Tautologies of work life balance

Working Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the SUSTAIN Network, Madrid, Spain, 13-14 September 2002

Tautologies of Work Life Balance

Frans M. van Eijnatten &

Jan-Peter Vos

© 1 September 2002, Working Paper

Institute for Business Engineering and Technology Application Eindhoven University of Technology, Faculty of Technology Management, The Netherlands

Tel.: +31 40 247 24 69, Fax: +31 40 243 71 61, Mobile: +31 616 066 140 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.chaosforum.com

& Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies

Eindhoven University of Technology, Faculty of Technology Management, The Netherlands Tel.: +31 40 247 23 82, Fax: +31 40 245 80 54, Mobile: +31 628 094 280

E-mail: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

This conceptual contribution resembles the central theme of the 2002 SUSTAIN meeting and is about tautologies of Work Life Balance. It will be argued, that in Open-Systems Thinking the tautological character of work and non-work is obscured because the system and its environment are defined in an inclusive way (the system is part of the environment). When we observe the distinction between system and environment not as inclusive but as exclusive, as in Luhmann’s Theory of Self-Referential Systems, we are able to observe the existing tension between work and non-work demands more effectively in the sense that we are able to acknowledge that work and non-work aspects of work life are highly interrelated and only mean something with respect to each other. Based upon this concept we define Work Life Balance as the emergent meaningful order that enables and constrains members of organizations to make sense of work versus non-work demands, which results from the mutual recursive interplay throughout time between individual intentions, individual behaviors, collective intentions and collective behaviors. With this definition in mind, we may plan for more rigorous research about Work Life Balance, which will cover multiple paths of the tautology. Key words: Work life balance, chaordic systems thinking, organizational transformation, self-referential systems theory, tautology, sustainable work system, chaos, complexity

Working Paper Distributed at the Annual Meeting of SUSTAIN, Madrid, Spain, 13-14 September 2002

Please Don’t Quote

http://www.chaosforum.com/

mailto:[email protected]

F.M. van Eijnatten & J.-P. Vos – Tautologies of Work Life Balance – SUSTAIN Meeting, Madrid, Sept. 2002 ____________________________________________________________________________

2



Jan-Peter Vos







___________________________________________________________________________________

Provisional Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Contemporary Definitions of Intensive and Sustainable Work 3. OST Definitions of Work Life Balance: The Hidden Tautology 4. Work Life Balance as a Balancing Act between Organizations and Individuals 5. Some Suggestions for Solutions 6. Discussion: Towards a Both-And Approach to Sustainable Work Systems

References

Working Paper Distributed at the Annual Meeting of SUSTAIN, Madrid, Spain, 13-14 September 2002

Please Don’t Quote




3



Jan-Peter Vos







___________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction Work Life Balance (WLB) has become a major issue in the current world of work. While competitive and sustainable growth still is the most significant goal for companies around the globe, the need for new and better ways to achieve that is well recognized and urgent. Current remedies for improving enterprise competitiveness more often than not do bring greater work intensity, and don’t even meet the requirements of the immediate future, most of the time. Symptoms of malfunctioning are already evident and numerous. Further increases in productivity along traditional lines cannot be achieved without serious depletion of human resources. The increased intensity of work not only claims high human tolls, but also has adversary effects on the overall quality of both operations and businesses. Looking at the European context, unintended social and environmental consequences such as health problems, increased absenteeism of employees, generalized early retirement, air and water pollution, and exploitation of the environment testify to the unbalanced nature of the contemporary situation. These problems require innovative solutions not only at the macro-political and economic levels, but also at the meso- and micro levels: In firms and organizations, and in individuals as well. A group of international action researchers has considered ways to reverse current trends through pursuit and exploration of innovative forms of work organization. They have formed a European network - called SUSTAIN - that has the goal to create a work organization agenda that builds on social and cultural diversity of nations (Docherty et al. (Eds.), 2002). This working paper is a conceptual contribution to the theme with the same name that is the title of the 2002 Meeting of the SUSTAIN network in Madrid.




