Organization is a constant process of the construction of viability, which requires a strategy to minimize entropy and maximize negentropy. Therefore, it is the domain of tenability that will determine how it is possible or how much disposition there is to reduce entropy in relation to the production of exchange value. This is the question faced by upper-level executives and its solution means the diffusion of a political vision associated with a type of relational structure. The facilitating or support process for the spread of a political vision is the Strategic Intelligence Process (SIP). In this chapter, the authors show how the conceptual foundations of the SIP and its application to organizations are put forward.
TopOrganizational Theory As A Relational Semiotic System
As we asserted in several previous chapters, relational dynamics as a basis for explanation in the world has been managed clandestinely in relation to the official narrative of classical science. The belief in the measure and permanence of the object have been beyond a doubt the official and necessary vision behind the legitimacy of knowing. For this reason, before going into the Strategic Intelligence Process (SIP), it is necessary to explain the changes that have occurred in relation to the observer, the concept of organization and the algorithms of transformation.
Related to this, a connecting thread that can help us understand how organizations are organized is a theory that is still in its infancy and in full swing. Since our goal is to ensure a successful coupling for viability, we will focus on understanding organizations from the perspective of their administration; mainly because this reflects, in a sublime way, the impact of prevailing metaphors, which, as noted by Miller (1978), reflect the form of scientific models for the generations that live them. “Scientists terms in the language of the nineteenth century made reference to linear effects rather than force fields...”; ”The twentieth century has characteristically taken its metaphors of the relativistic theory of Einstein...”, “Field theory, gestalt theory and systems theory, despite their differences, all recognize that the relationships among co-acting components of an organized whole are of critical importance to the understanding of the whole”.
Management as a field of study has not remained distant from this process, although the incorporation of new knowledge has not been up to par. Considering that in the 1940’s management did not exist as a discipline and it simply made reference of people issuing orders within the company, only in the 21st century can we say that organizations have begun to understand the need to organize intangibles as a strategy to generate value and survival.
Any number of varied definitions of management are available in the context of successful business administration. The definition of this discipline has co-evolved with enterprise to the degree that it has proliferated. Today, we can find many authors who have turned their views into definitions that help understand the state of the art. Our exercise, in conjunction with the above, will reveal where the observer is speaking from, how he visualizes the idea of organization. This exercise will allow us to understand that, depending on where the emphasis is placed, the conception of a human organization will be either a set of related objects that are related, or systems of organized relations. This difference is absolutely strategic because, as we shall see later, it determines the type of diagnosis and therefore the kind of transformation possible.