WORK-AS-REORGANIZATION; TOWARD A NEW THEORY OF ORGANIZATION

Raymon R. BruceFulbright Senior Specialist

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityAlbuquerque CenterAdjunct Assistant Professor

University of Electrical Systems and Technology ChinaChengdu, ChinaAdjunct Professor

raybruce@Comcast.net

December 8, 2011

Theory in science has two main functions: (1) to open the way to new knowledge; and (2) to organize that which is known. - (Kurt Lewin, 1941:106)

We often think that when we have completed our study of one, we know all about two, because ‘two’ is ‘one and one’. We forget that we still have to make a study of ‘and’. Secondary physics is the study of "and" --that is to say, of organization. - (Eddington, 1958, 207)

Abstract (298 words)

What are organizations that we have so many theories about them? Perhaps one of the

main needs for theories on organizations is the fact that businesses, social groups, and

governments abound with organizations and us within in them. What, then, is organization? How

does it evolve? This is a report on the journey of exploration into the origins and nature of

organization using Neely Gardner’s Action Training &Research (AT&R) methods for

researching and developing organization change. This research journey began in 1993

1

and has continued as successive open workshop/symposia researching the

nature and origins of organization in the public and private sectors. By

workshop/symposium is meant to combine the formality of a research workshop, but where the

participants form an open learning community where they each teach and learn from each other.

Each workshop/symposium has developed its own papers, listed in the

conclusions. This paper is presented in three parts. The first part addresses the question:

“What is organization?” The origin and modern notions of the word organization is traced back

to its Proto Indo-European language root form: *wĕrg: to work, to do. In the second part of this

paper the workshop/symposium builds a basic model of organization developed from Neely

Gardner’s AT&R method of managing change in organizations. This paper proposes a new

theory of organization based on the question, “What is Work?” The main premise is that things

are already organized. Work is an energy exchange process to re-organize things. Therefore the

new theory is called Work-as-Reorganization. This theory was developed for the succeeding

workshops/symposia to test, improve, or discard as not really useful. The third part of this paper

considers conclusions about how credible and compelling the theory and model of Work-as-

Reorganization might be for current practitioners in organizations as it unfolded in the

subsequent workshop/symposia.

KEY WORDS: organization theory, work, needs, etymology research, Neely Gardner

Background and Introduction

In discussing the research in the fields of physics and public management, Robert Behn

suggests that, “Any field of science is defined by the big questions it asks. . . . Big questions

2

ought to define the field of public management.” (Behn, 1995, 313) This same advice could well

be applied to organization theory as well. Therefore, this paper proposes at big questions for

organization theory: What is organization? Practitioners are often greeted with some form of that

question on projects for make changes in organizations.

The idea of examining this question was initiated in the 1970s while the author was

working on a project with Neely Gardner in was developing his Action Training & Research

(AT&R) Cycle method at the California State Compensation Insurance Fund. (Gardner, 1974,

106-115) (Bruce, 1996, 123-150) (Bruce, 1992-441-450) Gardner’s AT&R Cycle for developing

changing organizations that combines action

research and training methodologies with the

people that will be involved in the organization

change. (Jasaitis, 1992, 29) In figure 1.the

AT&R approach is to develop a learning group

of participants to do the research and develop

together the methods needed to achieve the change in the organization. (Bruce, Fehér, Vavrova,

2009, 138-156) Later a handbook was published by Sage Publishing, Inc.: Changing

Organizations; Practicing Action Training and Research for Organization Development

practitioners. (Bruce and Wyman, 1998) The research workshop/symposium AT&R format

process starts with the assumption that:

A group with a problem usually has within that group the solution to the needs and

problems of their communities. It is just that for some reason they cannot quite get to

assembling some of their needs, issues, nor their solutions to their problems. This

organization development resource group explained that it did not have any solutions.

What the resource group had were some methods and techniques to assist Palauans in

Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle Figure 1 Action Training & Research Cycle

3

identifying their problems, and opportunities, as well as identifying the possible action

options. . . to meet its new needs. (Bruce, Ramarui, Rengiil, S. Bruce, and

Batcheller, 48-51)

This paper is a report on the journey of exploration beginning 1993 into the origins and

nature of organization using Neely Gardner’s Action Training &Research (AT&R) methods.

This journey has continued to the present in successive open

workshop/symposia researching the nature and origins of organization. By

research workshop/symposium is meant to combine the formality of a research workshop, but

where the participants form an open learning community where they each teach and learn from

each other. This research format of conducting informal research workshops/symposia to

develop action training and research for organization change projects was further developed in

conjunction with Edvard Jasaitis of the U.S. Baltic Foundation and later Dean of the Kaunas

Technological University’s Department of Public Administration in Kaunas, Lithuania. This

need arose in 1991 by the separation of the Baltic States as independent nations and the

reorganization of the Soviet Union. Edvard set out to help the newly born Baltic nations in

building their municipal training centers for managers in Local Public Administration. He also

helped set up a department of Public Administration at the Kaunas University of Technology.

Edvard Jasaitis saw that Neely Gardner’s AT&R approach would be useful at the start. (Jasaitis,

1992, 76-79) This initial workshop/symposia program during 1993 to 1995 began with

conducting workshop/Symposia on Neely Gardner’s Action Training & Research methods to

public officials in Riga in Latvia, Vilnius in Lithuania, and as part of a graduate course on

organization theory at the emerging Department of Public Administration at Kaunas University

of Technology. The purpose of using Action Training & Research methods to examine the basic

4

questions on changing public organizations was to gain some basic as well as new insights into

the core dynamic of administering public services in the international setting of the post-Soviet

Eastern European nations.

