Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
In the last century, organizations have faced unique challenges that stem from experiencing unique changes in their internal and external environments (Williams 2002, 4). Some of the most notable changes include global economic uncertainties, changes in consumer tastes and preferences, and technological changes (among other issues) (Williams 2002, 6). While some of these changes may appear circumstantial, the failure of organizations to adapt to the changing environment and the persistent presence of retrogressive organizational cultures, which condone such weaknesses, exacerbate some of these problems (Dashwood 2012, 52-53).
Poor organizational performance is a problem that emanates from an inherently flawed organizational culture (Schein 2010, 177). However, many chief executive officers (CEOs) ignore this perspective and instead choose to focus on managing some of the most common management dilemmas, such as investing vs. holding, ethics vs. profits, maximization of employee welfare vs. maximization of investor returns, and local vs. global investment decisions (among other organizational dilemmas) (Dashwood 2012, 4-6). In this regard, they fail to realize that addressing part of the problem of organizational culture stems from understanding its dynamics and structure.
Different researchers have used different models to explore and explain organizational cultures and structures (ODonnell and Boyle 2008, 16). For example, two scholars, Cameron and Quinn (2011, 7), analyzed organizational culture using the organizational culture assessment instrument, which uses a competing value model to explain different tenets of cultural analysis. However, most of these analogies are typologies that fail to capture the true essence and depth of organizational culture.
For example, they fail to grasp the full complexity of inherent organizational dynamics by oversimplifying organizational culture, thereby providing us with cultural categories that may be irrelevant to our understanding of cultural dynamics. Consequently, as readers, we develop a limited perspective of culture in organizations, as we confine our understanding to only a few tenets of cultural understanding (thereby missing the big picture ).
The narrow focus on cultural dynamics also limits our ability to comprehend complex patterns of cultural relationships within organizations. Therefore, existing models of cultural frameworks provide us with a limited understanding of organizational culture. Nonetheless, the application of the tensegrity concept in different scientific fields presents us with a plausible framework for broadening our understanding of culture.
Coined by Buckminster Fuller, in the 1960s, tensegrity is a structural principle, which explains how different and isolated components suspend in a compressed state (Motro 2003, 213). In the tensegrity model, compressed elements often do not touch each other (floating compression), but align in one delineated spatial system. Researchers have applied the concept in different scientific disciplines (Zhang and Ohsaki 2015, 6).
Architecture was among the first disciplines to adopt the concept (Simitch and Warke 2014, 1). Spearheaded by the works of Maciej Gintowt and Maciej KrasiDski (cited in Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541), experts developed structures that demonstrated the principles of the tensegrity structure. Most of its applications emerged in the 1960s (Zhang and Ohsaki 2015, 6-8). Biology is also another field that embraced the concept of tensegrity. Researchers in this field have used it to explain different bodily functions and structures (Motro 2003, 213). The adoption of the tensegrity model in biology birthed the concept of biotensegrity.
Biotensegrity is a relatively new approach of understanding how different aspects of the human body work and function. This concept stems from the understanding that different biological systems demonstrate the principles of tensegrity because the human body structure does not necessarily pass off different load elements on each other (Motro 2003, 213). Doctor Stephen Levin (cited in Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541) was among the first scholars to explore the concept of biotensegrity in this regard. He applied this approach in orthopedic surgery (Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541).
Tom Flemons is another revolutionary scholar who investigated this concept and applied it in his depictions of the human anatomy (Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541). Historians documented some of his earliest works in the mid 1980s (Zhang and Ohsaki 2015, 6-8). They mostly included spatial representations of the human spine and the leg structure (Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541).
Comprehensively, researchers have used the biotensegrity model to explain different aspects of the human biological structure. While this field of research (biotensegrity) is relatively underdeveloped, some researchers have used this concept to explain different dynamics of organizational performance (Singh and Ananthanarayanan 2013, 106). However, there have been minimal attempts by researchers to explain the relationship between the biotensegrity model and organizational culture. This research gap exists despite the potential similarities between organizational culture and the biotensegrity model, which this paper will demonstrate. The underlying research questions for this study are as follows
Research Questions
-
How does the biotensegrity model represent organizational culture?
