Stephen Billing’s Blog

The concept of the organisation as a social object is helpful for change leaders.

An object is, in general terms, a physical thing. There are many aspects of organisational life that are treated as though they were also things, even though they are not really physical objects. For example, an organisation itself is not a physical object, because although physical things are involved, such as buildings, computers and other equipment, the organisation itself is not limited just to these things. There are also the myriad interactions among people, with certain distributions of resources, financial constraints, relationships, power imbalances, and an interweaving of the different intentions of all the people involved.

So, even though strictly speaking an organisation isn’t a physical object, we tend to refer to it and treat it as though it were a thing. This is very convenient and necessary at times, for example in order to constitute a legal entity that can contract with others, and as a way of referring to the bundle of "stuff" that makes up the organisation.

But it is important when implementing change to remember that an organisation is not actually a physical thing and therefore cannot be changed in the same way that you might, for example, mould a piece of plasticine into a different shape through force from the outside, or use wood and nails to build a table.

George Herbert Mead used the term "social object" to refer to social formations such as organisations, to distinguish them from physical objects. He defined his term "social object" in a way that I think is very helpful for change leaders and practitioners.

A social object is a generalised tendency of people to act in a similar manner in similar situations. So, a restaurant is a social object in that it is not just the building alone, nor is it just the tables and chairs, the food, the chef or the waiting staff. While all these things are related to the restaurant, the social object of the restaurant is the tendency of people to come in, expect to be seated, order food, eat, pay and so on. As well as the tendency of the staff to do service and cooking actions, and all this constitutes the social object of the restaurant.

The social object is thus a generalisation (i.e. a general tendency to act) that comes into being only when it is made particular in the ordinary local interaction between people. By this I mean that it is only when specific people are cooking and eating on a particular occasion that any specific restaurant comes into being.

How is this useful for change leaders?

If you think of your organisation as a social object, it means that your organisation is a tendency for people to act in certain ways in your organisation.

If you want to change your organisation, then look for clues as to how to go about it by thinking of how people tend to act in your organisation. How do customers tend to be treated? How do people tend to respond to each other? How is your work organised?

This is a good thing to do because it necessarily focuses you on what is actually going on in your organisation at the moment. In other words, it will tell you what your current practice is. Too often managers allow themselves to be distracted from observing what is going on around them in front of their noses because they are focusing on big pictures, on the future vision, or on abstractions such as corporate values.

As a leader of change, you will be most effective if you concentrate on what is going on around you and make it your practice to participate in conversations with the people you influence.