A preliminary account of these workshop/symposia was focused on developing a

developing toward a foundation theory and model of organization. (Bruce, 1997, 5-14) This

more comprehensive research workshop/symposium paper was later compiled and was presented

at the Public Administration Theory Conference in Richmond Virginia. (Bruce, 1996) Some

feedback from subsequent research workshop/symposia is used in this revised version

to provide a fuller view of the exploratory theory building process.

This paper is presented in three parts. The first part addresses the question: “What is

organization?” The origin and modern notions of the word organization is traced back to its

Proto Indo-European language root form: *wĕrg: to work, to do. In the second part of this paper

the workshop/symposium builds a basic model of organization to use with the Neely Gardner’s

AT&R method of managing change in organizations. The new theory of organization is based on

the question, “What is Work?” The main premise is that before work things are already

organized. Work is an energy exchange process of re-organizing things. Therefore the new

theory and model is called Work-as-Reorganization. This theory and model were developed for

the succeeding workshops/symposia to apply, test, improve, or disprove any part of it that is not

really useful. The third concluding part of this paper considers how credible and compelling the

theory and model of Work-as-Reorganization might be for current practitioners in organizations.

This concluding part also provides a brief review of the research workshop/symposia that

followed this initial one as a way of indicating the value of continuing the journey set out from

this initial one described in this paper.

5

For example, the research workshop/symposia in organization theory for public

administration were continued through 2006 in various formal and informal formats in Eastern

Europe’s Ukraine, Serbia, and Montenegro. These efforts to establish Certified Professional

Public Manager training programs for local government Was directed by Sherman Wyman of the

University of Texas at Arlington’s School of Urban Planning and Public Administration under a

series of grants from the US State Departments’ Bureau of cultural and Education Exchange.

Further research workshop/symposia on this organization theory were conducted during

Fulbright senior specialist assignments in China, 2005, Sri Lanka, 2007, and Slovak Republic,

2009, as well as an Invited Fellowship in India, 2008, all resulting in some nineteen

workshop/symposia papers presented to various international conferences and published in either

their proceedings or in appropriate international journals. (See Appendix A)

PART ONE: Methodology; the Big Questions of Organization

What are organizations that we have so many theories about them? Perhaps one of the

main causes of theories on organizations is the fact that organizations have come to play an ever

larger role in our public and private lives. Businesses, social groups, and governments abound

with organizations and us within in them. What, then, is organization? How does it evolve? Or

has organization always been with us? In their paper, “A future for organization theory:

living in and living with changing organizations,” James Walsh, Alan Meyer,

and Claudia Bird Schoonhoven remark as to the state of our understanding

organization:

The field of organization theory is adrift. The press for ‘relevance’ is

but one symptom of a field that has lost its bearings. . . scholarship

6

that was once so relevant is now irrelevant (or worse). . . the answer is

to change our research foci. The theories we developed to comprehend

the Management Revolution no longer have the traction they once did.

Organization and management theory is uniquely positioned to ask

and answer questions that speak to the defining characteristics of our

new century. The future is ours. We need to seize it. (Walsh, Meyer,

and Schoonhoven, 2006, 667)

Organization theories tend to be more about organizations and their management than

about the nature of organization itself. There are many definitions of organizations. Most of

them come to a generic base: organizations are people working together for a common outcome.

(Harmon and Mayer, 1986, 16-21) Organization theories tend to focus on a particular aspect of

organizations in order to address the organization issues of the historical moment. For example,

Max Weber’s bureaucratic organization focused on economic efficiency, the scientific

management approaches of Frederick Taylor and others focused on effectiveness, while the

human relations theories of Kurt Lewin and others focused on participation, performance, and

learning. Each new organization theory usually proposes its own framework and much of its own

terminology. Although new organization theories are traditionally built upon past theories, they

often tend to develop into separate schools, often at theoretical odds with each other. Another

view: "There is no such thing as the theory of organizations." (Shafritz and Ott, 1996, 4) During

the process of learning Action Training & Research methods in the organization a theory

research workshop/symposium in organization theory building was conducted at Kaunas

University of Technology. The workshop/symposium researched the question of “What is

organization?” as part of their research project to use the AT&R approach for changing

7

organizations. In this case the key research step was to explore the issue of: What is

Organization? The exploratory workshop/symposium used the genealogy of language as their

method to research the origin of the word organization.

On one hand, in selecting a genealogical approach to conduct their research on

organization they took note of Nietzsche’s warning against using genealogy of language as a

method of research: “all concepts in which an entire process is semantically concentrated elude

definition, only that which has no history is definable.” (Spicak, 1988, 165) Likewise, Benedict

Anderson points out the potential value to research using this genealogical approach on

language:

First, one notes the primordialness of languages, even those known to be modern.

No one can give a date for the birth of any language. Each looms up imperceptible

out of the horizonless past. (Insofar as homo sapiens is homo dicens, it can seem

difficult to imagine an origin of language newer than the species itself.)

Languages thus appear rooted beyond almost anything else in contemporary

societies.”(Anderson, 1991, 144-145)

Therefore, the workshop project on developing a theory on organization focused

on language as a researchable cultural artifact for their object of analysis:

organization.

