Page 2 of 6
www.AssignmentPoint.com
Sociotechnical systems (STS) in organizational development is an approach to
complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction between people
and technology in workplaces. The term also refers to the interaction between
society's complex infrastructures and human behaviour. In this sense, society itself,
and most of its substructures, are complex sociotechnical systems. The term
sociotechnical systems was coined by Eric Trist, Ken Bamforth and Fred Emery,
World War II era, based on their work with workers in English coal mines at the
Tavistock Institute in London.
Sociotechnical systems pertains to theory regarding the social aspects of people
and society and technical aspects of organizational structure and processes. Here,
technical does not necessarily imply material technology. The focus is on
procedures and related knowledge, i.e. it refers to the ancient Greek term logos.
"Technical" is a term used to refer to structure and a broader sense of
technicalities. Sociotechnical refers to the interrelatedness of social and technical
aspects of an organization or the society as a whole. Sociotechnical theory
therefore is about joint optimization, with a shared emphasis on achievement of
both excellence in technical performance and quality in people's work lives.
Sociotechnical theory, as distinct from sociotechnical systems, proposes a number
of different ways of achieving joint optimisation. They are usually based on
designing different kinds of organisation, ones in which the relationships between
socio and technical elements lead to the emergence of productivity and wellbeing.
Overview[edit]
Page 3 of 6
www.AssignmentPoint.com
Sociotechnical refers to the interrelatedness of social and technical aspects of an
organization. Sociotechnical theory is founded on two main principles:
One is that the interaction of social and technical factors creates the conditions for
successful (or unsuccessful) organizational performance. This interaction consists
partly of linear "cause and effect" relationships (the relationships that are normally
"designed") and partly from "non-linear", complex, even unpredictable
relationships (the good or bad relationships that are often unexpected). Whether
designed or not, both types of interaction occur when socio and technical elements
are put to work.
The corollary of this, and the second of the two main principles, is that
optimization of each aspect alone (socio or technical) tends to increase not only the
quantity of unpredictable, "un-designed" relationships, but those relationships that
are injurious to the system's performance.
Therefore sociotechnical theory is about joint optimization,[3] that is, designing
the social system and technical system in tandem so that they work smoothly
together. Sociotechnical theory, as distinct from sociotechnical systems, proposes a
number of different ways of achieving joint optimization. They are usually based
on designing different kinds of organization, ones in which the relationships
between socio and technical elements lead to the emergence of productivity and
wellbeing, rather than the all too often case of new technology failing to meet the
expectations of designers and users alike.
Page 4 of 6
www.AssignmentPoint.com
The scientific literature shows terms like sociotechnical all one word, or socio-
technical with a hyphen, sociotechnical theory, sociotechnical system and
sociotechnical systems theory. All of these terms appear ubiquitously but their
actual meanings often remain unclear. The key term "sociotechnical" is something
of a buzzword and its varied usage can be unpicked. What can be said about it,
though, is that it is most often used to simply, and quite correctly, describe any
kind of organization that is composed of people and technology. But, predictably,
there is more to it than that.
Principles
Some of the central principles of sociotechnical theory were elaborated in a
seminal paper by Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth in 1951. This is an interesting case
study which, like most of the work in sociotechnical theory, is focused on a form
of 'production system' expressive of the era and the contemporary technological
systems it contained. The study was based on the paradoxical observation that
despite improved technology, productivity was falling, and that despite better pay
and amenities, absenteeism was increasing. This particular rational organisation
had become irrational. The cause of the problem was hypothesized to be the
adoption of a new form of production technology which had created the need for a
bureaucratic form of organization (rather like classic command-and-control). In
this specific example, technology brought with it a retrograde step in
organizational design terms. The analysis that followed introduced the terms
"socio" and "technical" and elaborated on many of the core principles that
sociotechnical theory subsequently became.
Page 5 of 6
www.AssignmentPoint.com
Responsible autonomy
Sociotechnical theory was pioneering for its shift in emphasis, a shift towards
considering teams or groups as the primary unit of analysis and not the individual.
Sociotechnical theory pays particular attention to internal supervision and
leadership at the level of the "group" and refers to it as "responsible autonomy".
The overriding point seems to be that having the simple ability of individual team
members being able to perform their function is not the only predictor of group
effectiveness. There are a range of issues in team cohesion research, for example,
that are answered by having the regulation and leadership internal to a group or
team.
These, and other factors, play an integral and parallel role in ensuring successful
teamwork which sociotechnical theory exploits. The idea of semi-autonomous
groups conveys a number of further advantages. Not least among these, especially
in hazardous environments, is the often felt need on the part of people in the
organisation for a role in a small primary group. It is argued that such a need arises
in cases where the means for effective communication are often somewhat limited.
As Carvalho states, this is because "…operators use verbal exchanges to produce
continuous, redundant and recursive interactions to successfully construct and
maintain individual and mutual awareness…". The immediacy and proximity of
trusted team members makes it possible for this to occur. The coevolution of
technology and organizations brings with it an expanding array of new possibilities
for novel interaction. Responsible autonomy could become more distributed along
with the team(s) themselves.
Page 6 of 6
www.AssignmentPoint.com
The key to responsible autonomy seems to be to design an organization possessing
the characteristics of small groups whilst preventing the "silo-thinking" and
"stovepipe" neologisms of contemporary management theory. In order to preserve
"…intact the loyalties on which the small group [depend]…the system as a whole
[needs to contain] its bad in a way that [does] not destroy its good". In practice this
requires groups to be responsible for their own internal regulation and supervision,
with the primary task of relating the group to the wider system falling explicitly to
a group leader. This principle, therefore, describes a strategy for removing more
traditional command hierarchies.