4

2. Contemporary Definitions of Intensive and Sustainable Work In order to make WLB the subject of a research program, the SUSTAIN network has began defining Intensive and Sustainable Work Systems (Van Eijnatten (2002). Moldaschl (2000) defines work intensity as a dyadic misfit between situational and personal characteristics (p. 3). He states: “Intensive work systems develop by consuming resources that are generated and provided in the social environment of the work system or the organization. The negative balance of this exchange can be identified in the exhaustion of work motivation, low trust, long-term sick leaves, etc.; the work situation is characterised by serious mismatches between job requirements and available resources (i.e. contradictory job requirements)” (p. 9). Two important aspects of work intensity are the inability to cope with contradictory demands of clients and colleagues, functional managers and project leaders, patients and doctors; and the complexity of satisfactorily balancing both work and private lifes. The scene is full of conflicts and paradoxes. The internalisation of the market is an important source of intensity (Brödner, 2000).

An Intensive Work System (IWS) is a work system where a majority of the employees consider the work physically, psychologically or socially destructive. Work intensity is also increased by the employees themselves. Kira (2000) calls this ‘self-intensification’. A Sustainable Work System (SWS) is a work system in which the quality of work (i.e., employee's health, well-being, and personal development); the quality of the organization (productivity, efficiency, the ability to meet the challenges of tomorrow's business); and the quality of connections with the environment (both nature and society as well) are constantly kept at the same high levels (Van Eijnatten, 2002).

One of the problems with the above-mentioned definitions is the implicit character of the concept of WLB. In this paper we will elaborate a system-theoretical foundation for a rigorous definition of this term. First, we will criticize the way Open Systems Thinking (OST) is one-sidedly dealing with WLB, from either a collective (organizational) or individual (psychic) point of view. As we will argue, that OST is unsuccessful in defining WLB from both collective (organizational) and individual (psychic) perspectives, recursively. Next, we will explore Luhmann’s (1985) Theory of Self-Referential Systems, in order to develop an alternative framework that tries to avoid non-recursive thinking. Finally, we show how the new framework can fit in a both/and approach to Sustainable Work Systems, and we will explore some future areas of research. 3. OST Definitions of Work Life Balance: The Hidden Tautology In contemporary OST modelling, the organization is seen as the system, and the markets/society are seen as its relevant environment, most of the time. Essentially, work is viewed as a component of the system, and non-work is considered a component of the system’s environment. Technically speaking, such descriptions of work and non-work characteristics are defined in terms of one another, resulting in a


5

tautology: work is what non-work is not, and vice versa. Because OST observes organizations as systems within an environment this tautology is neglected. After all, during work (i.e. the system), non-work (i.e. the environment) is regarded as irrelevant. As a result, for OST-approaches to WLB, it is difficult to observe that applying the distinction between work and non-work involves sensemaking, i.e. that the environment is enacted (Weick, 1979). When we observe the distinction between system and environment not as inclusive but as exclusive (Figure 1), we are able to observe the existing tension between work and non-work demands more effectively in the sense that we are able to acknowledge that work and non-work aspects of work life are highly interrelated and only mean something with respect to each other.

__________________________________

Figure 1 about here __________________________________

Figure 1 The Distinction between System and Environment (Vos, 2002, p. 26)

Observing systems and their environment exclusively, leads to a conception of systems not as open systems but as self-referential closed systems (Luhmann, 1985). In general, for a self-referential system, their existence is grounded on the following tautology (Figure 2).

“The system is what its environment is not, and the environment is what the system is not.”