In selecting a genealogical approach to their research on organization, the workshop was

not seeking a definition for organization; they had to assume that the word is self-explanatory in

that regard. They were merely sampling the genetic traces of the word ‘organization’ in order to

use its simplicity to guide them to wherever their genealogical research would lead. In this, they

were following the example of genealogical research set out by Michel Foucault:

The interpreter as genealogist sees things from afar. He [or she] finds that the

8

questions which were traditionally held to be the deepest and murkiest are truly

and literally the most superficial. This certainly does not mean that they are either

trivial or lacking in importance, only that their meaning is to be discovered in the

surface practices, not in mysterious depths. (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983, 107)

The approach was to use the Lithuanian language and its rich treasure of retained Proto Indo-

European language elements as an instrument for glimpsing insights from the surface nature of

organization, as the word rather than seeking some primordial true meaning.

Interpreting the meaning of what we see is the genealogical research trap Nietzsche that

warns against, because then we will then be mistaking a word’s various traces streaming though

that tricky neural cloud chamber in our heads as something to be read like tea leaves in the

bottom of a cup. As scientists, our genealogical research must be in the other direction; we must

examine the obviousness of the words’ traces, rather than searching the hidden meanings; those

we bring to the research project ourselves.

Therefore, the Kaunas University of Technology’s graduate workshop/symposium on

organization theory conducted their genealogical research guided by Eddington’s conjunction

‘and’, as indicating secondary research of organization, merged into Karl Weick's definition of

organization:

“A shared sense of appropriate procedures and appropriate interpretations, an

assemblage of behaviors distributed among two or more people, and a puzzle to

be worked on. The conjunction of these procedures, interpretations, behaviors,

and puzzles describes what organizing does and what an organization is

[emphasis added].” (Weick, 1979, 4)

The workshop/symposium participants traced the word organization back through several of its

genealogical appearances in Western languages. Those traces were used to refine their theory

9

into a more simple model with which they could examine the subsequent changes in the use of

organization as it developed over time, particularly as it related to Lithuania's post-Soviet

situation.

Using the word organization to depict how people associate with one another for some

common purpose gained its prominence with the unfolding of the industrial revolution in the

nineteenth century, with the rise of corporate capitalism, nationalism, and, in particular, with the

sociological writings of Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim. The word organization,

of course, has much earlier roots in our language that can inform us about its original nature.

For example, the word organization comes to English via French and the Roman

Latin name for musical pipe organs: organum. The organum pipe organ was

a loud pneumatic sound instrument used in ancient Roman circus games not

too unlike the blast horns used by attendees of the current world soccer cup

matches. The actual inventor of the

pipe organ is usually credited to a

Greek engineer, Ctesibius [Te-sí-bi- us]

of Alexandria, who created an

apparatus called the organon

hydraulis or water organ as an

experiment during his study of hydraulics in the 3rd Century BCE. Ctesibius’

water organon was a wind driven musical instrument using a combination of

windmill pneumatics and hydraulics to pressurize and blow air across a set of

pipes to create music. Organon hydraulis means literally: an instrument

(organon) that uses wind power energy (energeia) to pump air into a water

Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis Figure 2. Ctesibius’ Organon Hydraulis

10

(hydro) chamber to pressurize air, and to force the air across pipes (aulos) to

create (synergeia) music as depicted in Figure 2. Organum and organon

were Latin and Greek words, respectably, for instrument or tool used for

doing work. In this case the work outcome was sounds synthesized to

become music pleasant to the ear. (Bruce, 2011, 734-746)

Organon was part of a word family of classical Greek, e.g., (ergáths) worker or agent,

(ergon) work to be done, (organon), tools, instruments, and resources for (energeia), working,

and (synergeia) for the work outcome. (Partridge, 1958, 809-910) For example, Aristotle's first

books were grouped together by his students under the title of Organon, meaning instruments

and tools used for intellectual work, i.e., thinking. In Organon Aristotle describes our basic

instruments of reason, namely how we use language and logic as tools to represent, categorize,

and interpret our experiences, and how we can use reason to derive new knowledge from our

perceptions in order to develop our personal and social activities to a common good.

However, organon comes to

Greek from the earlier Proto Indo-

European (IE) root *wĕrg (see Figure

3). The Germanic branch of the Proto

Indo-European language also uses the

same parent language root. The

original sound and meaning of *wĕrg,

namely: to work, to do, is still retained in Werk (German) and in work (English). (Partridge,

1958, 809-910)

Interestingly, in Lithuanian the main word for work is darbas1perhaps akin to robata

1 . Professor Bonefacas. Stundžia. of Vilnius University was instrumental in guiding us on our etymological

Figure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and WorkFigure 3. Etymology of Organization and Work

11

(Russian), rad (Serbian) and Arbeit (German). It comes from a completely different PIE root.

Lithuanian vergas does retain the PIE root *wĕrg, almost in its pure form but probably from a

separate German language crossover (Werk). Ironically, vergas is used to refer to a very special

kind of work situation, namely, slaves, slave labor, or very hard labor. Nevertheless, modern

European languages including Lithuanian ultimately derive their modern word for organization

from the PIE root *wĕrg. The big insight here is that we have gotten organization and work

turned upside down. We tend to think of work as a function of organization, while organization

is a function of work.

