Constantin,

It is an interesting question. However, I am not sure what a fundamental law of organization could possibly mean. That there exists a fundamental law of business and economics goes back to Erich Gutenberg. For more details, please also see this preprint:

http://h-n-u.de/systemic.pdf

Especially for the questions of organization (central/decentral) it can be shown that the administration grows with the square of the operative workers. Therefore, big organizations (= many employees) are always better if organized decentral. For some details, please see (unfortunately in German):

http://www.h-n-u.de/Veroeffentlichungen/Zentral_dezentra.pdf

Another often discussed “number” for organization is the span of control. In the 1990ties it was assumed that it should be as big as possible in order to have the least number of employees. Meanwhile it has been proven that there is an optimal span of control. Above and below one needs more employees in total. Detail can be found in my book:

Management Methods and Tools, Gabler 2007, p. 98-105

So far for my knowledge of a quantitative analysis of organizations. I hope this has been helpful to you.

Best regards,

Michael Grabinski

Michael,

I understand your reaction. It is natural, given the complexity

of the concepts under discussion.

Your comment: „I am not sure what a fundamental law of

organization could possibly mean.” is waiting to be cleared.

I quote from the above recommended article for documentation:

„Albert Einstein wrote: “As a scientist, I believe that the

nature is a perfect structure, looking through the

perspective of reason and logic analysis.” “Scientific

research is based on the idea that everything is determined

by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions

of people.” These Einstein’s ideas have aroused author’s

curiosity and desire to try to find out if for organizational

and management activities there is also a law of nature that

governs them. Based on the quotes above, it is reasonable to

assume that Albert Einstein intuited existence of such a

universal law, although he was never explicitly referred to it.”

The definition of Universal Law of Organization is:

…”The fundamental concepts on organization of complex

adaptive systems are all integrated naturally into a double

feedback cybernetic information system, in conformity with a

logical model called “The Universal Model of Organization

and Management" (see Figure 1).”

Details of the meaning of this law of nature can be found

described broadly in my book: „Scientific Systemic

Management. Fundamental Concepts” available on Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Systemic-Management-Fundamental-Educational/dp/1533231885

Thank you for your ample and valuable response and for the interest in my research.

Best regards

Constantin Mihaescu

It is not possible to unify.

Perumal,

Why It is not possible to unify? Can you explain why? What prevents us to unify them, when they are already unified by a law of nature, as argued in the documentary material attached to my question?

What is your skepticism based on? Was Einstein wrong when he said (quote): "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything is determined by the laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people."?

Best regards

Constantin Mihaescu

I do not think we can talk about 'laws' of organization in the same way that we talk about, say, the laws of physics. Organization and organizations are terms that cover a wide variety of social phenomena. These vary from context to context and they are subject to metamorphosis over time as societies and their associated values change. We can identify a number of concerns that will form a unified map of organizational issues, perhaps. How we address these issues will be subjective and variable with context/value systems/time.

This is an intriguing question, indeed. What I observe and I can share is the changes that affect organizations of all areas, re-build or, minimally, update organizational concepts. So, I believe we can have relatively in common foundations for a cluster of companies, for example, the IT industry, which may guide the management activity. But, they could hardly fit to all companies into a single theoretical grid. But, this is just my point of view. I will keep my eyes on the others responses.

There´s not a universal law in organizations, the diference between organizations and the natural sciences is that the human and social sciencies are not axiomatic, therefore every answer to the social systems are not lineal but complex response, and there´s not a unifier answer to the posible questions presented in the organization. Roethlisberger & Dickson write that there are difrerence logics; the economic one, and the feelings; remember that in the brain, we have basically tree levels, the cognitive economic one, the limbic system, and the spine bulb that regulates the vegetative process, therefore, you can think that the response can be unique but the level of responses are offten so diverse

In order to understand why people in a company do what they do, one has to look at the culture. Or, I to say otherwise, if you want to understand the culture of an organization, look at what people do in it. It is usually the basis of success or failure. In their day-to-day work, staff go through difficult communication problems, teamwork, process sustainability, productivity, profits, motivation, morale, absenteeism, retention, safety at work, injuries, and insurance claims.

Company culture contains everything that is done in the organization of jobs and teams - together. Its construction is a design work - all parts come to the spot and work as an organism. It is a unique combination of equipment and hardware, processes and software, departmental directions, reporting and control of structures, communications and connections, as well as staff experience, qualifications and competencies.