__________________________________

Figure 2 about here

__________________________________

Figure 2 The System / Environment Tautology (Vos, 2002, p.28) In order to make sense of this tautology, self-referential systems stumble upon a chicken-and-egg problem. After all, they cannot decide what comes first into existence: the environment or the system. This problem cannot be solved by means of reason but only by ‘just’ defining the system or environment naively. That is, self-referential systems need to give meaning tautologically (a) to the system in the sense that it could be what it could be, or (b) to the system’s environment in the sense that it, again, could be what it could be (see Figure 2). This implies that self-referential systems can chose two tautological ‘asymmetries’ in solving twofold chicken-and-egg problems. Confronted with either of these tautologies, self-referential systems experience an excess of opportunities to choose from in making themselves existent, which may lead to their inability to choose. Therefore, the only way to make the systems existent is by just doing something. Dealing with self-reference thus involves acting naively to become operational because strictly speaking, self-referential systems cannot be defined without their environment and environments cannot be defined without their accompanying companies. For this reason, each choice made by self-referential systems to solve the strategic chicken-and-egg problem and to make sense of their existence in the process, is contingent because they could have chosen


6

otherwise (Luhmann, 1985). Due to this contingency in initial conditions, the resulting sensemaking process has to deal with the so-called ‘Butterfly Effect’: a butterfly that flaps his wings somewhere in the world may cause a tornado on the other end of the globe (Gleick, 1987; Fitzgerald & Van Eijnatten, 2002). Within organization studies, Nelson & Winter (1982) label this phenomenon ‘path dependency’. This path dependency implies that self-referential systems have trouble in leaving well-beaten tracks in making sense of social phenomena. In other words, organizations and individuals constrain themselves by the way they enable themselves (Luhman,1985). This means that once self-referential systems are existent, they are imprisoned in their own reality, i.e. they cannot regard their existence despite of themselves. For self-referential systems, the tautology they experience in making sense of themselves and their environment is essential in understanding the way self-referential systems produce and reproduce themselves, recursively. OST-based definitions of WLB fail to acknowledge the importance of this tautology. As a result, these definitions lead to empirical invalid conceptions of WLB. However, before we are able to give an alternative definition of WLB based on the distinction of work / non-work, another problem needs to be addressed. This will be done in the next section. 4. Work Life Balance as a Balancing Act between Organizations and Individuals Current definitions of WLB primarily focus on the perspective of individuals (e.g. Sturges, 2002). Therefore, it is problematic to find a productive balance between work and non-work demands from both the perspective of organizations and individuals. We hold the assumption that both an organizational and individual perspective is necessary to gain a better understanding of the difficulties organizations and individuals experience in addressing WLB related problems. By means of Luhmann’s Theory of Self-Referential Systems, it is possible to conceptualize this reciprocal constitution of WLB, more effectively. Within Luhmann’s Theory of Self-Referential Systems, social and psychic systems belong to each other’s environment (Figure 1). Despite the fact that social and psychic systems are structurally coupled to each other, both systems are self-referentially closed due to the distinct operations they produce and reproduce, recursively. This led Luhmann to the conclusion that psychic events (thoughts) cannot be reduced to social events (communications), and vice versa (Luhmann, 1985, p. 92). Luhmann was criticised by some commentators for offering us an in-human and a-social theory on social life. However, contrary to the expectations of these critics, Luhmann’s conception offers us the possibility to conceive psychic systems in a less restricting way than if they were conceived as part of organizational systems because psychic systems can have more freedom than social structures allow (Vanderstraeten, 2000). For example, the mind can wander away during communication processes and can think of something that cannot be communicated. Therefore, there is empirical proof for the fact that Self-Referential Systems Theory draws a distinct line of demarcation between the study of social (collective) and psychic (individual) systems.


7

5. Some Suggestions for Solutions Ultimately, the consequence of this line of demarcation is that social and psychic systems are unfathomable for each other. For employees busy with making sense of WLB, this implies that they can experience trouble in expressing or communicating about the way they give meaning to the distinction between work and non-work related aspects of their personal well-being within their organization. Likewise, for organizations, this implies that communication processes are limited in their possibility to understand the way individuals try to make sense of their WLB. In observing WLB from both an individual (psychic) and organizational (social) perspective, it is important to acknowledge that psychic and social events, respectively thoughts and communications, can be either intentional or unintentional (Luhmann, 1989, pp. 130-131). The juxtaposition of the distinction between individual versus collective and the distinction between intentional versus unintentional leads to four distinct quadrants (Wilber, 1996) to make sense of organizational life in general, and WLB in particular, see Figure 3.

