Belief and Relational Structures, The Building Blocks of The Organization: Introduction.

This is the beginning of a five part series on the belief and relational structure construct and its application to an organization. Everyone and, consequently, every organization has a belief and relational structure. A Belief and relational structure is commonly misunderstood as having religious overtones. Conversely, a belief and relational structure is the basic building blocks for the development of all aspects of all social structures-including individual and collective structures.

In this segment, the discussion of a belief and relational structure begins with defining the terms, bringing them together, and then applying the concept to an organization. If you want to delve into the underpinnings of your organization's social construct, these articles will give you fruit for your reflection and contemplation.

A belief structure is a cognitive structure (Fiske & Taylor, 2017; Walsh, 1988), scaffold (Gonzalez-Castan, 2013; Johnson, 2011), or schema (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017) that consists of a network of hypothesis that informs one’s view of the world and one’s self (Bandura & Locke, 2003), and helps interpret information (Rediker et al, 1993; Walsh & Charalambides, 2001) to make decisions. Beliefs, whether rational or non-rational (Merry, 2005) can be considered the end process of meaning-making (Kegan, 1982) and identity formation. Therefore, belief structures represents both inner and outer realities which one uses to interpret feelings and seek understandings (Jervis, 2006). A Belief structure also the shapes one’s self-image, holds a person and their world together, gives meaning to their experiences, is where moral and empirical considerations are fused (Jervis, 2006), and defines what it means to be in relationship.

In individuals, the place where the belief structure is formed is called, by various personality psychologists, the “ego,” the “self”, and the “person.” We cannot help but be meaning-makers, and it is through this lens that one views one’s self and the world (Kegan, 1982). Because one is the meaning maker, one can compose and re-compose their “world” (Loder, 1989) as one is presented with new information, meaning changes, and the self overcomes conflict and grows and develops.

In organizations, belief structures are developed through cumulative relationships and experiences which are formed when values and beliefs, tested over time, yield positive results (see assumptions in Schein, 2017). Depending on the structure, the organization's engagement in meaning-making happens the same way, and the organization is capable of composing and re-composing its "world" through similar experiences of conflict. The belief structure becomes the basis for understanding and acting within and in the wider world.

If there is a belief structure, there is also a relational structure (Baldwin, 1992; Fiske and Taylor, 2017; Walsh, 1988). Relational structures are characterized as interpersonal knowledge that is used to process social information and memory. Relational structures are mediated by and formed through relationships with others (e.g., family, friends), the environment, and other voices of information and experience.

Relational structures are present in early literature concerning social constructs (Sorokin, 1962), group influence (see works by Sherif, Asch, and Azjen), group/team power and control (see Barker, 1993; Edwards, 1981; Kunda, 2006; Weber, 1947), change (see Endrejat, Baumgarten & Kauffeld, 2017), culture studies (e.g., Kunda, 2006; Rooji & Fine, 2018; Schein, 2017), leader and follower studies (e.g. Geertz, 1973; Goleman, 2000), amongst others. Such research progressed from the wholistic to dyadic relationships. However, wholistic structures are more complex than dyadic relationships because dyadic relationships are built on the organization of the social (Ashturk, 2013). The scope of the relational structure extends beyond one on one relationships because the relationships and identity were formed through multiple information domains. In other words the dyadic relationships are built on the wholistic relational structure and the Information is organized as an ideological system that acts as a filter (Johnson, 2011) and determines how those hypotheses are operationalized.

Bringing these two concepts together, a belief and relational structure is defined as:

1) an organic relational matrix whereby information within a particular relational domain mediates, shapes, and forms the way information is interpreted, valued, prioritized, processed, and formed;

2) such shaping integrates one into the social (relational) structure;

3) the relationships serve to further the continuation of the information domain and its relational dynamics; and

4) the resulting byproduct is the expression of the belief and relational structure in the wider environment of different information domains.

