jackson, 2003)
Exception, emotion engagement, fun, ethics
|
Related theories of management
The traditional model of Miles (1975)
Human relations model of Miles (1975)
|
Related theories of management
Human resources model of Miles (1975)
|
Related theories of management
Human resources model of Miles (1975)
|
Related theories of management
Critical postmodern organization theory (Feldman,
1999)
|
Organizational metaphors (Jackson, 2003; Flood and
Jackson, 1991)
Machines, organisms
|
Organizational metaphors (Jackson, 2003; Flood and
Jackson, 1991)
Organisms, brains cultures, communities,
|
Organizational metaphors (Jackson, 2003; Flood and
Jackson, 1991)
Psychic prisons, political systems, coercive systems
|
Organizational metaphors (Jackson, 2003; Flood and
Jackson, 1991)
Carnivals
|
Primary relationship management concerns (Jackson,
2003)
·
Manage
relationships between stakeholders in order to achieve well-defined
organizational objectives, e.g., efficiency, efficacy and viability.
·
Perceive
relationships among stakeholders as fundamentally harmonious.
|
Primary relationship management concerns (Jackson,
2003)
·
Maintain
relationships between the stakeholders of an organization to support (i) collaborative
organizational learning and purpose exploration as well as (ii) attainments
of effectiveness and elegance.
·
Perceive
relationships among stakeholders as mildly conflictual.
|
Primary relationship management concerns (Jackson,
2003)
·
Seek
for (i) empowerment and human development, especially for the weak
stakeholder groups, and (ii) fairness by eliminating alienation and
oppression sources as embedded in social relationships in a specific
organizational context.
·
Perceive
relationships among stakeholders as simple and coercive.
|
Primary relationship management concerns (Jackson,
2003)
·
Foster
diversity and creativity by heeding all kinds of marginalized voices, funs, emotions
and exceptions in the process of dealing with relationships between
stakeholders in a specific organizational context.
·
Perceive
relationships among stakeholders as complex and coercive.
|
The worldviews of the four RMO
versions are described in terms of (i) primary organizational concerns, (ii)
related theories of management, (iii) organizational metaphors, and (iv)
primary relationship-management concerns. These four worldviews, reflecting
four different paradigms, have long been argued in the systems literature to be
incommensurable, see, for examples, Jackson (2003) and Flood and Romm (1996). Admittedly,
it is quite an oversimplification to summarize ideas from the four strands of
systems thinking and RMO-related management theories into a table. Table 1 can
also be validly challenged as being insufficiently informed by literature
review, given that only a few references are considered in the table. On the
other hand, the main purpose of constructing Table 1 is to highlight and
contrast the underling worldviews of the four versions of RMO in a crude way to
further reveal their basic conceptual nature. Table 1 reminds us that, just
because a specific management theory focuses on relationship-management, e.g., the
theory of relationship-oriented organization structure of Chinn (2014), it does
not automatically owe allegiance to Soft Systems Thinking (SST). In the case of
Chinn’s (2014) theory on relationship-oriented organization structure, it has
been explained by Chinn (2014) to be theoretically associated with both the
human relations model and the human resources model as espoused by Miles
(1975). Such explanation by Chinn suggests that this theory can be anchored in
both Hard Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Thinking.
