Orgtology Practice in a Time of Crisis or Disruptive Change – A Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

 

Orgtology Practice in a Time of Crisis or Disruptive Change – A Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

 

 

By Tanele Magongo

 

 

Section I: Introduction

 

 

The COVID-19 pandemic did not just disrupt our daily lives by restricting what we could and could not do but it also rewired how organisations operate, communicate, and survive. Over a very short space of time, the traditional systems that we knew and trusted i.e. organizational structures, physical work presence / meetings showed to not be fit for the demands of a crisis that required a bit more flexibility and innovation. In this time of disruption, traditional management frameworks showed their flaws, and a new kind of thinking became necessary to propel us to digital era.

 

 

Orgtology is a theory that examines the science of an organization under two main components: Orgamatics which is the ‘systematic’ part that focuses on the mathematical flow of activity that creates the outputs of an organization, and Organamics which is the abstract part that focuses on the outcomes of the organization (Hendrikz, 2020)

 


. Now for an organization to exist, it requires a dual interaction between receptive (organizational processes and systems) and projective (strategy and leadership) components. The receptive part functions like any systems and processes that cycle (e.g. ecosystems, food chains, economic cycles etc), by cycling continuously to ensure performance of the organization, while the projective part aims to disrupt and foster change to ensure relevance of the organization.

 

 

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how the components of Orgtology defined above allow organizations to navigate uncertainty or disruptive change using the case of the COVID-19 Pandemic as an example. The COVID 19 Pandemic made workplace interaction difficult in many various ways such that the idea of the workplace will never be what was expected before COVID-19, where reinvention of work structure, technology and processes are key points in its transformation process (Ancillo, et al., 2020)

 


The Orgtology theory resolves this through the concept of functioning within a process construct by moving from traditional structures i.e. departments. This essay will aim to explore the application of Orgtology theories and specifically discuss how theories 2P, 2I, and 2E are relevant for organisations and address ‘traditional problems’ in time of crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic which accelerated organization’s adaption and adoption digital transformation.

 

 

Section II: Hypothesis 2x

 

 

An organization embodies two key features; its purpose or mandate which defines why it exists and its intent which defines an ultimate vision of what it wants to achieve with that purpose. The purpose of an organization manifests through receptive activity which is consistent and predictable. This is the ‘systematic’ part of the organization that enables it to perform through established processes and rules that enhance efficiency.

 

 

The intent of the organization manifests through projective activity which is dynamic and unpredictable. This is the ‘abstract’ part of the organization that enables it to be relevant through disruptive intelligence and innovative practices.

 

 

In the concept of the Hypothesis 2x, the ‘2’ shows the duality of receptive (cyclical) and projective (innovative) elements which are essential for organizational success while the ‘x’ shows a study of the disruptive and abstract element within an organization that creates its projective part (Hendrikz, 2020)

 

 

Hendrikz (2020), the founder of the Orgtology theory, highlights that these two features must be balanced within an organization to avoid chaos. This will allow organizations to perform effectively through its purpose and remain relevant through its intent. Therefore, for an organization to be both effective and relevant, it must engage in both receptive and projective activities.

 

 

If organizations apply Orgtology practices, even in times of crisis or disruptive change, they will continue to perform and remain relevant. Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic inevitably put pressure on organisations to innovate, adapt and be responsive to new conditions to survive and continue performing well.

 

 

For example, Harvard Business School experts have detailed how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed business practice positively and the examples outlined mainly lie on abstract thinking (Gerdeman, 2020). The IBM report on COVID-19 and the future of business echoes the very same idea i.e. the human element is the key to success (IBM, 2020). Clearly, for an organisation to be innovative and adapt to disruptive change such as a crisis, there is a need for abstract-thinking, and this is the x in Hypothesis 2X.

 

 

The receptive activities will ensure efficiency through the cyclical processes that are in the organization’s purpose, while the projective activities will foster the innovative and adaptive strategies necessary to respond effectively to any disruptions. Therefore, organizations can maintain stability while responding effectively to disruptive change.

 

 

Section III: The relevance of orgtology in a time of crisis

 

 

Several evidence shows that traditional organizational structures and hierarchies are already under strain during this current age of Artificial Intelligence which is accelerating their transformation (Yadov, 2024)

 


COVID-19 was a key global disruptive event that forced organisations to rethink operations and strategy. Organizational structures of the future need to be based on agility and process-oriented constructs. Now in the case of a crisis or disruptive change, shifting from traditional departmental structures to a process-oriented construct, Orgtology facilitates better workplace interaction. This approach helps teams function more cohesively around processes, promoting collaboration despite remote work.

 

 

By viewing the organization as a network of interconnected processes, Orgtology helps identify how different functions influence each other. This holistic perspective allows organizations to adapt quickly to changing circumstances, ensuring they remain both efficient and relevant.

 

 

Disruption 1: Breakdown of Traditional Workplace Interaction

 

 

Empirical research has shown that traditional orgranizational (departmental structures) will become obsolete in the current age of Artificial Intelligence. (Shrestha, et al., 2019). The COVID Pandemic made such research much more apparent as traditional departmental structures were inadequate and organizational silos were more pronounced due to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating more integrated approaches and emphasizing the need for organizations to develop strategies to manage these challenges effectively. (Zuzul, et al., 2022; Suortti & Sivunen, 2023)

 

 

For instance, a study analyzing over 360 billion emails across 4,361 organizations found that during the pandemic, communication became more siloed, with increased modularity and decreased cross-functional interactions. This shift highlighted the limitations of departmental structures in facilitating effective collaboration during crises (Zuzul, et al., 2022).