-
If the human system is a biotensegrity structure, why can an organization not have one?
This paper investigates the adoption of the biotensegrity model to organizational culture. It transcends the narrow focus of organizational dynamics presented by existing models, such as the Denison Organizational culture model and the Hofstede cultural model, to present a broader understanding of culture in organizations by arguing that the biotensegrity model explains organizational culture. This study also postulates that the similarity between the biotensegrity model and organizational culture stems from the similarities in characteristics between organizational culture and biotensegrity.
Tensegrity
Buckminster Fuller (cited in Simitch and Warke 2014, 16) coined the term tensegrity, in the early 1960s, to explain a set of components under compression. He said it refers to the creation of structures, which draw their strength from the combination of united, but compressed structures (Simitch and Warke 2014, 76). The diagram below represents an example of this structure
As highlighted in the introduction, experts have applied the tensegrity concept in different scientific fields, including architecture and biology (biotensegrity). Generally, in biology, biotensegrity refers to the application of tensegrity principles to the human body (Hendryx 2014, 10). Researchers in this field have often used biotensegrity to explain the working mechanisms of different biological structures, such as muscles, ligaments and tendons (Hendryx 2014, 10). Some of them have also used it to explain the working mechanisms of rigid and elastic cell membranes (Scarr 2012, 53). The basic principle of biotensegrity stems from the understanding that nature always creates the simplest and most efficient anatomical structures (Scarr 2008, 80).
Tensegrity as a Model of Anatomy
Fullers understanding of tensegrity partly stems from his conception of Kenneth Snelsons works, which depicted the human anatomy through sculptures. Hellen (another researcher cited in Ingber et al. 2000, 1663) has also contributed to this discussion by presenting her understanding of the human anatomical model as a structure held together by tissues and bones. Although some of these conceptions of the human anatomical model may differ in content and context, it is almost impossible to understand them without comprehending the concept of tensegrity in the first place. Similarly, it is also difficult to picture the model of tensegrity without visualizing how tension and compression forces work together in the tensegrity structure (Ingber 1998, 48). Fuller and Snelsons works (cited in Ingber et al. 2000, 1663) have affirmed this assertion because they have helped us to visualize the differences between tension and compression.
Patterson (2011, 56) says that his view of tensegrity developed from years of reviewing the works of Fuller. He says the tensegrity structure maintains stability and form by interacting with other elements, or structures, that resist the pressure of compression (Patterson 2011, 56). Although Ingber et al. (2000, 1663) explain tensegrity through an architectural lens; they also use the human anatomy to explain the same. Referring to this fact, they say,
To visualize tensegrity at work, think of the human body: it stabilizes its shape by interconnecting multiple compression-resistant bones with a continuous series of tensile muscles, tendons, and ligaments, and its stiffness can vary depending on the tone (prestress) in its muscles (Ingber et al. 2000, 1663).
If a person wants to lift a hand, tension occurs in the elbow muscles and even at the toes. However, since the body is multimodular and hierarchical, damage to the Achilles tendon would mean that a person loses coordination of certain aspects of their body movements, without necessarily losing their natural balance. The same movements could occur when a person breathes because Ingber et al. (2000) says,
Every time I breath in, causing the muscles of my neck and chest to pull out on my lattice of ribs, my lung expands, alveoli open, taught bands of elastin in the extracellular matrix (ECM) relax, buckled bundles of cross-linked (stiffened) collagen filaments straighten, basement membranes tighten, and the adherent cells and cytoskeletal filaments feel the pull. However, nothing breaks and the deformation is reversible (1664).
Based on the above statements, many researchers say that tensegrity provides a model for explaining most human bodily functions (Ingber 1998, 48).
Application of the Tensegrity Model to Biological Organisms
The earliest applications of the tensegrity model to biological systems focused on the human spinal cord and its transmission of information to other parts of the body. To affirm this view, Kosciejew (2012, 35) says the human spinal cord cannot necessarily function as a column because it has an indisputable flexibility that would prevent a person from generally dismissing it as so. To understand the merit of this argument, simply, one should picture the pose of a person doing Yoga as depicted below.
According to the picture above, Swanson (2013, 37) finds that the human spine could bend to adopt the shape of a wheel. Some researchers say this observation marked the first attempt of researchers to merge elements of the tensegrity architecture to biology (Ingber et al. 2000, 1663). Studies that adopted this analogy produced their findings in the early 1970s (Swanson 2013, 34- 37). With advancements in science and microbiology, scientists started using the tensegrity structure to explain cell functions (Ingber et al. 2000, 1663). Three decades of further advancements in medical research have seen the application of tensegrity spread to the understanding of human tissues and organ functions. The table below shows how researchers have used the tensegrity structure to explain the molecular, cellular, tissue, and musculoskeletal functions of the human body.
The diagram above shows the different forces of tension and compressive elements of biological functions that underlie the functions of the human body. The focus of this study is on the musculoskeletal level. The forces of tension that characterize this level come from the muscles, tendons, ligaments and fascia. Compression occurs in the bones and fascia. Nonetheless, according to Kosciejew (2012, 24), tensegrity applies to all scales of the human body.
The biotensegrity theory postulates that human bones act as discontinuous compression-resistant struts within the wider analysis of the biotensegrity model (Simitch and Warke 2014, 56). The muscles, tendons and ligaments act as the medium for transmitting the tension forces that make up the entire model. Researchers have also shown that the facial system can act as a tension-generating mechanism and a compression-resistant system as well (Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541).
In this regard, the musculoskeletal system emerges as a pre-stressed biotensegrity system (where pre-stress occurs when there is an increase in muscle tension) (Simitch and Warke 2014, 55). The increase in muscle tension often generates movement. Researchers that have further investigated the musculoskeletal structure have also pointed out that individual components of the system are biotensegrity structures as well (Stamenovic, Wang and Ingber 2009, 1093; Swanson 2013, 37-38). For example, some studies have looked at the distal radioulner joint as one such example (Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541).
Other researchers have also modeled other parts of the human body on the same structure (Zhang and Ohsaki 2015, 6-8). For example, Levin (a medical researcher) has designed the human pelvis on the tensegrity model (Zhang and Ohsaki 2015, 6-8). Researchers have also modeled the mammalian spine on the same model (Swanson 2013, 38). For millions of years, it has assumed a horizontal position, but evolution made it assume a vertical position (Ingber et al. 2000, 1663).
An analysis of a Giraffes neck in the horizontal position reveals that the stability of the spine should be subject to another force besides gravity. A deeper analysis of the human spine during extreme exercises, such as Yoga and gymnastics, show the dynamic movements that the spine can accommodate. These movements also show that evolution had to develop a spine that was lightweight, dynamic, and flexible enough to accommodate the physical functions of the body and, at the same time, protect the human neurological system (Motro 2003, 23-25).
The tensegrity model demonstrates how the spine could accommodate all these attributes because all parts of a tensegrity model work as a system (Stamenovic, Wang and Ingber 2009, 1093). Some properties of the system that allow it to accommodate varied stresses include flexibility and adaptability. Although it appears as though the tensegrity model is the functional unit of the body, as culture is the functional unit of an organization, few researchers have investigated this claim.
William Sutherland Model
The works of William Garner Sutherland provide a conceptual framework for our understanding of the application of the biotensegrity model to organizational culture. In 1929, through this framework, he presented the idea of osteopathy in the cranial system (Theodore 2009, 100). He termed his concept as osteopathy in the cranial field. At the core of Sutherlands concept is the understanding that the bony cranium could accommodate respiratory activities (Burns, David and Christine 2008, 9-10). His definition of the primary respiratory mechanism has three concepts outlined below:
Primary
This concept is the first in Sutherlands model of the cranial system because it underlies all of lifes processes. He says it gives dynamism, form and substance to orthopedic structures and biological elements (Theodore 2009, 100).
Respiration
This is the trigger of human breadth. Acting as a foundation for metabolism, it gives life to tissues through inhalation and exhalation phases (Burns, David and Christine 2008, 9-10).
Mechanism
The concept of mechanism in Sutherlands model presents the primary respiratory mechanism as a sum of many parts, which create a whole. The whole is greater than the sum of the different parts of the human body (Burns, David and Christine 2008, 9-10).
The different concepts of the primary respiratory system exist as functional components of the larger human biological system. In this regard, the primary respiratory system manifests itself in the whole body and throughout most parts of nature. Research studies that have investigated this issue have suggested that the intrinsic motion of the respiratory system is a symbol of life itself (Burns, David and Christine 2008, 9-10).
Parts of the Primary Respiratory Mechanism
The five components of the primary respiratory mechanism express involuntary physiological motions that characterize the functions of the central nervous system and its associated anatomical structures and functions (Burns, David and Christine 2008, 9-10). They include the inherent mobility of the brain and spinal cord, the fluctuation of the cerebrospinal fluid, the dynamic shifting of tensions in the dura mater, the articular mobility of the cranial bones, and the respiratory motion of sacrum (Theodore 2009, 100-102).
This paper would apply these parts of the primary respiratory mechanism to our understanding of biotensegrity and organization culture. Indeed, it would provide us with a critical understanding of key concepts and issues pertaining to the research topic. Similarly, it would provide us with an abstract understanding of the relationship between organizational culture and the biotensegrity model. Key concepts and theories regarding this relationship also appear in some tenets of the Sutherland model. Its findings will guide us in answering the key research questions of this paper, which seek to find out how the biotensegrity model represents organizational culture and investigate if an organization can have a biotensegrity structure.
Relationship between Organizational Culture and the Biotensegrity Model
Schein (2010, 128) says that since the start of the industrial revolution, companies have grown from small stalls and family-run enterprises to large corporations that have a global presence in multiple continents. The functions of these corporations have also grown to unimaginable scales because one industry could control vast resources and provide some of the most vital goods and services needed to support the global economy (Schein 2010, 128). Williams (2002) adds that the capability of todays global enterprises has grown on the back of increased complexity in the operations of multinational companies. A few researchers have noted the complexity of todays companies, as a comparison to the complexity of the human anatomical structure and, most importantly, the complexity of the biological systems that support it (Zhang and Ohsaki 2015, 6-8).
In this regard, some of them say there are sufficient grounds to compare the biotensegrity structure to organizational functions (Simitch and Warke 2014, 46). However, doing so requires a holistic understanding of the complexity of the human anatomy and its comparison to the complexity of todays organizational structures. Mans attempt to design efficient organizational structures and the inherently efficient nature of the human biological system shows the potential comparative analysis of the human system and organizational systems. Tensegrity structures could provide a conceptual understanding of the human biological and anatomical systems.
This model has not only demonstrated that the human body is organized by forces under tension (and not compression forces), but also showed that nature builds her structures from a subatomic level to a cosmic level (Simitch and Warke 2014, 45). Some of these insights have contributed to our understanding of how well we should take care of our bodies and how to do so in the first place.
Organizational Culture
People often have different definitions of culture. However, they rarely dispute its influence on organizational processes. It is important to understand organizational culture in organizational processes because it helps us to understand other key elements of an organization, such as structure and operating systems. Simply, Schein (2010, 177) defines organizational culture as how people do things in an organization. This statement aligns with Aristotles views on human behavior when he said human beings are products of what they repeatedly do (Schein 2010, 177). Richard Perrin (cited in Schein 2010) adopts a more critical view of the concept when he says organizational culture is is the sum of values and rituals which serve as glue to integrate the members of the organization (3). According to Janiijevi (2013), culture is
A system of assumptions, values, norms, and attitudes, manifested through symbols which the members of an organization have developed and adopted through mutual experience and which help them determine the meaning of the world around them, and the way they behave in it (36).
The above definitions reinforce a common understanding, in business circles, which demonstrate that repetition is at the center of organizational culture.
In the last century, many researchers have focused on understanding, or explaining, how culture affects different aspects of organizational performance (Schein 2010, 177; Williams 2002, 34). Experiential literatures that have talked about organizational culture and productivity stem from the works of researchers who drew a relationship between organizational culture and change (Schein 2010, 177-178). For example, in 1983, R.M Kanter, a human resource researcher, showed that most companies, which adopted progressive human resource cultures, registered a better performance than those that did not adopt the same practices (Kusluvan 2003, 605). A deeper analysis of this fact will appear in later sections of this report.
Impact of Culture on Organizational Structure and Performance
Based on the influence of organizational culture on organizational performance, Kusluvan (2003, 31-32) finds that organizational culture is both symbolic and cognitive in nature because it affects peoples attitudes and behaviors, while at the same time creating an organizations image. Janiijevi (2013, 35-37) adds that organizational culture affects peoples interpretations of the world and outlines how they should behave in it. The cognitive element of organizational culture dictates how employees attach meaning to a specific organizational phenomenon and their reaction to decisions that respond to these issues (Janiijevi 2013, 35-37).
Schein (2010, 177-178) says the symbolic element of organizational culture provides a comprehensive representation of the cognitive attributes of organizational culture. For example, semantic and behavioral attributes of organizational culture encapsulate the tenets of organizational culture. Similar to this analogy, Janiijevi (2013) says, The significance of organizational culture emerges from the fact that, by imposing a set of assumptions and values, it creates a frame of reference for the perceptions, interpretations, and actions of the organizations members behave in it (37).
Based on this assertion, Schein (2010, 177) says culture not only influences the processes that go on in an organization; it also determines the nature of its performance. A deeper understanding of this statement appears in the works of Schein (2010, 178) who argues that the mental framework provided by organizational culture affects an organizations leadership style, management structure, reward and compensation systems, company strategy, and other aspects of corporate governance.
Generally, organizational culture affects the connections between employees and their organizations. Within this framework of reference, correctly, Schein (2010, 177) assumes that organizational culture affects an organizations structure. The transmission framework happens through cultural influences on management, which eventually affect how managers and leaders shape organizational structures. Some researchers have pointed out that organizational structures are cultural symbols of different institutions (Sims and Quatro 2015, 253-254). This analogy premises on the purposive nature of organizational structures.
The intention of designing organizational structures to align with organizational cultures means that the managers have designed it in a format that would help them to achieve their organizational objectives (Sims and Quatro 2015, 253-254). The differentiation and integration of different stakeholders in an organizations structure ensure the rationality of the organizational structure and its relationship with organizational culture. The process of differentiation outlines the ability of the organizational structure to differentiate operational and managerial processes.
Relationship between Organizational Culture and Structure
Some researchers have claimed the impossibility of understanding organizational culture without understanding its effects on organizational structure (Ingber and Levin 2007, 2541). This is why some of them have struggled to understand the role of culture in organizational processes. According to Kortmann (2012, 57), organizations may have trouble realizing their goals if they do not comprehend how their structures affect their goals. Since organizations cannot run without people, those that do not pay a close attention to their organizational structures will naturally realize the creation of informal organizational structures (Schein 2010, 200).
This outcome would eventually lead to the creation of different behaviors, attitudes and perceptions that would ultimately lead to the development of organizational cultures (Kortmann 2012, 87). Therefore, when employees work together to realize organizational objectives, they develop specific ways of interaction that later form part of organizational culture. The culture may develop either knowingly or unknowingly. Partly, organizational structure may define the organizational culture and similarly, the organizational culture may affect the organizational structure (Schein 2010, 177).
Some researchers have taken this analysis further and remarked that organizational structure may provide a framework for implementing organizational culture (Cameron and Quinn 2011, 7). In this regard, Kortmann (2012, 12) cautions managers to be wary of the causal relationship between organizational structure and culture because if the organizational culture fails, the structure is likely to follow suit.