An MPSB knowledge compilation exercise on RMO with
four management approaches
To further enhance the notion of RMO, a broad brush
MPSB knowledge compilation exercise is conducted by examining four management approaches,
namely, (i) Intellectual Capital Management, (ii)
Stakeholder Management, (iii) Marketing
3.0 and (iv) Diversity Management. The relevance of these four management approaches
to the notion of RMO has been suggested by Ho (2014a), as they all take
substantial interest in the relationship management of stakeholders with
different expectations and concerns. Such interest strongly suggests that these
four management approaches are compatible with Soft Systems Thinking. The
knowledge compilation exercise makes use of an MPSB knowledge compiler which
has been defined as: “A set of techniques based on Critical Systems Thinking used
to examine a management discipline at either an individual concept level or the
whole discipline level, resulting in the construction or enhancement of MPSB
frameworks that make the management disciplines coherent and understandable
from the Critical Systems perspective” (Ho, 1995; 1997; 2013). In essence, an MPSB knowledge compilation
exercise is a specialised form of literature review, being (i) explicitly
grounded on Critical Systems Thinking and (ii) not reliant on any primary data
gathering endeavour. The exercise is also a way to practise managerial
intellectual learning (Ho, 2014d). An MPSB knowledge compilation exercise is
composed of four phases (Ho, 1995; 1997):
Phase 1:
select a specific management approach, e.g., Intellectual Capital Management,
for the relationship-managing function in an organization, perceived as an RMO;
Phase 2:
Unearth the underlying organizational metaphors and its affiliated systems
thinking perspective(s), e.g., Hard Systems, Soft Systems, Emanicipatory
Systems or Postmodern Systems perspectives, of the management approach under
review;
Phase 3:
Contrast the identified underlying organizational metaphors and systems
thinking perspectives of the management approach being examined with
alternative metaphors and perspectives to further clarify its conceptual nature;
Phase 4:
Make use of the review exercise to enhance the MPSB knowledge structure for the
management approach under review, e.g., Intellectual Capital Management for the
relationship-managing function in an organization.
Specifically, the knowledge
compilation exercise in this paper (i) discusses how these four management approaches
can be employed in the relationship-managing activity of an RMO, thus informing
this activity and (ii) unearths the underlying organizational metaphors of
these four management approaches so that their respective affiliation to the
various versions of RMO can be made explicit, resulting in further conceptual refinement
of the four versions of RMO themselves. As a result of the exercise, the MPSB
knowledge structures of these management approaches as well as the RMO notion are
enriched. Due to the interpretive nature of the knowledge compilation exercise,
its theoretical validity is solely based on the plausibility of the
intellectual interpretation and reasoning of the writer. Here, the writer chooses
to conduct the exercise in a broad brush manner on the four management approaches
based on the works of Jackson (2003), Choong (2008), Recklies (2001), Arkinson,
Waterhouse and Wells (1997), Kotler, Kartajaya and Setiawan (2010), Lorbiecki
and Jack (2000) and David (2010). The
findings are summarized in Table 2.
Table
2: Key managerial principles, affiliated organizational metaphors and systems
thinking perspectives underlying the management approaches of ICM, SM, M3.0 and
DM for RMO study
Management approaches
|
Key managerial principles as related
to the relationship-managing function of RMO and their implications on
relationship management
|
Affiliated organizational metaphors
and systems thinking perspectives (Jackson, 2003)
|
Intellectual Capital Management (ICM)
(Choong,
2008)
|
Key
principles
· Mobilise
‘things’ such as employees, customers and knowledge, and bond them together
in the productive process, notably knowledge conversion process, of an
organization so as to earn profit.
· Manage,
measure and report Intellectual Capital, e.g., consumer trust, brand image
and corporate culture so as to improve organizational performance, especially
on its financial performance.
Implications
on relationship management: manage relationships to
achieve goals and promote learning.
|
Affiliated
organizational metaphors
· Machines
· Organisms
· Cultures
· Coalitions
Affiliated
systems thinking perspectives
· Hard
Systems Thinking
|
Stakeholder Management (SM)
(Recklies,
2001; Arkinson, Waterhouse and Wells, 1997)
|
Key
principles
· Manage
the complex systems of interests and influences from different stakeholder
groups of an organization to adjust and subsequently meet primary organizational
goals.
· Meet
an organization’s stakeholders’ requirements to gain their continued
cooperative participation in an organization’s activities so as to meet
primary organizational goals.
Implications
on relationship management: manage relationships to
achieve goals and promote learning.
|
Affiliated
organizational metaphors
· Machines
· Cultures
· Coalitions
· Political
systems
Affiliated
systems thinking perspectives
· Hard
Systems Thinking
· Soft
Systems Thinking
|
Marketing 3.0 (M3.0)
(Kotler,
Kartajaya, and Setiawan. 2010)
|
Key
principles
· Employ
“many-to-many collaboration” with customers.
· Offer
products with value propositions that are “functional, emotional and
spiritual”.
· See
the market as made up of “whole human with mind, heart, and spirit”.
