How to handle organizational change, from families to churches to governments.
By Mark D. Harris
Introduction
The fundamental organization in every culture in history is the family. Consisting of one man (rarely more) and one woman (sometimes more), only the family is capable of reproducing itself and growing the human population. Romantic love is a fundamental, universal psychological phenomenon that plays a large role in family generation (de Munck et al., 2016). Families provide social systems, educational opportunities, economic security, and a common defense for their members. Families divide labor among participants to sustain themselves and ensure the achievement of joint goals, such as individual survival, reproduction, and social networking (Rözer et al., 2018). No other organization can exist without the family, and the family affects all organizations. Family firms, especially those with high religiosity, are associated with higher goal orientation, short and long term (Pieper et al., 2019).
Families are recognized by formal public ceremonies in almost all cultures because families fit into a larger structure, that of tribes (communities bound together by social, economic, religious, and/or blood ties, with a common culture, typically having a recognized leader) and clans (a group of close knit and interrelated families) (Mordecai & Religion, 1999). However, God, not man, joins man and wife together into a family, into “one flesh (Matthew 19:4-6).” The Church, the body of Christ, is the only other God-created organization in the world, and its members are God Himself in His three Persons, and the individual believer. God establishes all authorities (Romans 13:1), such as governments. But governments are secondary; they cannot reproduce as families can and do not have God as a party as the Church does. In their essentials, the family and the people of God, known now as the Church, both unique among organizations, resist change (Genesis 1:26-31). Their God-given model is as valid in 2026 as in 4026 BC.
All other organizations, however, do change. A club may change its membership, its rules, and its reason for existing. The Wright Brothers’ company began making bicycles and transitioned into making airplanes due to the amazing technological advance that the Wrights themselves had made. Technology causes organizational change today, but so does demographics, changes in culture, religion, and a host of other factors. This paper discusses some of the ways that organizations change in the 21st century.
Unitary to Multiparadigm
Since antiquity, organizations have been analyzed through a largely rationalist perspective, which entails formal structures, hierarchies, and group goals. Academics grew notably in the 20th century, and fields previously unimagined have arisen. Man has been looking at life through an economics window since before Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations (1776). Scholars gained another overarching paradigm when Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867). Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is considered a fundamental work in the field of sociology. These three worldview paradigms, along with many others, provided other windows through which people could analyze groups.
How do researchers analyze an organization from the framework of multiple paradigms? First, they can bracket paradigms, distinguishing the underlying assumptions of each paradigm. Second, they can look at an event or issue from three perspectives simultaneously, such as analyzing a community from the rational actor, economic, and political aspects. Third, they can analyze their subject sequentially. Fourth, researchers might consider the interplay of one person or organization with another. For example, Army officer evaluations are “nested” into the evaluations of their senior officer. This means that the junior officer’s evaluation must reflect every part of the senior officer’s goals, so far as they are applicable to him. By contrast, Officers of the same rank and parallel position might blend their goals but remain distinct.
Monocultural to Multicultural
The reader will notice that Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Max Weber were all white men, with the first living and writing in 18th century England and the others in 19th and 20th century Germany. Other authors producing seminal work in organizational theory are, by and large, European or North American and male. The obvious question is “why weren’t women, Arabs, Chinese, Africans, Indians, and others writing equally seminal works in roughly equal numbers?” Some commentators might argue that they were, but their efforts have not been preserved. This second view is, of course, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable, but neither question shall be addressed here. Suffice it to say that in the 21st century, people in greater numbers and in greater sexual and ethnic diversity have been contributing to the literature in every field, including organizational theory. This is a welcome development, as other perspectives may contribute meaningfully to science’s search for the truth.
Real multicultural studies in organizational research began to appear in the 1980s (W. Richard Scott & Davis, 2017). While promising, some are concerned that even studies done in non-US settings are done from US paradigms, reflecting US cultural diffusion rather than honestly differing frames of reference. Ground-breaking qualitative research such as ethnographic studies are needed to acquire organizational understanding in non-Western contexts. This is especially true as businesses become more multicultural and managers need training to better lead multicultural employees (Karjalainen, 2020).