__________________________________


Figure 3 Four Quadrants to Make Sense of Work Life Balance, after Wilber (1996)

Legend: = Dimension of Development VC = Validity Claim

The quadrant of individual intentional events can be labeled as the intentional domain. Within this domain, individuals make sense of WLB intentionally, e.g., the intention to reduce your occupation from 1.0 to 0.8 FTE to take care of your kids. Secondly, the quadrant of individual unintentional events can be labeled as the behavioral domain. Within this domain, individuals make sense of WLB unintentionally, e.g., the fact that you work overtime each day because you work overtime each day. Thirdly, the quadrant of collective intentional events can be labeled as the cultural domain. Within this domain, organizations make sense or WLB intentionally, e.g., the collectively decided upon implementation of sabbaticals. Lastly, the quadrant of collective unintentional events can be labeled the social domain. Within this domain, organizations make sense of WLB unintentionally, e.g., the impossibility of the organization as a whole to address problems of WLB because no single individual one feels responsible for addressing these problems. These four domains enable us to observe the difficulties experienced by organizations and individuals to make sense of WLB. These difficulties involve the expression of aspects of WLB that are made sense of within one specific domain in terms of the other domains. The domains cannot be reduced to each other, which implies that by means of each transition from one domain to another, some information in the way WLB has been made sense of, is lost. For instance, from an organizational perspective, intentions of individuals can only be made sense of to the extent these intentions appear in the actions of individuals. Likewise, from an individual perspective, the intentions of organizations as a whole can only be effective to the extent these intentions fit to the mindset of individual organizational members. Our


8

conception of WLB acknowledges that all domains are interrelated to each other. As a result, making sense of WLB involves making sense of the following circular argument or tautology (Figure 4).

__________________________________


Figure 4 Making Sense of Work Life Balance

The relationships in Figure 4 can be read as follows:

(1) Individual intentions depend on collective intentions, (2) Collective intentions depend on collective behaviors, (3) Collective behaviors depend on individual behaviors, (4) Individual behaviors depend on collective intentions, (5) Collective intentions depend on individual behaviors, (6) Individual behaviors depend on collective behaviors, (7) Collective behaviors depend on individual intentions, (8) Individual intentions depend on collective behaviors, (9) Collective behaviors depend on collective intentions, (10) Collective intentions depend on individual intentions, (11) Individual intentions depend on individual behaviors, (12) Individual behaviors depend on individual intentions.

The four remaining relationships are the tautological ones, see (1’), (2’), (3’), and (4’) in Figure 4, which may function as reference points in ‘assymetrizing’ the tautology. By means of functional analysis, the research method associated with the Theory of Self-Referential Systems, i.e. Vos (2000: p. 35), we are able to explore in an empirical setting the way WLB is made sense of. The corresponding research process does involve the determination of the various ways organizations have solved the chicken-and-egg problem underlying the WLB tautology in specific cases. In addition, the research process involves comparing these distinct solutions on their effectiveness in order to rule out dysfunctional ones. The solutions function as ‘strange attractors’ (Fitzgerald & Van Eijnatten, 2002) which enable and constrain members of organizations to make sense of WLB. In our conception WLB is an emergent order that comes into being due to both collective and individual attempts to make sense of this phenomenon, recursively throughout time. Due to the great dependency on initial conditions, organizations and individuals will constrain themselves because of the way they enable themselves in this respect. 6. Discussion: Towards a Both/And Approach to Sustainable Work Systems To finish this paper, we want to see how far our preliminary theory about Sustainable Work Systems has brought us, thus far. Hatchuel (2000) defined work intensity as a potential logic of ‘unconfined jobs’. Unconfined jobs exist in situations where the cognitive and relational contents of jobs


