Healthy organizations: toward a diagnostic method II

Abstract

Purpose – To contribute to the search for new viewpoints that will enrich the understanding of the complex organizational phenomenon, in particular by contributing to the development of a method that allows qualifying, in the fullest possible way, whether an organization can be said to be healthy. So the objective of this work has been to experiment with the diagnostic method of the organizational health situation – proposed in a previous paper published in this journal – through applications that allowed backfeeding it and offering a new improved version of it. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The present work takes up the challenge of advancing in the development of the method of determining the health condition of an organization, revising the general homomorphism as well as the information that will be considered, its sources, the way of obtaining it, and the way of making the synthesis that will allow issuing the final overall judgement of healthy or not of the organization that is being studied. To that end, recourse is made to the experience obtained from eight applications made to different kinds of small organizations in the city of Santiago, Chile, from 2008 to 2012. Findings – The human-being/organization homomorphism was reformulated, going from eight component systems of the human body to 13, by reformulating some and incorporating others. Although a set of indicators may be used in different kinds of organizations, each one of them also presents a specificity that makes it highly complicated to make comparisons; the health situation of an organization is related only to itself. Consequently, the set of indicators that are selected to determine the health condition of an organization depends on itself. Not all the variables, systems and dimensions have the same weight for those interested in the overall health judgement to be issued, so this task of searching for the weights becomes a key aspect of the method: what was found to be most advisable was to set up a group of experts composed of key informants belonging to the organization itself and of external analysts. The symptoms – perceptions of the key informants – must be transformed into signs that allow objectifying the judgement of healthy or not of an organization. Originality/value – The work contributes new elements that enrich the method for diagnosing organizational health proposed earlier, starting from the homomorphism established between the way in which allopathic physicians study their patients and the way the analyst operates with an organization.

Human being – organization homomorphism: between autopoiesis and allopoiesis

“…This is a fundamental characteristic of the displacement from the mechanistic to the systemic paradigm; the points of reference are no longer the mechanisms and closed systems and they become the organisms and open systems (Bertalanffy, 1987). From here, then, it is not strange for an organization to be thought of, treated, modeled, likened, equaled and metaphorizedthe variety of qualifications is deliberateas a living being (Morgan, 1991) and in particular as a human being (Beer, 1981;Tarride et al, 2008;Tarride and González, 2014).…”

“…The components of the physical dimension, that is the integumentary, skeletal, muscular, joints, nervous, endocrine, lymphatic, immune, cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, urinary and reproductive systems, were homologated with the following 13 corresponding organizational functions: corporate protection and image; organizational structure; work force and strategic positioning; organizational coordination; information and decision making systems; management control; protection, recycling and cleansing; safety and protection; internal logistics; marketing, public relations, sales, budget, purchasing and distribution; input, internal and output logistics; quality control, maintenance, waste recycling and disposal; and ability to develop new enterprises (Tarride and González, 2014).…”

“…Similarly, the mental dimension, constituted by the language, perception, orientation, will, memory, personality, identity, emotions, ideation, conduct and conscience variables, was associated with the following eleven corresponding organizational functions: communication, publicity, public relations; market research; strategy-generating ability; closure; memory; culture; mission; climate; research, development and innovation; conduct; and organizational conscience (Tarride and González, 2014).…”

“…The human social dimension, constituted by: consolidation of family relations; autonomy; responsibility; social participation and projection; capacity of asking for help; acting as a positive model; and planning one's future, was associated with the following ten organizational functions: sharing information with familiar companies, suppliers and clients; organizational autonomy; concern for its stakeholders; capacity of asking for help; relations with institutions of its kind and social institutions; acting with social responsibility; exerting positive leadership; participating in new enterprises; acting with continuous quality and improvement; and carrying out strategic planning, respectively (Tarride and González, 2014).…”

“…The observation of this set of systems and variables will allow the analyst to determine the health condition of any organization. To that end he must gather all the required information, and through comparison with normality points of reference, issue a judgement of healthy or not healthy (Tarride and González, 2014).…”