· Manage
products with cocreation practices, e.g., creation of products via
collaboration with business partners and customers.
· Manage
customer with communitization practices, e.g., nurturing brand-based
communities for consumers.
Implications
on relationship management: manage relationships to
achieve goals, promote learning, creativity, human development and emotion
engagement.
|
Affiliated
organizational metaphors
· Machines
· Cultures
· Coalitions
· Prisons
· Psychic
prisons
· Carnivals
Affiliated
systems thinking perspectives
· Hard
Systems Thinking
· Soft
Systems Thinking
· Emancipatory
Systems Thinking
· Postmodern
Systems Thinking
|
Diversity Management (DM)
(Lorbiecki
and Jack, 2000; David, 2010)
|
Key
principles
· Harness
the differences (diversity) in an organization’s employees so as to create a
productive environment in which employees feel valued and their talents are
utilized so as to meet an organization’s goals.
· Manage
different aspects of diversity as related to the workforce, behavioural/
cognitive diversity, structural diversity and strategy so as to gain various
benefits of diversity in terms of cost savings, greater learning, a more
diverse mindset and improved customer knowledge.
Implications
on relationship management: manage relationships to
achieve goals, promote learning and creativity.
|
Affiliated
organizational metaphors
· Organisms
· Cultures
· Coalitions
· Carnivals
Affiliated
systems thinking perspectives
· Hard
Systems thinking
· Soft
Systems Thinking
· Postmodern
Systems Thinking
|
Referring
to Table 2, all the four management approaches, i.e., ICM, SM, M3.0 and DM, involve:
(i) key management principles as related to the relationship-managing
activities in organizations perceived as RMOs with implications on relationship
management, (ii) affiliated organizational metaphors and systems thinking
perspectives. Again, based on the writer’s evaluation on the relevant
management literature, all of them appear to endorse more than one
organizational metaphor and systems thinking perspective, although their
perspective anchoring[2] is
very often implicit. It is likely that some organizational metaphor(s) and
systems thinking perspective(s) for a specific management approach can be
dominant while others play a supportive role, but this issue is not further
examined here. Also, which organizational metaphor and systems thinking
perspective is dominant and which supportive can be influenced by its
practitioner’s personal preference and the idiosyncrasy of the specific
organizational context at a specific moment in time. Referring to Table 2, Marketing
3.0 and Diversity Management are both more sensitive to emotional and spiritual
aspects as well as creativity consideration in relationship management, thus
considered as more affiliated to Postmodern Systems Thinking. Marketing 3.0
puts more stress on human development than the other four management
approaches, thus viewed as associated with Emancipatory Systems Thinking,
though in a relatively weak sense. All in all, a broad brush MPSB knowledge
compilation process on these four management approaches by the writer,
resulting in the construction of Table 2, sheds light on the nature of these
four management approaches as well as enhances the notion of RMO itself. Tables
1 and 2 together can be considered as an MPSB Framework on RMO produced from a
broad brush MPSB knowledge compilation exercise. The MPSB knowledge compilation
exercise can be carried out in a more vigorous and systematic way with comprehensive
literature review. Such an academic challenge is not taken up in this brief
paper. The MPSB Framework on RMO as portrayed in Tables 1 and 2 can be employed
based on Critical Systems Thinking to improve management practices in terms of
efficiency, efficacy, elegance, creativity, human development, fairness, fun,
emotional engagement, and ethics (Jackson, 2003). This point was briefly
suggested by Ho (2014a) in the Umbrella Movement case study in Hong Kong, and now
elaborated on here.
Concluding remarks
The notion of RMO from SST has been
illustrated and explained by Ho (2014a). This paper further develops the RMO
notion by means of an MPSB knowledge compilation exercise. The resultant MPSB
Framework on RMO (re: Tables 1 and 2) can be considered as the main achievement
of this paper. It does not only clarify the SST-based notion of RMO (i.e., RMO-ssv) but also offers three
additional versions of RMO, i.e., the RMO-hsv,
the RMO-esv and the RMO-psv. Together, they can be employed
based on Critical Systems Thinking to inform management practices that makes
use of RMO as an analytical notion. The
discussion on RMO in this paper should also enable readers to better comprehend
the RMO notion and the Umbrella Movement example in Ho (2014). In this regard,
this paper is a follow-up intellectual exercise on Ho (2014a) to develop the
RMO notion. Finally, to further develop and validate the enhanced RMO notion in
this paper, it is necessary to conduct more empirical research works, e.g.,
survey research, case study research and newspaper articles study, etc., on
this concept. After all, the elaborated RMO notion, in current form, is a quite
new and untested concept.