9

become unstable and permanently threatened (p. 2). He defined intensity as a crisis in self-management as the result of limited self-design, high prescription and self-confinement (p. 9). According to Hatchuel, intensity is the sign of a permanent need for re-learning and for re-socializing. The last few years we saw the development from Open-Systems Thinking into Chaordic Systems Thinking (CTS), c.f., Fitzgerald & Van Eijnatten (1998); Van Eijnatten & Hoogerwerf (2000); Van Eijnatten (2001); Fitzgerald & Van Eijnatten (2002a/b). In CTS the Chaos metaphor is used as a new meta-model for re-defining systems thinking that might count for complexity and non-linear change (Van Eijnatten, 2001; Fitzgerald, 2002) 1, and may solve the problem of distinct theories of causality, used by either those who plan or those who experience change (Stacey et al, 2000; Stacey, 2001; Fitzgerald & Van Eijnatten, 2002a). The organization may combine stability and instability, i.e. may move into the ‘edge of chaos’ – to be able to reach sustainability. Based on this thinking, Backström et al. (2002) defined a Sustainable Work System as follows: “There are three central features characteristic of Sustainable Work Systems when using the complexity metaphor: 1.) Spontaneous and mutual alignment of individuals; 2.) Successful thriving in rapidly changing environments; and 3.) Fitness development for competitiveness. These features are briefly presented here:

1.) A first key feature of sustainable work is the tendency of employees

– for spontaneous and mutual alignment – to pull in the same direction. A Sustainable Work System is, according to the complexity metaphor, most efficiently grounded in individuals’ acting and interacting without top-down or external control. Managers create and nurture conditions and opportunities that allow alignment to emerge, but any such alignment must originate in the individual. Alignment is a matter of internal interaction and dialogue, promoting collective learning and self-organization, which creates a common culture, a flow of information, a frame for interpretation, and a common vision. This situation makes it possible for an individual to create and reconstruct meaning and understanding, and thereby to manage the worry (‘psychological wear and tear’) that continuous change might cause, and also to foster personal and professional development,

2.) A second key feature of a Sustainable Work System lies in its ability

to thrive in a continuously changing environment. In line with Stacey et al. (2000) and Stacey (2001), sustainable work can be seen in terms of the complex responsive processes involved in relating to the surrounding world so as to ‘choose’ resources and markets and adapt to external changes. There are numerous examples of companies ending up in ‘fatal chaos’, e.g. suffering a bankruptcy, because of a failure to adapt to change in time,

3.) A third key feature of a Sustainable Work System is fitness

development for competitiveness. The complexity perspective has been successfully used in the study of biological evolution – which


10

focuses precisely on fitness development for competitiveness. Most organizations now face strong competition in a global market. There is a continuous striving towards increased development in complex systems (both legitimate and shadow systems) in order to be able to survive in a rapidly changing environment.”

Backström et al. (2002), p. 99-100

Patterns seems to become the core of a both/and approach to Sustanable Work Systems:

“Sustainable Work Systems can be ‘emprisoned’ by different strange attractors. One of them can be described as competitiveness that is accompanied by individual growth, and also by a culture that equally respects all members of the organization. A Sustainable Work System that is typically under the control of this ‘sustainability attractor’ produces outcomes or benefits to all stakeholders rather than serving the interests of one single elite group at the expense of those of others. A Sustainable Work System governed by such a sustainability attractor offers opportunities for interaction that contribute to the development of both individuals, groups and organizations, and also to a region or society as a whole.” Backström et al. (2002), p. 104

