Socio-Cognitive Preferences as Causes of Organizational Vulnerabilities and Crisis:
A Case Study Approach
Adam Maria Gadomski, Mar., 2006
Introduction
This short white paper is originally based on the IPK Universal Reasoning Architecture Paradigm (URAP)
and Universal Managerial Paradigm (UMP) of the TOGA meta-theory [ ] . They are recently applied for
the top-analysis of the soc-cognitive vulnerabilities of high decisional risk organizations [ ]. The current
aim of this article is to illustrate preliminary how personal and group preferences systems can influence
the organization decision and behaviour, and how they may lead to the vulnerability and crisis of public or
governmental organizations. These aspects seem to be especially important for the identification and
crisis recovery planning of the organizations responsible for Large Complex Critical Infrastructures (LCCI),
and large governmental or international research and policy-making institutions.
A synthetic problem signalization requires clear and sufficiently precise definitions of the employed
concepts. The presented modelling is based on the recognition of different ethical systems effectively
functioning in human organizations and their interest structure composed of top-managers,
employers/executors and trade unions managers. We have also roughly distinguished two types of
organizations. One includes production organizations, second are services providers, the both can be
private business organizations and/or governmental, public or international policy-making institutions.
We interpret the production in a wide sense, it mean it includes physical and abstract conceptual products,
as knowledge. The term services is here referred to the subordinations in the management hierarchy
characteristic for high-risk centralised organization.
Management Descriptive Meta-Knowledge Ontology
In this paragraph a basic conceptualization network is proposed.
Descriptive Knowledge is a knowledge based on abstract relations and models valid in preselected
domain.
Management Meta-Knowledge is a knowledge on various knowledge on management (or knowledge
about management knowledge) it is not Meta-knowledge Management, of course.
Meta-knowledge Management is a management of knowledge about knowledge in general, it is domain
independent.
It can be various for /(dependent on) different knowledge owners.
Bureaucratic management (b-management): it is a management based on the strategy of formal
sufficiency and minimization of personal risk, and is especially visible in Professional Ethics and
Managerial Ethics of public and governmental administrations/institutions.
Professional (domain) Ethics (PE) rules and requirements are focused on honest, dependable and
suitable execution of the profession (best do what I do)
Business Managerial Ethics (BME) refers to the proper business organization, and is focused on the
maximizing of its profits.
Service Managerial Ethics (SME) are focused on (or reduced to) the satisfaction of superior managers,
For example, they are public and government administrations. They are local on national representatives
of political authority.
The third type of managerial ethics is
Group Managerial Ethics (GME), it is focused on the satisfaction of organization members, it is diffused
in different types of associations, trade unions and political parties. In their ambient, managers also are in
leader roles, frequently more or less democratically elected.
There is useful to notice that frequently, professional associations have among their objectives a
reinforcement of professional ethics. Therefore their presence in production organizations is a positive fact
that enhances PE and acts against the development of organization vulnerability.
Service and production criteria
Service and production criteria are applied to the evaluation of the efficacy and utility of an organization,
its employers and managers.
Service criteria stress the management competences, decisional flexibility and recognition of the superiors
as a highest authority in every organization dealing problem.
Production criteria stress the competences and professionalism of the organization members.
A study of examples leading to soc-cognitive vulnerabilities
1. A pathology: The governmental organization A also is a professional production organization Its
managers are selected according service criteria, therefore they later use SME in organizational problem
solving and D-M. In consequence, SME are preferred over PE, the A organization is routinely well visible
from the superior management layer, the bureaucratic efficacy is satisfied but the production efficacy can
decrease. In conflict situations (ethical conflicts), the managers accept requirements and solutions which
are against the organization PE in order to minimize their personal risks. These symptoms can be well
visible in the case of governmental research organizations seen from their “clients”, i.e. knowledge
dissemination and industrial organizations, collaborating universities, as well as, individual experienced
researchers.
2. Crisis building pathology. If we add to the previous example of the A organization,
- low interest of the production by the superior politic layer ( what provides a higher autonomy of the
organization) and relatively
- high power of trade union, and
- lack of professional authority
then the pathology of such organization strongly increases.
The internal dynamics of this organization follows the following cause-consequence string:
- the managerial layer tends to formal satisfaction of the superior layer minimizing own risks.
- the trade union managers enlarge individual privileges and welfare, and protect of all employers
(influence of election conditions), applying and diffusing GME rules, which became more important than
PE.
in such situation
- high-management layer adopts the same strategy, the managers apply a mixed ethical strategy: GME +
SME. Finally PE is least diffused and applied in this organization and the organization enters in a crisis
state.
3. Chronic crisis state.
Individual carrier depends on carrier criteria assumed by the organization. We distinguish:
Pc - professional criteria
Msc - managerial service criteria.
When Msc criteria dominate the Pc criteria, the permanent use of GME + SME reinforces crisis by the
pathological dynamic and employment carrier strategy.
Such strategy can be realized by an arbitrarily established evaluation scale (defined by the top
management or a director). For example it can state that the max score for the professional CV of a
candidate is 10 points, and the oral colloquium with a commission composed in major part with not
professionals (such as direction, trade union representatives and an internal/external contracted
psychologists) may provide 30 points.
4. The pathological defence mechanism. In order to hid and protect this state in the analyzed before A
organization, the negotiation between top-management and local trade union leads to a compromise
acceptation of, as most as possible, vague and imprecise definitions of the domain-dependent managerial
and carrier criteria. If partners power is comparable, such “game strategy” is optimal for the both, and in
result, it shifts the real choice criteria to future decisions, when, in concrete situations, they are interpreted
according to particular preferences of the currently stronger part.
The above situation is especially danger for the organizations and sub-organizations with the missions
focused on very jeopardy but, in parallel, rather rare emergencies management. Such organizations can
be permanently in an invisible vulnerabile state.
- When the top-management is "infected" , ie when (GME + SME) preferences rules, in general, dominate
PE preferences, the org. efficacy tends down to the critical surviving efficacy. The formally declared and
performed re-organizations are also ineffective because the organization lose their "immunological "
internal defence based ion PE.
A sporadic reference to the PE values is only used when it serve to reinforce GME + SME, i.e. the
temporal interests of the high-managers lobby.
Organization
Objectives
OG
Employees
Preferences
EG
Social
Expectations
SG
Fig. Domain of interests/objectives
--------------------------------------------
Employees
Preference
s
EG
Social
Expectation
s
SG
Organizatio
n
Objectives
OG