Some researchers have further explained the relationship between organizational culture and structure by drawing a causal relationship between the two, with the understanding that they both affect organizational performance (Cameron and Quinn 2011, 7). At a conceptual level, some researchers, such as Sims and Quatro (2015, 253-254), say the causal relationship between the two stems from the mechanism that organizational culture affects organizational structure. They say this structure affects the maintenance, strength and potential for organizational processes to change (Sims and Quatro 2015, 253-254).
Existing classifications of organizational culture and structure also reinforce this fact because they demonstrate that the two factors forge a mutually interdependent relationship. To affirm this relationship, researchers have generated different hypotheses about the two factors (Schein 2010, 200). These hypotheses have often hinged on the understanding of good and bad corporate cultures.
Good and Bad Cultures
Organizational culture often leads to both positive and negative organizational outcomes. The continuum of success and failure mainly depends on whether the culture is good or bad. Bad cultures often impede progress and lead to poor organizational outcomes (Schein 2010, 177-178). Comparatively, good cultures promote organizational processes and lead to positive outcomes. Cameron and Quinn (2011, 7-10) say that bad organizational cultures have led to employee frustration, bad attitudes among employees, and high employee turnover rates. Comparatively, McCarthy (2012, 78) says organizational culture could mark the start of close cooperation among employees, or mark the start of mistrust among employees. In this regard, some researchers have tried to explore why organizations fail on the premise of poor organizational culture (Cameron and Quinn 2011, 7-10).
Ideally, this should not be the case because organizational culture should improve organizational productivity and efficiency (Schein 2010, 177-178). It is also supposed to draw them closer to realizing their goals, compared to a situation where culture is ineffective (Cameron and Quinn 2011, 7-10). Researchers have revealed that the failure to address leadership issues, lack of core values within the system, managerial indifference, poor communication, and favoritism are some of the most common causes of cultural breakdowns in organizations (McCarthy 2012, 53). Nonetheless, poor leadership has emerged as a key area of concern in explaining cultural breakdowns in different organizations. Indeed, few researchers dispute the important role played by good leadership in steering organizations towards corporate success.
In fact, Schein (2010, 376) says that if good leadership prevails throughout all cadres of an organization, all employees can feel it. Comparatively, organizations that have poor leadership suffer from poor organizational outcomes because bad organizational practices intoxicate employees and impede their success in meeting their organizational goals (Cameron and Quinn 2011, 7-10). McCarthy (2012, 71-73) has used the relationship between leadership and organizational culture to explain this finding by saying that with the adoption of good leadership, corporate culture is not forced; instead, it grows and develops incrementally.
Conversely, poor leadership often leads to a breakdown in organizational culture because employees do not communicate openly and frequently in such environments (Cameron and Quinn 2011, 7-10). Furthermore, rarely do they understand the organizations vision, or strategies for meeting its goals. The Enron case study below is an example of the effects of bad organizational cultures
Example of Company with Bad Culture Enron Case Study
Formed in 1985, by Kenneth Lay, Enron was among the biggest and most successful corporations in America. It had varied interests in the energy sector where it made most of its profits (the company had a presence in many economic sectors) (Johnson 2003, 45).
A few years of operation saw Enron hire Jeffrey Skillings and a group of other executives who used dubious accounting practices and exploited the companys internal audit loopholes to hide billions of dollars in losses (Johnson 2003, 45-47). Coupled with the failure of management to exercise proper scrutiny, or shoulder the responsibility for its unethical practices, the company filed for bankruptcy in 2001 (Johnson 2003, 45-47). After the collapse of the company, the government indicted some of its directors and imprisoned others for different charges of corporate malpractice.
The collapse of Enron was a case of poor leadership. It led to the destruction of the organizations core values and principles of integrity and honesty. This scandal is among the worlds largest corporate fraud cases, which was a product of the abuse of power and privilege, including the
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.