Based on epistemological ideas and social theory, Moldaschl & Brödner (2000) provisionally proposed some heuristic principles. A reflexive methodology of organizational intervention:

a) Does not offer models of general problem solving or ‘best practice’; uses and offers thinking in dilemmas: Seeing e.g. autonomy as a problem, not as a solution,

b) Understands structures as ‘negotiated orders’, c) Recommends institutional reflexivity instead of rationalistic

application of rules: Uses scenario techniques and recommends that to the practitioners too; plays with being ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ at the same time (e.g. mutual consulting; border crossing),

d) Facilitates in general: Self-application of perspectives, methods, and theory,

e) Uses scientific knowledge in a reflective way: Design criteria and models are used as means to augment the number of options for practitioners, to overcome reality with alternatives. That means: To induce and propose alternative models, values, etc.),

f) Accepts the legitimacy of practitioners’ perspectives and rationalities and does not claim a superior scientific rationality; uses the differences in perspectives as a methodology of intervention,

g) Understands any usable knowledge as contextualized, ‘situated’; takes any explicit knowledge (also the scientific) as systematically limited; understands practice as knowledge production, and knowledge


11

transfer from science to practice (e.g., consulting) as re-contextualization,

h) Sees also observation as an intervention; is aware that there is no presence in the field without effects, and tries to analyse and utilise the effects of being part of the analysed setting,

i) Is centred on the category of side effects; is aware that also ‘good design’ can have negative effects and side effects (the way to hell is paved with good intentions); thus, the scientist is cyclically evaluating the (real) outcomes of his own interventions,

j) Has, therefore, an open process model with cyclical evaluation loops, instead of linear phase models; process and outcome are seen as undetermined,

k) Analyses recursive processes of the creation of artifacts and the change of the context (e.g. the work processes) they are or have been developed for,

l) Would not only or primarily follow scientifically objective design criteria, but the idea, that the creation of technical artifacts is a negotiation of commitments between working persons; artifacts and the design process are understood as a social medium for that,

m) Is careful with language; e.g. does not use words like ‘implementation’.”

Moldaschl & Brödner (2000), p. 3 CTS combines several levels (individual, organization, society), several stakeholders (managers, workers, customers, suppliers) and several processes (cognitive, social). Simultaneous interaction is its central feature. Backström et al. (2002) focused on the holon ‘organization’, which consists of several other holons: ‘the individuals.’ Based upon the thoughts developed in this paper, we propose to adopt Luhmann’s ‘exclusive’ definition of system and environment. With this specific interpretation of the system/environment distinction , we are able to observe WLB as a social phenomenon that involves self-referential sense making. By means of this focus on self-reference, the existing tension between work and non-work demands could be explored, more effectively. We propose to define the concept of WLB as follows:

“Work Life Balance is the emergent meaningful order that enables and constrains members of organizations to make sense of work versus non-work demands, which results from the mutual recursive interplay throughout time between individual intentions, individual behaviors, collective intentions and collective behaviors.”

With this definition in mind, we may plan for more rigorous research about WLB, which will cover all 16 paths of the tautology shown in Figure 4, to satisfy the ‘both/and’ criterion, sufficiently.


12

Notes 1 Definitions of CST “By Chaord, I mean any self-organizing, adaptive, nonlinear, complex organizm, organization or community, whether physical, biological or social, the behaviour of which harmoniously blends characteristics of both order and chaos. Briefly stated, a chaord is any chaotically-ordered complex. Loosely translated to social organizations, it would mean the harmoniously blending of intellectual and experiential learning” (Hock, 1996).