 

 

Orgtology responds to these challenges through the concept of a process construct. Traditional (departmental) structures tend to organize work through hierarchical control while the process construct organizes work through functionality, flow, and repeatability. Hendrikz (2019) highlights that the process construct holds all the repetitive work of an organization, and it is not tangible; we can only see its manifestation through outputs that are resultant from the process (governed by rules and operating procedures). Processes are more resilient than departments. Departmental structures are highly dependent on leadership thus will often fail when their leaders are unavailable, their people dispersed, or their scope unclear.

 

 

Processes, however, can self-correct and reconfigure, provided their constructs (rules and operating procedures) are well-defined.

 

 

During the COVID-19 Pandemic, this reality became particularly evident as it triggered a breakdown in traditional workplace interaction. As the pandemic unfolded, physical presence and direct oversight were no longer feasible yet these were considered anchors of productivity in the past. What emerged is what we could say was a forced experiment in organisational decentralisation. In relation to this, Theory 2P of orgtology offers a relevant perspective.

 

 

In his article on Theory 2P, Hendrikz (2019) indicates that there are two ways through which an organization does its work, and this is either structured around a project that secures relevance or a process that ensures efficiency rather than people or hierarchy. Furthermore, the author indicates that an organization performs when it delivers outputs in an efficient way (Hendrikz, 2019)

 


.Therefore, when roles are defined not by position but by process construct, teams can operate across space and time, synchronised by shared workflows rather than shared office space. The process construct enables work continuity even under disruption. Thus, Theory 2P shifts the focus from where work happens to how it happens and this is through a well-defined process construct that works.

 

 

Expanding further, Theory O introduces the concept of the Relevant and Performing Organisation (RPO), which shows that for an organization to be relevant and performing it must relate its intent, resources, and intelligence to its purpose (Hendrikz, 2019)

 


.In the context of the pandemic, organisations faced a Force of Entropy (FOE) (disorder and disruption) that threatened their existence. Hendrikz (2019), in explaining Theory O, posits that to counteract this FOE, organisations must harness their intent (strategic direction), energy (resources), and intelligence (adaptive capacity) effectively.

 

 

This triad enables organisations to not only perform efficiently but also remain relevant in changing environments. By aligning these elements, organisations can transform challenges into opportunities, ensuring sustained performance and relevance despite external disruptions.

 

 

Disruption 2: Forced Leap into the Fourth Industrial Revolution

 

 

A paramount of research evidence confirms that the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst, propelling organisations into the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) at an unprecedented pace (Ehiane, 2024; Okunlola, et al., 2023; Agbehadji, et al., 2021)

 


The sudden shift to remote work, reliance on digital communication, and the need for agile decision-making underscored the importance of integrating advanced technologies into organisational operations. In this context, Orgtology’s Theory 2I becomes particularly relevant. Hendrikz (2019) introduces the concept of “orgtelligence,” which represents the sum of human intellect and systems intelligence within an organization. Human intellect refers to tacit (abstract) knowledge and creativity while systems intelligence is implied and is basically an algorithm or a set of rules that drives activity, which delivers a predictable output (Hendrikz, 2019)

 

 

The duality of these two forms of intelligence is critical in ensuring that an organization continues to be relevant and performs. Hendrikz (2019) highlights that in an organization, systems intelligence drives performance and efficiency; human intellect keeps the organisation relevant and effective although tacit intellect might not matter much for process efficiency, but an organization will need it should it face a crisis or have to act outside the usual flow i.e. Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The pandemic highlighted the necessity of this duality, as organisations had to rapidly adapt to new technologies and different types of workflows. Through the lens of Theory 2I by Hendrikz (2019), it is evident that organisations that successfully combined human creativity with systems intelligence were better equipped to navigate the challenges posed by the pandemic, positioning themselves for sustained success in the evolving landscape of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. As Hendrikz (2019) puts it “superior orgtelligence happens when humans and systems collaborate to the advantage of the organization.”

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

In summary, this essay has argued that Orgtology provides a relevant and necessary framework for organisations navigating crisis or disruptive change, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic not only exposed the fragility of traditional organisational structures, but also accelerated the shift towards structuring work around a well-defined process construct, and also fully embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

 

 

Key theories from Orgtology i.e. Theory 2P, 2E, 2I, and Theory O each play a central role in showing how organisations can move from being places of work to systems of work. Theory 2P repositions performance around processes and projects rather than people or hierarchy, while Theory O highlights that the relevance and performance of an organization come from aligning an organisation’s energy, intelligence, and strategic intent to its purpose. Theory 2I further reinforces the idea that high-performing organisations must effectively merge systems intelligence with human intellect, especially in times of crisis where creativity and adaptability become non-negotiable.

 

 

Ultimately, the COVID-19 pandemic was not just a crisis, but it was a turning point both from a crisis management and opportunity management point of view. It challenged the default settings of an organisational and forced a new way of thinking about work, leadership, performance, and relevance. Orgtology does not only help us respond to these shifts but it also helps us understand them. If organisations are to thrive in a future that is increasingly volatile and digitally integrated, then embracing the science of Orgtology may not just be an option, but a strategic imperative.

 

 

References:

 

 

 

 

By Tanele Magongo

 

Leave a Reply