More importantly, it is clear from Classical Greek, Germanic, and Lithuanian languages

that in the West the concept of work is genealogically prior to our use of organization in modern

times, and in that genealogical precedence, work engenders organization. Therefore, in order to

glimpse the traces in Weick's context of organization as a conjunction of people, behaviors, and

puzzles to be worked on, we need examine perhaps an even bigger question, namely the question

regarding the nature of work itself.

PART TWO: What is Work? Toward Building a new Organization Theory

Movement in which the end [outcome] is present is Action. - Aristotle

In his essay, “Science and Reflection” Martin Heidegger asks the question: “What does it

mean ‘to work’? (Heidegger, 1977, 159-160) He too, recommends a genealogical research

approach to language. He also traced the etymology of the word for work back to PIE root

*wĕrg. But in describing his genealogical research of the word ‘work’ he cautions us that what is

decisive is the way in which the genealogical research of language is undertaken. Heidegger

research on these words.

12

concludes:

The mere identifying of old and often obsolete meanings of terms, the snatching up of

these meanings with the aim of using them in some new way, leads to nothing, if not to

arbitrariness. What counts, he informs us, is for us to rely on the early meanings of a

word and its changes, in order to catch sight of the realm into which the word ‘work’

speaks. Only in this way does the word speak, and speak in the complex of meanings into

which the matter that is named by it, unfolds throughout the history of poetry and

thought. Work is doing. (Heidegger, 1977, 159-160)

What work is doing is changing things. And changing is: the transition from one order to

another in time. In physics, erg is a measure of work, e.g., horse power, defined as the energy

that is required to bring about change in the position of, namely lift, a standard mass weight to a

standard distance. In chemistry work is the energy measured in the change from one type of

chemical reaction into a new chemical compound. These energy exchanges changes can be

measured, for example in British Thermal Units (BTU) according to the laws of

thermodynamics.

In the biological realm, work seems to be centered on the need of organisms, simple and

complex, to sustain themselves through biological energy exchange via the extended food-chain

of nutrition, reproducing in kind, and evolving along what Jay Gould called “the pathway of

life.” (Gould, 2004, p.92) In all its various forms life, if it is to thrive, namely, to persist, grow,

and reproduce forms needs to constantly acquire, change, and consume energy-deriving

sustenance from its environment. The base rational of how organisms can accomplish this

process is encoded into the nature of their physical make-up. They need the capacity to

apprehend their environment well enough to be able to behave in a way that constantly changes

their situation to their benefit. The seemingly most obvious rule here is the survival of the fittest.

13

Yet, all living organisms are only fit to survive for a while, and none for very long in cosmic

time scales. Still, life persists. Work in the biological realm is organisms doing things to their

external and internal environments in order to achieve the best overall outcome for them.

Clearly, this economic aspect furnishes us with one of the most obvious notions of life in

general, and of work in particular. If we continue take in less energy than we consume, in a time

we will leave this life as such. However, the chain of survival of the fittest is non-linear; events

can overtake even the fittest individual. Nevertheless, whatever work changes we manage to

accomplish in life seem to be able to have beneficial effects for those who come after us.

It seems apparent that any model of work in the human social realm has to retain the

primary elements of life: (1) organisms need, (2) doing things, (3) by exchanging energies (4) for

outcomes that could benefit them. Therefore, to restate the obvious: work is people doing things

to achieve outcomes that they hope will be beneficial to them and theirs. In the Kaunas

University of Technology’s research workshop a simple model of the Action Training &

Research view of work was first constructed around those three action elements; stated in their

simplest elements they are:

People’s Needs

What they are doing with

exchanging energy to reorganize their resources

For needed outcomes (intended and unintended)

The relationships between the

action elements indicate the dynamic

aspect of the simple work model. These

relationships between the work elements

transform the model for work into one that

Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization Figure 4. People’s Work Model of Reorganization

14

is structured along three inter-relational dimensions shown in Figure 4 and developed from the

first Lithuanian workshop/symposium Report. (Bruce, 1997, 5-14)

1. people’s needs for changing things they value into the new forms as outcomes

2. Capacities for doing actions that change reorganize resources in a way to effect

needed outcomes

3. Doing the changes as performance to achieve the new outcomes.

4. The exchanging energy in reorganization of resources to achieve needed

outcomes

This view of the ongoing and dynamic reconciliation among these three dimensions is the

fundamental function of the model of work. It is based on recognizing that everything is already

in a current state of organization. Work purports to reorganize things through performing energy

exchanges to reorganize things and creating new outcomes. Therefore, the work model of

organization would be, in effect, Work-as-Reorganization.

What then is work for people? Originally Proto Indo-European *wĕrg referred to people

doing outcome oriented activities such as weaving for women and hunting or herding for men. It

seems clear that *wĕrg was used to describe the elements of the process of people doing things to

support living for themselves, their family, and their community. However, as conscious

creatures we have a degree of free will or intentionality. We can imagine what we want, as well

as various possibilities on how to behave and perform in order to get what we want. Although we

can imagine and choose what outcomes we want, we, as humans, must imagine along these three

diverging avenues of intentionality. Therefore, in this view of work, organization is the capacity

or capacities of a person through exchanging energies to reorganize their resources into new

product outcomes that meet the person’s needs.

Work, as described in the model shown in table 1. is comprised of work elements that

15

join in conjunction the three decision dimensions of intentionality to develop an AT&R change

strategy plan. The theory of work and organization is primarily a theory of the three work

elements, in conjunction (&) to form the decision dimensions of values & resource

reorganization capacities & performance. These "&"s are Weick’s conjunctions (and

Eddington’s and) of procedures, behaviors and puzzles to be worked on as well as those

conjunctions between the decision dimensions of intentionality. In short the secondary study of

Weick’s conjunctions is Eddington’s notion of organization.