Chaord: “1) Any autocatalytic, self-regulating, adaptive, nonlinear, complex organizm, organization, or system, whether physical, biological or social, the behaviour of which harmoniously exhibits characteristics of both order and chaos; 2) An entity whose behaviour exhibits patterns and probabilities not governed or explained by the behaviour of its parts; 3) The fundamental organizing principle of nature and evolution” (The Chaordic Alliance, 1998). Chaordic: “1) Anything simultaneously orderly and chaotic; 2) Patterned in a way dominated neither by order nor chaos; 3) Existing in the phase between order and chaos” (The Chaordic Alliance, 1998). A Chaordic System is “a complex and dynamical arrangement of connections between elements forming a unified whole the behaviour of which is both unpredictable (chaotic) and patterned (orderly)... simultaneously. Chaos then is the science of such chaotic and orderly, that is ‘chaordic’ entities found in abundance throughout the universe” (Fitzgerald, 1997b, p. 1). By this definition, almost any system in the universe ranging from the complex to the simple can be considered chaordic. However, we will refer to any system designed to sustain itself (rather than natural) in an optimal dynamical balance in what millennial science refers to as Far-From-Equilibrium (Van Eijnatten & Fitzgerald, 1998). Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST) is “a lens, a way of thinking, and subsequently an approach to designing a complex organizational system that recognises the enterprise not as a fixed structure, but as ‘flow’; a dynamical process passing from one attractor basin to the next in an incessant journey toward the ‘edge of chaos’” (Van Eijnatten & Fitzgerald, 1998). ‘Chaord®’ and ‘Chaordic®’ are registered trademarks of the Chaordic Alliance: http://www.chaordic.com

http://www.chaordic.com/


13

References Backström, T, Eijnatten, F.M. van, & Kira, M. (2002). A complexity perspective on sustainable work

systems. In: Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A.B. (2002) (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and practice. London: Routledge.

Brödner, P. (2000). Analytic approach to intensive work and sustainable work systems. Stockholm: SALTSA/SWS Research Group (Internal work document Institut für Arbeit und Technik, Gelsenkirchen), March.

Docherty, P., Forslin, J., & Shani, A.B. (2002) (Eds.), Creating sustainable work systems: Emerging perspectives and practice. London: Routledge.

Eijnatten, F.M. van (2000). Solving work intensity problems: The need for a new methodological paradigm? Stockholm: SALTSA/SWS Research Group (Internal work document Eindhoven University of Technology), March.

Eijnatten, F.M. van (2001). Chaordic systems for holonic organizational renewal. In: W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Volume 13 (pp. 213-251). San Francisco: JAI Press/Elsevier.

Eijnatten, F.M. van (2002). From intensive to sustainable work systems: The quest for a new paradigm of work. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the European Academy of Management (Euram II), Stockholm, May 9-11, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.

Eijnatten, F.M. van, & Hoogerwerf, E.C. (2000). Searching for new grounds: Beyond open systems thinking. In: Coakes, E., Lloyd-Jones, R. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Graphity on the long wall (pp. 39-50). London: Springer Verlag, Series Computer Supported Co-operative Work (CSCW).

Eijnatten, F.M. van, & Fitzgerald, L.A. (1998). Designing the chaordic enterprise: 21st century organisational architectures that drive systemic self-transcendence. Paper presented at the 14th EGOS colloquium “Stretching the Boundaries of Organisation Studies into the Next Millennium”, Sub theme 3: New Organisation Forms, Maastricht, July 10.

Fitzgerald, L.A. (1997). What in the world is the matter with systems thinking? A critique of modern systems theory and the practice of ‘systems thinking’ it informs. In: Chase (Ed.), Readings of the STS Roundtable, Seattle, Washington, October 21-24. Northwood, NH: The STS Roundtable, 41-48.

Fitzgerald, L.A., & Eijnatten, F.M. van (1998). Letting go for control: The art of managing in the chaordic enterprise. International Journal of Business Transformation, Vol.1 (4) April, 261-270.

Fitzgerald, L.A., & Eijnatten, F.M. van (2002a). Reflections: Chaos in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM), 15 (4), 402-411, special issue: “Chaos: Applications in Organizational Change”.

Fitzgerald, L.A., & Eijnatten, F.M. van (2002b). Chaos speak, a glossary of chaordic terms and phrases. Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM), 15 (4), 412-423, special issue: “Chaos: Applications in Organizational Change”.