Present Centered to Longitudinal and Historical
Man’s days are seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty (Psalms 90:10). Therefore, we are not inclined to study much that has gone before us and cannot see what will come after us. Even the good king Hezekiah rejoiced that an evil prophesied by the prophet Isaiah would not come in his days (Isaiah 39:8). American culture is especially bent against exploring the past. Abraham Lincoln said “I don’t know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be.” (A quote by Abraham Lincoln, n.d.). Lincoln’s focus was on now, not on yesterday. Much research is on existing organizations and covers only a short period.
History, however, can provide us with valuable lessons as we use organizations to confront problems that we currently face. Startups today, for example, are heavily influenced by existing markets which grew up in cities whose locations were determined by railroads who laid tracks 150 years ago. When Eisenhower built the interstate system in the 1950s, residents near the West Virginia town of Huntington resisted allowing the highway I-64 on their lands. As a result, the nearby city of Barboursville gained enormous economic benefit at Huntington’s expense. Historiographic approaches focus on the story of individual organizations, large and small, dead and alive. Ecological approaches use small amounts of historical information from many organizations to examine causes and effects. New archival approaches use other forms of analysis.
The historical approach is itself controversial. Modern historicity is essentially linear, following time as we experience it in the modern world. Post historicity is considered rhythmic, focusing on what the actors in any given event intended to do in light of the ebb and flow of history. Postmodern historians would examine connections and disconnections as well as hierarchies among actors (Durepos et al., 2020).
Micro to Macro Analysis
In the past, almost all organizations were local, and local organizations focused on local issues. Today, many firms are regional, national, or even international. Even more, local companies have a national or international supply and customer base. Mister Bee, a local WV potato chip manufacturer, receives supplies from and sends products to places all over the US. Small businesses are affected by local, regional, national, and even international events in politics, finance, and even demography. Competition is global, and boundaries that were once stable are no more (W. Richard Scott & Davis, 2017). Analyses of every level must consider these changes.
Structure to Process
The pace of change is staggering throughout the world. Old technologies give way to new, consumer demands change with every news cycle or media event, and markets grow from local to global. Humans have faced tremendous disruptions in history. The Black Death (1347-1351), for example, caused wrenching social change. By eliminating so many poor laborers, the pandemic tilted the societal power balance away from wealthy landowners and towards commoners. It promoted power sharing and ultimately democracy in Europe (Gingerich & Vogler, 2020).
Torrential change requires people and organizations to change quickly as well. Organizational founders emplace structures that they expect will enable them to overcome foreseeable challenges. The Mamelukes had a powerful 13th century military and built a large empire in North Africa but were crushed when facing gunpowder weapons on land and at sea in the 16th century. They did not adapt, changing processes and policies to cope with the new reality, so they died.
In another example, France built the Maginot Line in the 1930s to protect itself from German aggression. The Germans redesigned their entire armed forces to effectively incorporate new technologies (such as modern tanks and airplanes) and new conditions in Europe. Acquisition, tactics, policies, and hierarchies were overhauled. In 1940, the French structure-based system collapsed like a house of cards when confronted with the German process-based redesign, in which they bypassed the Maginot Line and attacked it from the rear..
Personal perspectives
Nehemiah provides an interesting look into the organizational characteristics of the post-exilic Jewish government. The Persians had defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Jews to return to their ancestral homelands. Nehemiah was the political leader, and Ezra was the religious leader, a division of labor in place among the Hebrew peoples since King Saul and the Prophet Samuel. The exiles were organized by family (Nehemiah 7), social status (nobles, officials, others), and by function, including gatekeepers, singers, priests, smiths, and builders.