Table 1. People’s Work as a Basic Model of Organization (& = Organization)

ELEMENTSORG

ELEMENTSORG

RESEARCH DECISION

DIMENTIONS

ACTION CHANGE STRATEGY PLAN

Needs & Outcomes = Value to meet needs What we need/want

&

Doing & Needs =Resource Reorganization

Capacities What we can do

&

Outcomes & Doing = Performance through energy exchange

How we shall do it

To develop an AT&R strategy plan requires the study of the ‘&s’. Each of the three

decision dimensions poses a separate question of intentionality, i.e., linking their ‘&’. For

example, how is the ‘people’s needs’ element to be linked to the ‘outcomes’ element? More

precisely, what are the outcomes needed? First, how are we linked to the outcomes to which we

16

value? In order to make the link, we must imagine and select what possible outcomes we intend

to pursue. Secondly, at the same time, how do we evaluate our needs and selected potential

outcomes to our element of ‘doing’? Namely, what are our best capacities to apply energy to

change resources enough to achieve our intended outcomes? What new capacities must we

develop? We need to imagine and decide what deeds we intend to perform in order to achieve

our selected outcomes.

Whatever we decide to do must naturally correlate in some meaningful way with the

outcome that we have selected to work toward. Finally, how do we link the ‘doing’ work element

with outcome we have selected to achieve? More exactly, how must we perform to enact the

deeds we believe are required to achieve our chosen outcome? What training or practice do we

need to undergo to bring our capacities and performance to the level required to achieve the

needed outcomes?

We must imagine our physical selves in constant motion while intentionally trying to

perform those deeds as best we can, often in competition with others who may be pursuing to

bring about some of the same resources and outcomes for themselves. This performance decision

dimension is the most nebulous of the three in that it encompasses the entire risk-for-gain

dynamic of work as reorganization for accomplishing needed changes. In the final analysis the

complete decision-making process is performance in action. Up to now, we had purposefully

minimized the use of the word ‘action’ to describe obvious aspects of the model because it

describes this dynamic of the model. That dynamic is all of the work elements and decision

dimensions are in action concurrently all the time. We resort to Aristotle’s definition of action as

being movement in which the outcome is present.

Because of intentionality, that is, our limited degree of free will to effect change in our

environment, these three decision dimensions among the elements of work comprise an

17

incredibly convoluted, complex, and interrelated action directed decision-making process. The

fundamental dynamic of our intentions is to achieve an outcome that will effectively meet our

needs. The economic value of the outcome to us, we hope, will be greater to us and our social

communities than the sum value of our resources required in achieving our intended outcomes.

Finally, we hope that our actual performance of action taken will be sufficient to bring about the

changes in our resources intended as the selected outcome, with a minimum of unintended

negative outcomes.

This non-linear triad of imaginings and intentionality is a distinctively human aspect of

work. Linking them to work together (Weick’s conjunctions) is a re-organization of changing

things for our perceived benefits. Clearly, the outcomes do not materialize exactly as we had

intended in every case, but such is the nature of work.

Needs & Outcomes: the decision dimension of Values To begin with, the first enigma

of work is that needs drive the entire work process. The difficulty is that a whole manifold of

one’s dynamic needs forces the shape our ingoing disposition toward action in deciding and

committing ourselves and our resources towards working for outcome we need/want. Our

physical, biological, and psychological needs, emotions, feelings, wants, and desires stream out

of our current situation to determine our needs at any given moment. Abraham Maslow's theory

of motivation depicts the hierarchy of these needs in Figure 5. (Maslow, 1996, 45-56)

18

This pyramid is deceptive, because people have concurrent needs for action emanating in

constant flux from all levels of the model. They constantly ebb and flow in time with our main

focus on our needs shifting as well. This strange thicket of needs, charged with our feelings and

emotions becomes nature’s driving force for work. These dynamic and restless needs must be

encompassed and somehow focused by us upon particular outcomes and goals in the process of

our work as reorganization to change things to meet our equally changing needs. Together our

complex of needs constitute our disposition to effect outcomes that would not otherwise occur

without our intervention in the unfolding events of our environmental situation. The use of the

word value here is a convention to encompass the subset of values/valences that interlink our

thoughts, emotions, feelings, needs, wants, desires, etc., which, in turn, urge us to action or

inaction. The words will, disposition, motivation, inclination, goal setting, attitude, or

temperament can also be used to characterize this limited relational needs decision dimension of

our work as organization for changing things. Clearly, sorting out our intentions and focusing

them on specific outcomes is a complex function full of countervailing forces. Sorting out those

forces and figuring out what is best for us is the disposition aspect of our work as reorganization

Figure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

19

Figure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of NeedsFigure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

for changing things.

Doing & Needs: the decision dimension of Resource Reorganization Capacities.

Equally complex is the paradox of deciding what resources such as tools, physical resources, and

help from other people we have to work with (organon) in order to achieve the outcomes we

have selected to pursue.

Theories of behavior range from the linear conditioned response approach of behaviorists

such as B. F. Skinner to the non-linear humanistic consultative theories of Carl Rogers. For

example, to the degree that we do not properly relate our behavior with needs, wants, and other

valences of our values, we are simply responding to the latest and strongest stimulation coming

to us from our environment. In this case human behavior can be reduced to functional cause-and-

effect of Stimulus/Response. At the other end of the spectrum of behavior theories Carl Rogers'

perspective sees the forces that impinge upon even the smallest human effort are so numerous,

are non-linear and often countervailing that they seem to defy any analysis at all.

Nevertheless, we find our way to work in ways to our own interest most of the time. For

example, if you have selected acquiring a violin as the outcome you need-want-desire, then you

have to select what behaviors and resources are most appropriate for you acquire the violin. In

selecting the appropriate behavior you need to consider the rules, laws, mores, skills, knowledge,

roles, and habits in your repertoire that guide your behavior. Will you buy a violin, rent ne,

borrow one from a friend, or build one for yourself?

Outcomes & Doing: the decision dimension of performance through energy

exchange Another paradox of work is performance is a twin of capacities. One cannot perform

proper work without the capacities to do it. At the same time one cannot have the capacity to

work if one cannot perform the work. This paradox is resolved through training and through

practice called experience. We cannot say that we really understand the work unless we have

20

acted upon it before. For example, you can know all about the craft and process of making a

violin, but if you have never produced one, you really do not understand violin making, and are,

if effect, unable to make one. This understanding is not yet part of your personal reality because

it is not in your behavior repertoire.

It is our application of energy from and to those various resources both within us as well

as converting energy sources from the environment that actually enacts the work process of

change to achieve our needed outcomes. Besides natural resources in our environment, these

energy resources include our knowledge, skills, abilities as well as our habits of behavior which

includes all of the mores, ethics, rules, laws and procedures our culture has imbued us with our

repertoire of work behaviors as well.

In work, the performance decision dimension is really a lot of little steps of work as

reorganization to change things, each building on the previous and preparing for the next. A

violin is not made in one step, or even in several steps, but in whole populations of individual

work steps, each carefully concurrent mini-outcomes and behavior selections that allows the

accomplished violin maker to proceed with the care in confident, incremental performance

outcomes toward the overarching outcome of a finished violin that can produce a sonorous

sound.

We can see, at least in the example of an individual violin maker, that work organizes the

intended outcomes, the intended behaviors, and the commitment of the violin maker’s personal

resources in performing many actions to achieve the outcome in a successfully and economic

fashion. However, before one can be a violin maker, one must learn to accomplish all of the

myriad intermediate actions work steps of reorganizing the resources involved and to inter-relate

them in production synthesis performance. This learning comes from the experience of trying out

each step until it is so instilled in one's physical and mental behavior that they become habitual

21

and can be accomplished well without having to think about them. Experience comes from the

Greek words for experience and trying-out (ex peri). Part of the outcome of the performance

experience for you is the acquisition of new understanding. In any case, matching the selected

outcome with the selected behavior in making changes is the proof of the work. In performance

all the work elements and decision dimensions come together in the focus of each moment’s

actions through energy exchange.

What is Organization? The Short Answer

Organization is the interrelated dynamics of the three Decision

Dimensions Values, Resource Reorganization Capacities, and Performance

Capabilities as they influence each other and the three evolving changing

presence of the work elements: Needs, Doing, and Outcomes. Interrelated

dynamics means that values also apply to the potential of available

reorganization capacities to address various selected possible outcomes and

how well current performance capabilities might be able to achieve currently

valued outcomes. This evaluation feedback may (should) cause a

reassessment of the valuation of the selected outcome candidates or even

the priority of the projected work in the hierarchy of needs.

At the same time reorganization capacities and performance capabilities

perform reality checks on each other. Do we have the resource capacities to

achieve the outcomes, but not the performance capabilities? Similarly, do we

have the performance capabilities but not the resource capacities? Further,

what should the impact of these concurrent decision dimensions have on the

values to reexamine needs and outcomes potential to succeed in meeting

22

needs? This is the constant churning of the function of organization on work

in time.

PART THREE: INSIGHTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The grand enigma of work in relation to organization is this fact that organization is

fundamentally confined to the capacities of single individual work agents to be able to reorganize

things to be more useful in meeting their needs. That is, each worker-agent is, in effect, an

autonomous organization that engages in work-as-reorganization to change resources to meet his,

her, or its needs.

Evolving social cultures have found that by working together can have great advantages

toward meeting needs and increasing sustainable development over time and generations. As

mentioned earlier, much of modern organization theories and practices have evolved toward

examining and developing the processes of management and organization structures for getting

many people to work together in a way not only to meet their individual but the collective needs

of their organization as well. History is replete with various organizational schemas to get people

to work together. However, each schema has had to include getting the participants, whether

slaves or stockholders, to share their needs, what they must do, and to participate in the benefits

of the resulting outcomes.

When people work together there must be enough conjunction between the individuals’

needs to bind them together into organizations such as families, tribes, communities, market

firms, and social groups of every other stripe. This conjunction bonds them to work together to

meet shared outcomes that meet their individual needs in some way that could not be met

without the cooperation of others.

23

Organization is this capacity people have to establish and establish (manage) energy

resource conjunctions with others in reorganizing things to better suit the participants’ individual

and collective organization needs. Their performance is everything in the end.

This paper has presented the work of research workshop/symposia on organization theory

conducted in Latvia and in Lithuania in the early 1990s. But the journal did not end there. The

ongoing outcome of this series of workshop/symposia is reflected in the papers in Appendix A.