Christine,

Thanks for your interesting comment. He gives me the opportunity to do the following specifications: The Universal Law of Organization is a physical law of nature. It explains how Universe was created and how it works. That is why in its name the term "organization" is in the broadest sense, the one that ranks first in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (quote): "the act or process of organizing or being organized." This law governs all systems in the world, from the simplest to the most complex - adaptive systems - including those created by man. Albert Einstein wrote: “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people.” Here's how organizing activity is defined in this universal law: “Creates and improves system’s structure to be able to ensure achievement of certain objective in conditions of continuous fight against environment disturbing actions. Are projected and realized its executive structure and management structure, all their component elements, connections between them or with environment. Also are elaborated their functioning rules.” Have you ever wondered why the Universe is as it is, both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm? What keeps it running? Why does not it disorganizes itself? Details of the scientific terminology on organizing and management activities can be found in the book: https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Systemic-Management-Fundamental-Educational/dp/1533231885

Very interesting Constantin, congratulations!

In order for there to be a universal law there would need to be universally accepted definitions of the behaviours that drive people. There would need to be universal and accepted values for all organizations that mean exactly the same thing to everyone around the globe. That will not and should not happen. Trying to have one size fits all definition of what is right and wrong will never be reality. If there was one universal definition there would be one book on organizational development and not need for other books.

The issue is that there is a misbelief that in organizations and within talent management there is something called 'best practices'. However, reality is there are only common practices. Even when two organizations int he same industry and within the same geography are doing something similar what works for one will not work for the other.

The problem is academics who try and propose there is a one definition, one solution for everything and everyone. As a result we have organizations in Southeast Asia and India trying to implement processes and leadership programs that are counter intuitive for being successful locally.

I would hope there is more of a celebration of differences. The differences would explain why one person successful in Company A moves to Company B and hates being there and hoping to return to Company A.

The Einstein example is about natural not human behaviour. Gravity and relativity are the same universally. Human behaviour, values, culture, history and families are different all over the world. Trying to homogenize something that can not and should not all be the same is like Einstein said insanity is hitting your head against the wall and expecting the results to change

It is like trying to change a company culture. It doesn't change it evolves. It is when GE was popular and everyone tried imitating everything GE. Only to learn that the culture did not work for them. Yes, some of the process did work, but not the values.

David

Thank you for your ample response. It contains ideas which can and should be clarified.

Your ideas: „In order for there to be a universal law there would need to be universally accepted definitions of the behaviours that drive people.” „The Einstein example is about natural not human behaviour.”

My answer: A law, to be universal, it need not to be universally accepted with all definitions of its specific concepts. In the name of the law in question, the term "universal" does not have the meaning of "universally accepted", but the meaning of "valid in the whole universe" as "law of nature." In order to exist, the laws of nature do not require the acceptance of people. They simply exist, and people can accept and obey them or not, bearing the consequences of their behavior. People's opinions are most often changing. Nature's laws are unique, eternal and unchangeable. The Einstein example is about natural AND/INCLUDING human behavior: “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people.”

Your ideas: There would need to be universal and accepted values for all organizations that mean exactly the same thing to everyone around the globe. That will not and should not happen. Trying to have one size fits all definition of what is right and wrong will never be reality. If there was one universal definition there would be one book on organizational development and not need for other books.

My answer: Why “That will not and should not happen”? You deny the need for scientific management? Frederick Winslow Taylor supported the need to establish “…a set of rules, laws and formulas to replace the judgment of each individual, but which can be used effectively only after they have been officially recorded.” “…the best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles, as a foundation.” You deny the need of Comparative Management, whose main purpose is "to discover the managerial problems and techniques that seem to have universal validity in all countries." (William Newman)? If there is a book that proposes universal definitions for all concepts used in organizational and management activities (https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Systemic-Management-Fundamental-Educational/dp/1533231885), that does not mean that other books of these areas are no longer necessary. It is good to have as many books as possible, so managers can choose the most useful.

Your ideas: “Human behaviour, values, culture, history and families are different all over the world. Trying to homogenize something that can not and should not all be the same is like Einstein said insanity is hitting your head against the wall and expecting the results to change.”

My answer: You refer to a vastly expanded range of human behaviors, to which the law of nature in question does not refer in any way. As it appears in the name of this law, it refers strictly to organizational activity, in the sense of creating an adaptable system, structure and informational management subsystem, which ensure its survival and efficient functioning.

Your idea: “It is like trying to change a company culture.”