Bibliography:
Ackoff,
R.L. 1981. Creating the corporate future. Wiley. Chichester.
Ackoff, R.L. and J. Gharajedaghi. 1996. “Research Paper:
Reflections on Systems and their Models” Systems Research 13(1). Wiley:
13-23.
Atkinson, A., J.H. Waterhouse and R.B. Wells. 1997. “A
Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Performance Measurement” Sloan Management Review, Spring: 25-37.
Checkland, P. 1984. “Appendix to Chapter 4: The Changing
Process of Systems Analysis: An Outline Systems Analysis” in Tomlinson, R. and
I. Kiss (editors) Rethinking the process of Operational Research
& Systems Analysis. Pergamon Press Ltd. Oxford: 61-65.
Checkland, P. and S. Holwell, 1998. “Chapter 2: Information
Systems: The Anatomy of a Confusion” Information, Systems and Information
Systems – making sense of the field. Wiley. Chichester.
Chinn, D. 2014. “A
Relationship-Oriented Organization Structure” eHow.com. (url address: http://www.ehow.com/info_7954159_relationshiporiented-organization-structure.html) [visited at December 12, 2014].
Choong, K.K. 2008. “Intellectual
capital: definitions, categorization and reporting models” Journal of Intellectual Capital 9(4). Emerald: 609-638.
David, A.H. 2010. “Chapter 2:
Diversity, Innovation and Corporate Strategy” in Moss, G. (editor) Profiting from
Diversity: The Business Advantages and the Obstacles to Achieve Diversity.
Palgrave Macmillan: 19-43.
Feldman, S.P. 1999. “The Leveling of Organizational Culture:
Egalitarianism in Critical Postmodern Organization Theory” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Vol. 35(2), June, NTL
Institute: 228-244.
Flood, R.L. and M.C. Jackson. 1991. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley.
Chichester.
Flood, R.L. and N.R.A. Romm. 1996. Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning. Wiley. Chichester.
Gergen, K. and T. Joseph. 1996. “Organizational Science in a
Postmodern Context” Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 32: 356-378.
Ho, J.K.K. 1995.
"Formulating MPSB Frameworks, using Logistics Management as an example: A
Research Note", Systems Practice, 8(2) April. Plenum Press: 223-230.
Ho,
J.K.K. 1997. “What can contemporary
systems thinking offer to logistics management as a management discipline?” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management 3(2). Pergamon: 77-81.
Ho, J.K.K. 2014a. “Using the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong
as an illustrative case study on the relationship-managing organization (RMO)
notion in Soft Systems Thinking” European Academic Research II(9), December:
11847-11879.
Ho, J.K.K. 2014c. “Mapping and explaining the
Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research sub-Systems Movement” European Academic Research II(9),
December: 11880-11900.
Jackson, M.C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for
Managers. Wiley. Chichester.
Kotler, P., H. Kartajaya and I. Setiawan. 2010. Marketing
3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit. Wiley. Chichester.
Lorbiecki, A. and G. Jack. 2000. “Critical Turns in the
Evolution of Diversity Management” British
Journal of Management 11 Special Issue, British Academy of Management:
17-31.
Mile, R.E. 1975. Theories of Management: Implications for
Organizational Behavior and Development. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd.
[1]
People include all the primary and secondary
stakeholders of an organization. Primary stakeholders are those people who are
directly affected by an organization while secondary stakeholders are the ones
who are indirectly affected by it.
[2]
Perspective anchoring is the intellectual effort to explicitly relate a
methodology to a particular perspective, e.g., Soft Systems Thinking
perspective, so that it explicitly respects the rationality of such a
perspective (Ho, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment