Multilevel Structure of organisations (draft)

Introduction. The idea of the multilevel structure of organisations is a core concept.  ??

Levels. Multilevel structure is the network or links that connects information, in its widest sense, together. It is multi-level in that some levels are more fundamental than others.  In an organisation’s multilevel structure, the fundamental levels are the core beliefs, culture and knowledge that provide the cohesion or unity that allows the organisation to function and differentiate itself from other organisations. These fundamental levels may not even be recognised as they are so deeply ingrained that they are taken as given to most people. At less-fundamental levels are customs, traditions and knowledge that provide more functionality. At the least fundamental levels, while imbedded in more-fundamental levels, are fashions, conventions, relationships and knowledge, which are part of day-to-day life.

Structure is the retention mechanism of change. It is multilevel structure that the processes and dynamics of change act upon.  It is parts of multilevel structure, as a retention mechanism, that re-configure when change is achieved.

Path-dependency- History matters!  Multilevel structure arises from the organisation’s history, through the centuries, decades, years and so on.  It is a reflection of past events, leaders, relationships, knowledge, culture and beliefs, each building on or demolishing what has gone before.  As such, multilevel structure is a structured artefact of history and it is what it is because of its history.  To begin to understand, or successfully change multilevel structure, you must do so in the context of its history.  History matters!  Put more generally, multilevel structure is path dependent; where it is now is a product of where it has come from. Because of path dependency, each organisation is unique.

Levels limit change. A crucial feature of multi-level structure is that fundamental levels are difficult or near impossible to change, while less-fundamental levels are progressively easier to change.  As such, there is considerable and on-going change at the least-fundamental levels, but less and less change at more and more fundamental levels.  As a result of the nesting of levels, a change at a more fundamental level will disrupt all levels less fundamental than it.  Similarly, a change at a less-fundamental level will not usually affect more-fundamental levels. In most circumstances multilevel structure resists change or can even revert a change back to an earlier state, because of the inertia of the more fundamental levels.

Punctuated change.  Change at more fundamental levels, resulting in consequent change at less fundamental levels is “punctuated-equilibrium”, long periods of little change punctuated by relatively short periods of rapid and extensive change. In exceptional circumstances, change at less fundamental levels can lead to change at more fundamental levels, resulting in major change through the organisation and even its environment; the “butterfly-effect” of complex systems (black swan…??),  discussed later??. 

Levels are infinitely complex. Each level of multilevel structure is infinitely complex, in that it is not possible to fully understand it, even for the collective minds people or experts at that level.  As such, multilevel structure itself is infinitely complex. To be discussed further re systems theory and bicycle analogy?? 

Simplifying complexity.  The complexity of each level would seem to be a barrier to our existence and functionality. We manage by simplifying or seeing broad patterns amid complexity of the level we work as well as other levels.  Within one organisation we have partially shared beliefs and language, making it possible to interact with others without knowing all the detail.  For example, we can use technology such as a mobile phone or computer without knowing the incredible complexity in such technological systems.  However, we tend to specialise our knowledge in one area at one level of multilevel structure and only have a functional or superficial knowledge of levels above or below our own level.  An organisation’s accountant will have a detailed understanding of the accounts of that organisation, but have a more limited understanding of the organisations production or operational technology as that is the domain of the engineers.  Neither profession is probably aware of the detailed relationships between the organisation’s departments or people.  They usually have enough knowledge to get by, but are prone to “surprises” from areas beyond their expertise.

Path-dependency and complexity inhibits competitors.  Trying to imitate another organisation can be very difficult as the imitator almost needs to mimic the history of the other organisation to achieve the same structure and competencies. Leading firms in their industry usually have a chequered history of successes and failures; “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. To be discussed further??

Structure both constrains and but enables action. In somewhat of a contradiction, multilevel structure both constrains action because of the inertial effects of the more fundamental levels, but enables action because of the coordinated capabilities or competencies of the organization. A large manufacturing firm, while difficult to change, can produce unique products that competitors may have difficulty in imitating. However, the inertia of multilevel systems can inhibit adaptation or innovation leading to the demise of an organization if there is a major change in its environment; “creative destruction”. The constrain-enable (and specialist-generalist??) paradox will be discussed further??

 Conclusion. Tell them what I told them??  

References and notes

Multilevel structure- Simon 1961,1969.

 Deep structure- Gersick 199?, and others

Creative destruction- Schumpeter