After World War II Great Britain’s coal mines, an industry considered vital to the country’s economy, were nationalized in an attempt to improve their condition and output. New technologies were introduced as part of that effort, to improve productivity and the British economy. They included new more mechanized “long wall” methods of extraction which replaced the previous “hand got” methods where small teams working closely together. Yet despite any efficiencies which might have been realized through these methods, the loss of the social bonds produced rampant morale problems, including internal divisions and increased worker resistance.

In their pioneering action research study, Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting, Trist and Bamforth (1951) explore this dilemma. They suggest that the fragmentation of teams spatially, temporarily and task wise contributed to these problems. The following statement from their conclusion emphasizes the importance of bringing the social and technological elements together in a more harmonious whole, the beginning of a long line of subsequent inquiry and practice related to what is now known as socio-technical systems (STS) theory.

A qualitative change will have to be effected in the general character of the method, so that a social as well as a technological whole can come into existence. Only if this is achieved can the relationships of the cycle workgroup be successfully integrated and a new social balance be created.

They also introduced the concept of “joint-optimization” – the need for technological innovations to promote not only productive success but job satisfaction and quality of life. Another key element they identify is “responsible autonomy” – allowing teams working closest to the job, problem, etc. some degree of freedom to adapt and innovate as needed, rather than having every process managed from the top down.

One thing this early research did not do was look at socio-technical systems from a wider, more critical perspective beyond the individual firm, or the dominant paradigms and “cultural scaffolding” of empire and command and control capitalism. Joseph Martin (2019) defines cultural scaffolding as “a type of developmental scaffolding that describes the self-perpetuating patterns of systematic behavior…repeated assemblies—organized to confer valuable skills or competencies to individuals or groups.” Manifested in both physical and psycho-social-cultural form, it is often invisible to those who have grown accustomed to it. The affordances this scaffolding offers (both what is actually possible through its use, and what users of it perceive to be possible or permissible) shapes our behavior and actions in a variety of often profound ways. Capitalism itself could be considered a form of cultural scaffolding, as well as the Tayloristic and Fordistic methods of mass production it has employed in order to make production processes more efficient. As illustrated in the Trist and Bamforth coal mine case study, that includes breaking the production process down into a series of basic and relatively less skilled tasks.

Work related to self-determination theory has revealed how unsuited such work and the scaffolding supporting it often is in terms of the intrinsic motivations most people are driven by. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), most people have a universal and innate need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The “longwall method of coal-getting” can be seen as working against these intrinsic motivations. Especially when compared to the previous hand-got methods reliant on small teams exhibiting what Trist and Bamforth called (1951, page 6) “craft pride and artisan independence”.

Much later in his career, Trist (1981) traced the lineage of STS theory from the British coal mines to more recent macrosocial concerns, including affects the microprocessor revolution and networked computing might have on the meaning and nature of work. In his conclusion, he suggests that 'the study of networks, processes which are fluid and unbounded” offer one of the most promising ways of increasing our understanding of STS, requiring a “greater emphasis on collaboration…fostered in large-scale social systems as well as within organizations.'

In their review, William Pasmore and his coauthors (Pasmore, Winby, Mohrman, & Vanasse, 2019) trace the evolution of socio-technical systems design from the work of Trist and Bamforth up to modern digital contexts. In it they argue that though interest in STS may have faded over time, it has greater relevance than ever today as new technologies outpace the development and suitability of organization designs. Drawing in part on a “Socio-Technical Action-Research Lab” (STARLab) convened to surface ideas on how STS might help in the design of organizations operating in today and tomorrow’s “platform based ecosystems”, the authors convey a shared concern (echoing those of the post-WWII coal miners) “that the needs of human actors…not be run over by a technologic juggernaut”. Pasmore and his co-authors highlight the importance of shifting the focus of STS toward dynamic and changing environments (including organizational boundaries themselves), and shared governance of that process. Growing concern around issues of ownership and equity raised within the modern platform economy, including the concentration of wealth and power by platforms like Amazon, make this more relevant than ever.

In her review, Enid Mumford (2006) similarly traces the history, modern relevance, and potential trajectory of STS. But unlike the previous chroniclers, she places more emphasis on the democratic aspects and potential of STS, up to and including not only shared governance, but ownership, including worker ownership. She points to models like the Mondragon Cooperative as examples of enterprises, which “[combined] with the socio-technical approach, would all fit into a humanistic value system that placed great importance on democracy, the equitable distribution of assets, and a concern for personal development and happiness” [I look more closely at Mondragon and the broader Social and Solidarity Economy it is part of in future posts].

References

(Titles hyperlink to respective citation entry for this group library)

Martin, J. D. (2019). Cultural Scaffolding and Technological Change: A Preliminary Framework. In A. C. Love, & W. C. Wimsatt, Beyond the Meme: Development and Structures in Cultural Evolution (Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science) (Vol. 20, pp. 425–444). University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://manifold.umn.edu/read/untitled-efb05e81-47d9-4015-a30f-1b133318b43a/section/f4e30e6d-228e-41d2-acee-fab91aa8a303

Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Information Systems Journal, 16(4), 317-342. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00221.x

Pasmore, W., Winby, S., Mohrman, S. A., & Vanasse, R. (2019). Reflections: Sociotechnical Systems Design and Organization Change. Journal of Change Management, 19(2), 67-85. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1553761 .

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Retrieved from https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems a conceptual framework and an action research program. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Labour.

Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting: An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System. Human Relations, 4(1), 3-38. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001872675100400101

>My next Reader Response 2: STS, MLP, and Sustainable Agrifood systems