Like any rational organization, the exiles had organizational missions. First was to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Second was to restore the worship of Jehovah among the people. Third was to rebuild the city itself, including dwelling places for the exiles, both in Jerusalem and elsewhere. The formal structure included leaders, families, and functional groups as noted above, and exiles were hierarchical, with individuals under the authority of family leaders, clan leaders, and when applicable tribe leaders. As the agent of the Persian king, Nehemiah was the ultimate local authority, whose power derived directly from Artaxerses himself.
Individual goals, such as the deep desire for physical survival, reveal the natural side of the exiles’ organization. The workers were discouraged and fearful (Nehemiah 4:9-14) and even Nehemiah risked his life (Nehemiah 6:10-14). Also like a natural system, the exiles primary desire was their own survival as a Jewish nation. Nehemiah’s enemies, the forces under Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab, were the exiles’ main antagonists in the environment. Other enemies in the network of open systems in which Nehemiah found himself were the Tekoite nobles who refused to help in the work (Nehemiah 3:5) and the moneylenders who oppressed the people even while the people tried to repair the city (Nehemiah 5:1-13).
Technology did not change much in the fifty-two days that were required to repair the wall. Compared to the last 500 years, it changed little between 500 BC, when Nehemiah lived, and the coming of Christ. Therefore, organizations faced little need to change from new technologies.
Labor issues for the Jewish exiles returning to Palestine at the time resembled labor issues today, with intimidation and discouragement alternating with courage and industry. Nonetheless, the culture was changing, which impacted social mores and labor norms. Jewish culture was powerfully impacted by the Persians, even more by the Hellenizing Greeks 200 years later, and nearly destroyed by the Romans 200 years after that. Nehemiah experienced only the Persian period, but the exiles as a nation experienced it all.
Nehemiah lived at the height of Persian power in the Middle East, and he, along with his Persian overlord, comprised the dominant coalition which made the rules in Palestine. A godly man, he directed his power to help the people. Other leaders did not follow suit. People with power, regardless of how little they have, will use what power they possess to advantage themselves over others.
Conclusion
The study of organizations and organizing is a long, fruitful, and ongoing endeavor. Today’s environment forces rapid change, while requiring major shifts in how groups are studied. Single paradigm, monocultural, short term, and micro-analytic studies will no longer inform the field as they have in the past. Multiple paradigms, polycultural, longitudinal, and larger scale work is needed.
The Biblical book of Nehemiah provides a useful study of an organization from long ago which provides a distant mirror to organizations today. Business and organizational education continues, as the problems that individuals and organizations are expected to face multiply.
References
A quote by Abraham Lincoln. (n.d.). http://Www.goodreads.com. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/126900-i-don-t-know-who-my-grandfather-was-i-am-much#:~:text=Abraham%20Lincoln%20%3E%20Quotes%20%3E%20Quotable%20Quote%20%E2%80%9CI
de Munck, V., Korotayev, A., & McGreevey, J. (2016). Romantic Love and Family Organization. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), 147470491667421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916674211
Durepos, G., Weatherbee, T., & Mills, A. J. (2020). It’s about time: theorizing amodern time in historical organization studies. Journal of Management History, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-08-2020-0053
Gingerich, D., & Vogler, J. P. (2020). Pandemics and Political Development: The Electoral Legacy of the Black Death in Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal, 73(3). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3578732
Karjalainen, H. (2020). Cultural identity and its impact on today’s multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 20(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595820944207
Merida, T. (2015). Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Holman Reference.
Mordecai, C., & Religion. (1999). Weddings, dating, and love customs of cultures worldwide, including royalty. Nittany Publishers.
Pieper, T. M., Williams, R. I., Manley, S. C., & Matthews, L. M. (2019). What Time May Tell: An Exploratory Study of the Relationship Between Religiosity, Temporal Orientation, and Goals in Family Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04386-3
Rözer, J., Mollenhorst, G., & Volker, B. (2018). Families’ Division of Labor and Social Networks in the 21st Century: Revisiting Elizabeth Bott’s Classic Hypotheses. Journal of Family Issues, 39(13), 3436–3462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513×18783230
W Richard Scott, & Davis, G. F. (2017). Organizations and organizing: rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
