Cybernetic Leadership and Working Culture

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

The term cybernetic describes the recent advancements in information science and the consideration of how the systems work. Cybernetic describes a complex type of information broadcast and the operations associated with the modern computers. The cybernetic models have advanced beyond the simpler models in a variety of ways. They are somewhat more complex and they identify a larger number of variables as compared to the simpler models (Mullen & Johnson, 1990).

How leaders could function in a more cybernetic fashion

According to Morrill (2010), a cybernetic leadership is compared to a self regulatory system that routinely regulates the activities it manages (p. 33). Burnbaum uses a thermostat to demonstrate the working of a cybernetic system. Burnbaum explains that the thermostat maintains room temperature by automatically adjusting its heating system.

When this idea translates to organizational leadership, it can be noted that each area of the administration employs a set of what might be termed as regulators in order to control its operations. For example in a case where one of the departments overspends, purchase of more products may be limited until necessary adjustments are done to correct the imbalance.

If an admissions office fails to hit its annual enrollment target for students, there might be automatic adjustments to allow more transfers. The cybernetic model promotes independence of the various units within an organization. Adopting the cybernetic fashion would mean that leaders would be able to operate more independently and this would be advantageous in the sense that the imperfect operation of one unit would have minimal impact con the organization has whole (Morrill, 2010).

How would the various players in shared governance act differently, if they were behaving in a cybernetic fashion?

Cybernetic design would create an environment in which the discrete organizational units have a proportionate amount of influence. The leaders manage the units as separate cognitive frames elicited by control mechanisms that balance their operations.

The integration of a cybernetic fashion would create a form of leadership that only responds to indicators of operational difficulties but with limited capacity to implement new possibilities that could inspire other leaders to take a new direction in response to change. The leaders develop a cognitive insight and wise counsel regarding administrative techniques rather than the leadership process (Morrill, 2010).

What are the benefits of moving toward a more cybernetic model?

The cybernetic model tends to build on the collective behavior of a set of organizational units and the interaction between the unsophisticated entities. It recognizes that intricate group behavior does not need a function of complex individual behavior. Smith (2004) explains that the cybernetic fashion functions most efficiently with an open systems methodology.

It promotes two-way communication between the organization and its internal as well as external environment, hence facilitates the organizational efforts toward attaining its objectives (p. 243). The approaches adopted by the units are constantly adjusted according to the feedbacks obtained from the public.

Another significant benefit of moving towards a more cybernetic model is that it has simpler techniques of controlling and harmonizing internal organizational processes in a more systemic design with respect to delivering particular systemic goals. The cybernetic fashion also simplifies the assessment and examination of the components of a given system or organizational units and makes it easier for individuals and leaders to understand how the entire system operates (Smith, 2004).

What are the positive and negative aspects of working more cybernetically?

Cybernetic systems make use of computers and sophisticated technological approaches that constantly provide new techniques of computation and information processing. The systems contain a vibrant proportion of intelligence. For example telephone networks, radar systems, programmable disks and communication systems, all reveal the potential to process information and execute particular commands.

They utilize self regulating methods that work within predefined limits to perform predefined tasks (Smith, 2004). Another positive aspect is that the cybernetic operation enables establishment of various profitable relationships between units. The various components are able to work as a single unit. The collectivity provides a good platform for creativity and supportive explorations which facilitate developments and enhance organizational capabilities. It also provides a secure base for the emergence and development of constructive ideas that help in handling circumstances from different angles.

On the other hand, a typical cybernetic system has three essential elements which include the sensor, comparator and an activator. The sensor is charged with the task of sensing the factors about the environment such as the internal state of the components. The comparator uses the feedback from the sensor determines whether there is a need for change. The activator then responds by activating the change if there is a need.

The operation of these three elements may sometimes take longer than expected to realize certain objectives. Negative feedbacks may lead to adaptive behavior and there may be an attempt to sustain the same conditions. Another negative aspect is that the technological progress that accompanies the cybernetic system may be so demanding on the individuals and workers within an organization.

It may create an increased demand for the managers. For example, apart from the normal managerial activities of the manager, the manager may be expected to type, receive and send emails which may lead to considerable deterioration of the services offered (Morril, 2010).

References

Morrill, R.L. (2010). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and universities. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp.32-48.

Mullen, B., & Johnson, C. (1990). The psychology of consumer behavior. London: Routledge. pp.6-20.

Smith, R.D. (2004). Strategic planning for public relations applied psychology series (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. pp.241-310.

Click Here To Order Now!