Fitzgerald, L.A., & Eijnatten, F.M. van (Eds.) (2002), Chaos: Applications in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM), 15 (4), July.

Gleick J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. London: Abacus. Hatchuel, A. (2000). The sources of intensity in work systems: Cognitive and relational limits of self-

management. Stockholm: SALTSA/SWS Research Group (Internal work document Ecole des Mines de Paris), June.

Hock, D.W. (1996). The chaordic organization: Out of control and into order. 21st Century Learning Initiative. World Wide Web: http://www.cyberspace.com/~building/ofc_21clidhock.html.

Kira, M. (2000). From intensive work systems to sustainable: A literature review. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics and Management, internal report, TRITA-IEO-R 2000:03, ISSN 1100-7982, ISRN/KTH/IEO/R-00-03-SE.

Luhmann N. (1985). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, Zweite Auflage.

Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In: Geijer, F., & Zouwen, J. van der (Eds.), Socio-cybernetic paradoxes, observation, and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172-192). London: Sage.

Luhmann N. (1989). Soziologische Aufklärung 3, Opladen. Moldaschl, M.F. (2000). Sustainable work systems in research and development. In: F.M. van

Eijnatten, & A.B. Shani, (Eds.) (2000), From intensive to sustainable work systems: Beyond time limitations in the European context (pp. 6-12). Toronto: Academy of Management Meeting, Symposium 20071, August 9.

http://www.cyberspace.com/~building/ofc_21clidhock.html


14

Moldaschl, M.F., & Brödner, P. (2000). A reflexive methodology of intervention. Stockholm:

SALTSA/SWS Research Group (Internal work document Technische Universität München; Institut für Arbeit und Technik, Gelsenkirchen), June.

Nelson R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap.

Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge.

Stacey, R.D. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge.

Sturges, J.L. (2002). In the Balance? A Review of theoretical concepts central to the relationships between the work and non-work domains. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the European Academy of Management (Euram II), Stockholm, May 9-11, London, United Kingdom: Open University Business School.

The Chaordic Alliance (1998). http://www.chaordic.com. Vanderstraeten R. (2000). Autopoiesis and socialization: on Luhmann’s reconceptualization of

communication and socialization. British Journal of Sociology, 51 (3), 581-598. Vos, J.-P. (2002). The making of strategic realities: An application of the social systems theory of

Niklas Luhmann. Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, Ph.D.thesis. Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Dublin: Newleaf.

© FVEJPV01092002

http://www.chaordic.com/


15

System

Environment

Open Systems Theory

SystemEnvironment

‘Welt’

Self-Referential Systems Theory

Figure 1 The Distinction between System and Environment (Vos, 2002, p. 26)


16

Environment

Company

(1)

(2)

(a)

(b)

M tegy

aking Sense of StraMaking Sense of One’s

Existence Self-Referentially

Figure 2 The System / Environment Tautology (Vos, 2002, p.28)


17

I It

We It

Individual

Collective

intentional behavioral

cultural social

Interior Exterior

Interpretative Empirical

Individual Mind

Organisational Mind

VC = Functional Fit

VC = Propositional Truth

VC = Justness

VC = Truthfulness

I It

We It

Individual

Collective

intentional behavioral

cultural social

Interior Exterior

Interpretative Empirical

Individual Mind

Organisational Mind

VC = Functional Fit

VC = Propositional Truth

VC = Justness

VC = Truthfulness

Figure 3 Four Quadrants to Make Sense of Work Life Balance, after Wilber (1996)

Legend: = Dimension of Development VC = Validity Claim


18

BehavioralDomain

SocialDomain

CulturalDomain

IntentionalDomain

(11)

(12)

(9)

(2)

(8)

(7)

(4)

(5)(3)

(6)(1)(10)

(1’)

(2’) (3’)

(4’)

Figure 4 Making Sense of Work Life Balance

Tautologies of work life balance

Documents

Transcript of Tautologies of work life balance