Research Workshop/Symposia Papers in Organization Theory Building 1993-2012.

APPENDIX A. Research Workshop/Symposia Papers in Organization Theory

Building 1993-2012

Latvia and Lithuania (US Baltic Foundation Inc. (1993-1994) Fulbright Senior Scholar Grant - 1995)

1. "Work as Organization; a Theory,” Bruce, Raymon R. (1997). Hallinnon Tutkimuksen (Administrative Studies), Helsinki, Finland, spring 1997, pp. 5-14.

2. “Work-as-Reorganization; Toward a Theory of Organization Theory and the Study of ‘&’.” Raymon R. Bruce. (1996) Paper presented at the Organization Theory Network, Richmond Virginia and revised for publication in the US-China Journal for Public Administration.

Ukraine (US State Department, Bureau of Culture and Education Exchange Grant to School of Urban and Public Administration, University of Texas at Arlington - (2001-03)

3. “On Perception,” Raymon R. Bruce, (1997) presented at the Biosemiotics 7th Gathering, Groningen, Netherlands, June 6-9, 2007.

4. "C. S. Peirce and the Molecular Tendency for Taking Habits; Chemical Affinities and Their Energy Exchange Sources in Inter-Reactions." Raymon R. Bruce, (2012). Submitted for publication to Signs - International Journal of Semiotics.

5. “A theory of policies as imperative regimes of regulated freedom for information communication technology policy designs.” Raymon R. Bruce. (2012). Accepted for publication in 2012 by the International Journal of ICT and Human Development (IJICTHD) Special Issue Vol. 4(3).

24

6. “What is Organization; Governing by Imperatives Regimes of Regulated Freedom.” Raymon R. Bruce. (2011). Paper presented at the 2011 International Conference for Public Administration, and published in the proceedings, Vol. 1, Part Five, New Public Management Issues, pp. 734-746.

7. “Developing ‘New Comparative Economics’ as a Tool for Joint Public and Private Sector Research and Training for Eastern, Central, CIS Countries to Build More Robust Economies,” Raymon R. Bruce, Juliya Gonoratska, Olga A. Titar. co-authored with, Presented at the Network for Institutions and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee) 13th Annual Conference, Moscow, Russia, May 19-21, 2005

8. “The Quest for Subsidiarity in Eastern European Nation Building,” Raymon R. Bruce, (2006). International Journal of Public Administration, Routledge, Volume 29, Number 13 / 2006, pp. 1215 – 1227.

9. ”Reconciling Market Disconnects between Eastern and Western European Countries,” Raymon R. Bruce, (2003 in The Social Economics Scientific Journal, Kharkiv, Ukraine No.2, 2003.

Serbia and Montenegro (US State Department, Bureau of Culture and Education Exchange Grant to School of Urban and Public Administration, University of Texas at Arlington – (2003-2005)

10. “Innovative methods of education of staff for public administration,” (Inovativni metodi obrazovanja kadrova”).Dragoljub Đ. Kavran, Bruce Raymon R., Sipovac Dušan. (2005).” Pravni život (Legal Life), vol. 54, br. 10, str. 111-121.

11. “Holistic View of International Capacity Building: Partnership of Community in Kragujevac, Serbia,” Raymon R. Bruce, Rodney Erakovich, and Dušan Sipovac. (2010) Metropolitan CEE; Big Cities, Capitals, and City-Regions in Central and Eastern Europe. Eds. Garbor Soos and Markku Temmes. Local Government Administration, Network of Institutions and Schools of Public Administration for Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee), Bratislava, Slovak Republic, pp. 165-178.

12. “Learning to Do Anew Together in Public Service,” Bruce, Raymon R. (2006) Published in Proceedings of 2006 international conference on public administration, (UESTC Press) 2006; a paper presented at the Conference on Local Self Government in Economic & Cultural Development, Bečići, Montenegro, June 1-4 2006.

USA Holloman AFB (Consultant US Air force – 2004)

13. “Taming wicked problems: theory and practice; a practical lesson in how to tackle the multi-faceted problems in the workplace, Raymon R. Bruce, and Nathan Cote (2007). in The Public Manager, co-authored, September, 2002.

14. “Downsizing with Competitive Outsourcing; Its Impact on Absenteeism in the Public Sector,” Raymon R. Bruce, and Nathan Cote (2004) in Public Policy and Administration

25

2004 No 7, (VIEŠOJI POLITIKA IR ADMINISTRAVIMAS ● 2004. Nr. 7), Kaunas, Lithuania.

China (Fulbright Senior Specialist Grant - (2005)

15. “New Comparative Economics and China’s ‘Dual Track’ Approach to Economic Transition to the Emerging Global Economy,” Raymon R. Bruce, Yuwen ZHANG, LI QING, Bihong HUANG, Wenxi JIANG, and Zhenyu WANG (2005).; A Workshop Paper,” co-authored with, , International Conference on Public Administration, Chengdu, China October 21-22, 2005. Published in Proceedings of 2006 international conference on public administration, (UESTC Press) 2005. Also presented at the Tenth International Research Symposium on Public Management (IRSPM X), 10 – 12 April, 2006, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland.

16. “Case Study of Institutional Economics; China’s Reform in the Natural Monopoly of Public Utilities.” PI Qing, , International Conference on Public Administration, Chengdu, China October 21-22, 2005. Published in Proceedings of 2006 international conference on public administration, (UESTC Press) 2005.