My answer: Again, you unnecessarily extend the field governed by the natural law in question. It is not about changing the entire culture of the company, but only replacing the current empirical management with the more efficient scientific systemic management.

I hope the concepts in question are clear now. If you have any further questions, please bring them to my attention.

Best regards

Лалка,

I totally agree with you when comparing a company with a living organism. The Universal Law of Organization is fully inspired by this comparison. It even reveals the logical model underlying the organization and functioning of living beings and mixed complex systems (with human participation). This model, called the Universal Model of Organization and Management, integrates into a unique system (a "unique combination" as you say) all physical and informational components (all six management functions and the connections between them, the strategic plan, the related logistic plan and their tactical execution plans, the internal information circuits), in brief all the concepts used in the organizational and management activities. With this model in mind or in front of your mobile phone, tablet or computer, the "design" work of the manager that creates a company is a lot easier. Additionally, strict compliance with this model assures the manager that nothing has left out of sight, that the resulting system will be complete and efficient. Details about this natural model and how it is used by managers (and not just them) can be found in the above-mentioned book. Thank you for your appreciation and your answers, which prove a high level of theoretical and practical training, a solid anchoring in reality.

Constantin, Thanks for the answer, I will look for your book. To you - a lot of health and success!

I believe that excellence models provide this unifying structure (e.g. EFQM, Baldrige). The models are comprised of the principles and best management practices that are common to high performing organizations and have been validated by over 20 years of research. This research has shown the positive relationship between successfully implementing the practices , developing a culture committed to excellence and achieving exceptional results across a balanced system of measurement.

In 2010, I authored a publication (Organizational Excellence Framework) that integrates the leading global excellence models and provides implementation guidelines for the user. You are welcome to download it at no charge on the home page of my website http://organizationalexcellencespecialists.ca/

Foundational to all excellence models is 'systems thinking' - the organization is a system of interrelated parts that must work well together for the organization to perform well. This system is similar to other systems (e.g. ecosystem, human body). Accordingly, the publication identifies the direct relationships for each of the principles and best management practices. For your interest, I have attached an additional file that is not included in the publication and that shows these interrelationships at a high level. Some of the best management practices include an asterisk which means the practices are applicable to micro size organizations (1-25 employees). In comparison, all the practices are relevant for larger size organizations (26+ employees).

Dawn,

Thanks for your interesting answer. I appreciate your effort to implement best practices and management models.

�s�+

Respected all everything unified as per the requirement because change means unchanging thing of changing world is called change. Hence we will do it as per the research Big Bang theories to find out the universal truth of the earth

Dawn Ringrose has, I think, highlighted an important point. We can observe patterns in human behaviour and organization. We can look at interrelationships and view organizations as systemic 'wholes'. This provides a unifying framework, but it is not the same thing as a set of unifying laws, since human beings, unlike natural systems, have free will. We can choose to change the nature of our interactions - e.g. in order to pursue excellence.

Christine,

Yes. As you say: „We can observe patterns in human behaviour and organization. We can look at interrelationships and view organizations as systemic wholes”.

The Universal Law of Organization and the Universal Model of Organization and Management that represents it graphically have been discovered following such observations. You can only see its existence. Analyze one of your projects: if successful, you will recognize in your decision-making process the exact respect of this model or pattern, as you want to call it. You respected it without knowing it, because the human brain is subject to this law of nature, with or without your will. If your project failed, look for what you did not respect from this natural pattern and find out the cause of the failure. The meaning of my initial question is not about the opportunity of a human mandatory “set of unifying laws”, but about a freely chosen unifying standard, given the significant increase in efficiency and effectiveness of organization and management activities that it allows. As I said before, in the commentary on David Cohen's answer, the laws of nature "simply exist, and people can accept and obey them or not, bearing the consequences of their behavior." I agree, "human beings, unlike natural systems, have free will.” You are free to choose whether or not you adhere to the Universal Model of Organization and Management, to the method of Systemic Scientific Management, in the process of making of your decisions. I recommend you to use this new method, and I assume the responsibility to guarantee that you will not regret.

Best regards.

I think you have to take into account specifics in organizational culture, which do not only differ between countries but also industries (see answers to my RG question on national and organizational culture).

Dear Mirna

Nature's laws act in the same way in all countries, regardless of their national organizational culture. What differs from one nation to another is just the extent to which they want to apply them. Thank you for your response and your interest in the issue. Best regards.

As long as organizations are working in an unstable environment, it is difficult

Interesting question and answers, following.

GM

It will be useful for 10 years or less them others theories begum

IVGC