Facet Theory in Organizational Research

Esther Solomon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9780367776282
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000404586
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Corporate Governance
• Index: Business

The complexities and multiple levels of analysis involved in studying organizational phenomena require clarity in conceptualization and appropriate measurement methods to capture these dynamics. The facet approach can integrate diverse perspectives and address challenges posed by interdisciplinary organizational research.

Facet Theory, a methodology conceived by Professor Louis E. Guttman, is a comprehensive research strategy. Based on set theory, it brings to the social sciences a discipline similar to mathematics and the natural sciences. It offers a formal approach to define the universe of content by uniquely addressing construct clarity and empirical verification for management studies. Relying on qualitative data, it helps generate mathematically derived models that have common structures across different research domains. Thus, Facet Theory helps render objective and quantitative what had previously appeared to be subjective and qualitative. It offers unique procedures for studies characterized by multitudes of interacting variables, promotes the systematic study of configurations, and can help advance cumulative research on organizing in teams, enterprises, or markets.

The chapters in this volume provide recent advances and applications of Facet Theory, demonstrating how it enhances rigor and new insights for organizational research.

The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of International Studies of Management & Organization.

Organizational Quality: A Systemic Functioning Theory

Shye Samuel

Abstract: A conceptual framework for evaluating the quality of organizations is developed, based on the view that an organization constitutes a behavioral action system. Applying the general Faceted Action System Theory (FAST) to the case of organizations, 16 organizational functioning modes, as well as their interrelationships, are identified. Organizational quality is defined as the effective functioning in these 16 modes. Principles and procedures of Facet Theory are employed (1) for explicating the axiomatic foundation of “organizations as systems” in terms of elementary content facets (classifications); (2) for sampling observations needed for organizational quality evaluation, by means of a mapping sentence; (3) for testing hypotheses empirically validating the conceptual constructs of organizational functioning modes and their interrelationships, using faceted Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) (faceted Smallest Space Analysis (SSA)); and (4) for suggesting a rationalized procedure (Multiple Scaling by Partial Order Scalogram Analysis by base Coordinates (POSAC)) for compiling the 16 modal scores into an optimal organizational quality profile consisting of the smallest number of scales commensurate with organizational functioning complexity.

INTRODUCTION

Organizational quality concerns not only the production of goods and services that constitute the goals of the organization, but also the short- and long-term processes that are required to sustain such production. Moreover, the notion of organizational quality may include the possibility of evolution in the very definition of its goals. All these point to the fact that an organization is in fact a living action system, and that conceptualizations for the evaluation of organizational quality could well follow those developed for action systems in general. In particular, it seems appropriate to explore the relevance of the Faceted Action System Theory (FAST; Shye 1985a, 2014a) developed for behavioral action systems in general, to the particular case of organizations. This is indeed the purpose of the present study. Previous successful applications of FAST to classes of systems include the formulation of Distributive Justice as an action system (Kedar and Shye 2015; Shye 1995) and a systemic model for human quality of life (Systemic Quality of Life (SQOL); Shye 1975, 1979, 1989, 2014b; Choshen and Greenbaum 1992), and specifically to quality of work life (Elizur and Shye 1990). The SQOL model has been ranked first among 68 quality of life models published in the course of nearly four decades (Taillefer et al. 2003). Early attempts to apply FAST to organizations include Wolins, Wozner, and Shye (1980), Shye (1985a), and Wozner (1990).

The holistic perspective and analyses afforded by the faceted action system approach as applied to organizations are desirable on at least two counts. First, by taking into consideration the entire structure of the organization, the systemic view ensures that the goals pursued by the organization would be effectively fulfilled, not just in the short run, but in the long run as well. All too often, organizations attain seemingly great successes at the expense of compromising their future well-being and productivity. Second, a comprehensive view of the organization, one that takes into account its many functioning components, prompts managers to examine how policies that are aimed at improving one organizational functioning component, inadvertently affect other organizational functioning components.

We start with presenting a systemic conceptual framework based on the FAST and apply it, in two steps, first to the notion of “organizationhood,” and then to organizations. This results in a 4 × 4 matrix of 16 organizational systemic modes to form a balanced and exhaustive set of criteria for evaluating any organization.

ORGANIZATIONHOOD AS AN ACTION SYSTEM

Much in analogy with the systemic quality of life model (Shye 1989, 2014b), which rests on the abstract notion of the General Human System (GHS) or humanhood, the systemic organizational quality rests on the notion of “organizationhood.”¹ Regarded as an abstract action system, organizationhood has four functioning modes: the expressive, the adaptive, the integrative, and the conservative (Shye 1985a, 2014a). Each of these modes in turn constitutes an organizational subsystem in its own right, embodied in every organization. Thus, each of the four organizational subsystems may be described in terms of the corresponding organizationhood mode. The four functioning organizational subsystems (or modes, from the organizationhood perspective) are labeled and interpreted as follows.

The Organizational-Personality Subsystem

Organizationhood, as an abstract system, is manifested, or expressed, in reality in the form of specific organizations, each having its own distinctive characteristics that shape it as a unique individuality. In fact, this is the way the abstract notion of organizationhood impacts on reality.

The Organizational-Physical Subsystem

Organizationhood, having a physical aspect, adaptively interacts through mutual adjustments with the physical and economic environment, involving the material assets and traits pertaining or associated with organizations, such as location, lands, buildings, equipment, funds, intellectual property, etc.

The Organizational-Social Subsystem

Organizationhood, within the framework of Society, integratively interacts through mutual adjustments with other organizations and social institutions, as well as relevant role-players, such as human resources and clients.

The Organizational-Cultural Subsystem

Organizationhood is founded on and embodies an idea valued and conserved as a guiding principle, an idea that bestows meaning to organization’s existence. Organizations adhere each to its respective vision which constitutes its raison d'être as defined upon its inception.

A content analysis of the four organizational subsystems by two elementary binary facets: {societal vs. particular} and {intra-organizational vs. extra-organizational} yields a spatial depiction of the relationships among the four subsystems, shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1
A 2 × 2 Heuristic Classification of the Four Organizational Subsystems.

ORGANIZATIONS AS ACTION SYSTEMS: AN AXIOMATIC FOUNDATION

Definition 1

An organization is a well-designed system to the extent its component elements-–such as personnel, materiel, procedures–-consistently maintain stronger interrelationships of a defined type among themselves than between themselves and entities outside the organization. Here we use the term system in the sense of well-designed system.

Definition 2

An organization is more active, the more it impacts on its environment; it is more open the more it interacts with its environment; it is more organized the more its members interact with each other; and it is more stable the more it adheres to various aspects of its composition.

Definition 3

An organization is an action system to the extent that it is active, open, organized, and stable.

Axiom 1

Considered in relation to a particular organization, a phenomenon has two distinct existence modalities: the origination-modality and the actualization-modality. The two existence modalities are to be taken as primitive concepts, intuitively signifying the birth and the manifestation of the phenomenon, respectively.

Axiom 2

Considered in relation to a particular organization, an existence modality of a phenomenon may be located either inside or outside the organization.

Axioms 1 and 2 immediately imply four types of phenomena, defined with respect to a given organization.

Type I. Phenomena that originate inside and are actualized outside the organiz...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Facet Theory in Organizational Research
• 1 Organizational Quality: A Systemic Functioning Theory
• 2 Qualitative Structural Theory: A Basis for Decision-Making
• 3 Work Values and Facet Theory: From Intercorrelations to Individuals
• 4 Pathways to Energy Transition: A Faceted Taxonomy
• 5 Corporate Governance and Paradoxical Tensions: Leadership Dynamics Through Facet Theory
• Index