Sri Lanka (Fulbright Senior Specialist Grant - (2006)

17. “The Sri Lanka apparel and textile industry; a public private partnership case study,” Raymon R. Bruce, (2012), Submitted for publication to the special issue by the International Journal of Public Sector Management.

18. “Three-way partnership for economic development; the public, private and academic sectors; Sri Lanka; Raymon R. Bruce. (2007). - Fulbright Grant #2303.” Presented at the Conference on Local Self Government in Economic & Cultural Development, Chengdu, china, June 1-4, 2007. Published in Proceedings of 2007 international conference on public administration, Chengdu, China (UESTC Press).

India (Invited Fellow, University of Rajasthan – (2008)

19. “Capacity building – a partnership of community case studies: Rajasthan, India; Kragujevac, Serbia; and Sri Lanka,” Raymon R. Bruce (2008). Presented to the 4th Annual International Conference on Public Administration, September 24-26, 2008 University of Minnesota, USA.; Published in Proceedings of 2008 international conference on public administration, Chengdu, China (UESTC Press).

Slovakia (Fulbright Senior Specialist Grant- (2009)

20. “The convergence of capacity building and sustainable development: public administration’s role in change transition continuity,” Raymon R., Bruce, Alexander Fehér, Luba Vavrova. (2010). (ed.) Lech Zacher, Transformacje (Transformations); An Interdisciplinary Journal. Special Issue 2010. The Educational Foundation Transitions and the Center for Impact Assessment Studies, and Forecasting of the Kozminski University: Warsaw, Poland. pp. 138-156.

26

REFERENCES

Anderson, Benedict. (1991). Imagined Communities; Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised Edition, (London: Verso), pp. 6-7 and 144-145.

Aristotle, 1941, The Basic Works of Aristotle, (ed.) Richard McKeon, (New York: Random House), p. 826.

Behn, Robert D., (1995). “The Big Questions of Public Management.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 55, No 4, (July-August), pp. 313-324.

Bruce, Raymon R. (2011). “What is Organization; Governing by Imperatives Regimes of Regulated Freedom.” Paper presented at the 2011 International for Public Adminisgtration, and published in the proceedings, Vol. , Part Five, New Public Management Issues, pp. 734-746.

______, Raymon R.(1996). "Neely Gardner and the State fund Experience: 25 Years after a Large-Scale OD Intervention.” The Sixth Symposium Issue-Public Administration Quarterly - Part II, Ed. Robert T. Golembiewski. Spring 1996, pp. 123-150.______, Raymon R. (1992). "The State Fund Experience; Neely Gardner's Training-Of-

Trainers as an Approach to Action Training and Research.” Public Administration Quarterly. Winter, pp. 441-450.

______, Raymon R., Sherman Wyman. (1998). Changing Organizations: Practicing Action Training and Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.______, Raymon R., Moses Ramarui, Yoich Rengiil, Sharon Dudley Bruce, Kim Batcheller. (2010). “Nation building: the use of organization development in the emerging pacific island government of the republic of Palau. Revista Administratie si Management Public (Administration and Public Management Review- Romania), No.(14): pp. 45 – 60. Presented at the American society for Public Administration (ASPA) 1980 annual conference in Honolulu, Hawaii,Chatterjee, Partha. (1993) The Nation and Its Fragments; Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).

Dreyfus Hubert L, Paul Rabinow.( 1983). Michel Foucault; Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics; Second Edition, With and Afterword by and interview with Michel Foucault. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press),p. 107.

Eddington, Sir Arthur. (1958). The Nature of the Physical World. (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press), p. 270.

Gardner, Neely. (1974). "Action Training and Research: Something Old and Something New." Public Administration Review, 34(2), 106-115.

Gould, Stephen J. “The Evolution of Life on Earth.” Dinosaurs and Other Monsters; Scientific American Special. Vol 14, Nov. 2, 2004, p 93.Harmon, Michael M., Richard T. Mayer. (1986). Organization Theory for Public Administration. (Boston: Little Brown and Company), pp. 16-21.

Heidegger, Martin. (1977). “Science and Reflection,” The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Translated and with an Introduction by William Lovitt, (New York: Harper Colophon Books), p. 159-160.

Jasaitis, Edvard, (1992) Training and Development: The Neely D. Gardner Approach, Doctoral Thesis, Florida University College of Social Sciences. (1992).Maslow, Abraham H. (1996). “A theory of Human Motivation,” in Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior, Second Edition, J. Steven Ott, ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company). pp. 45-56.

27

Partridge, Eric. (1958). Origins; a Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. (New York: The Macmillan Company), p. 809-910.

Rushdie, Salman. (1988). The Satanic Verses. (London: Viking), p. 272.

Shafritz, Jay M., J. Steven Ott, 1996, “Introduction,” Classics of Organization Theory Third Edition, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company), p. 4.

Spicak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) “Fredriche Nietzsche.” In Other Worlds; Essays in Cultural Politics. (New York: Routledge), pp. 165.

Taylor, Frederick. (1976). “The Principles of Scientific Management.” Classics of Organization Theory. 4th Edition. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott, eds., Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 66-79.

Walsh, James P.; Meyer, Alan D. ; Schoonhoven, Claudia Bird, (2006), “A future for organization theory: living in and living with changing organizations,” Organization Science, pp. 657-671. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32769500_ITM .

Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed, (N. Y.: Random House), p. 4.

28