Examples of an information domain which forms this matrix would be cultures, organizations, family systems, groups, dyadic relationships, etc. Note that the expression is a byproduct and not the goal. If the goal was central, then the purpose of the process in the matrix would be to shape the person or persons into a pre-determined belief and relational structure for a particular outcome (Barker, 1993). In other words, if “outcomes” of these domains were central, the purpose may be to socialize the individual into its acceptable belief and relational structure using power and control factors. However, if the purpose of those domains would be person-centered, then the central focus of the belief and relational matrix would be to develop the person through autonomous and self-actualized approaches without external power and control factors which would then result in the outcome.

Furthermore, an organization that is goal-centric may not develop beyond a particular belief and relational structural framework because changing the belief and relational dynamics in the matrix may result in different or unwanted outcomes. The organization expels its energy to control all aspects of the process to produce particular or predictable outcomes. Conversely, an organization that employs an organic process that is centered on development of the person and is process-centered is a less controlled matrix that can result in different outcomes than expected. Therefore, the organization can change and develop (along with the information or output it offers to the wider environment) due to its flexibility and increased capability and capacity for creativity and adaptability. In other words, the controlling of the information domain and the relationships result in a controlled behavior and belief structure and predetermined (compliant) outcomes, while the less controlled matrix results in a less determined or controlled behavior and belief structure and, therefore, a less determined outcome. Regardless of the type, the belief and relational structure provides the means of perpetuating the organization/group’s identity while, at the same time, providing the individual an identity from membership (Barker, 1993).

The strength or weakness of power and control is characterized as the politics, "the science of power and control” of the organization, which is linked to nearly every major study in management and organizations (Ferris, King, Judge, Kacmar, 1991) and, whose leaders, have a disproportionate level of influence and decision making power (Garfield, von Rueden, & Hagena, 2019). In social systems that involve some kind of power and control, there are politics involved at some level to reinforce the belief and relational structure.

Examples of power and control within the belief and relational structure of an organization are the manipulation of shared meaning “in the form of perceived similarity and ‘fit’ to influence important human resource decisions and actions” (Ferris, et al., 1991, p. 41; also see DuBrin, 2011) as a way of influencing work in environments, structural power and control factors (e.g., rules, regulations, unspoken and spoken expectations, and hierarchies) to shape the matrix to gain a particular outcome that reflects the interests of those with greater power; and enlisting members to act as agents of control (Barker, 1993; Kunda, 2006), therefore creating double-binds of control. These are used to elicit varying levels of power and control. The strength and type of power and control factors involved reflects the belief and relational dynamics created in the organization.

This way, the belief and relation structure helps an organization/group operate as a reference group. First introduced by Hyman, a reference group is a group “to which the individual relates or aspires to relate." Hence, a reference group can either be an already established in-group to which the individual belongs (such as a community one has been born into), or one that an individual is not yet apart of, but wish to be (such as a professional group to which one aspires) (Dost-Gozkan and Kieth, 2017, pp. 193-194). In other words, belief and relational structures reflect Sherif’s description of reference groups as serving as a psychological anchor upon which an individual makes judgments and evaluations.

There are three types of belief and relational structures: Behavior and Belief Restriction and Control, Behavior and Belief Compliant, and Relational Freedom and Responsibility. Each type of belief and relational structure comprises of dynamics that reflects its nature, comprises the energy that happens between beliefs and relationships within the structure, binds the relationships together, and maintains its structure (and corresponding identity). In the next few articles, we will look at metaphors of each of these types and the application of the concept. Like a puzzle, the following articles attempt to form a clear picture of belief and relational structures, with its various dynamics, politics (power and control factors), and what those structures might look like in an organizational setting with a focus on a business organization. My hope is that you, the reader, will begin to see yourself and your organization in a new way.

***Note: Please do not use this information without permission. Contact me for permission to cite.***

References

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461–484.

Bandura, A. & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-Managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.

Dost-Gozkan, A. & Keith, D. (2017). Norms, Groups, Conflict, and Social Change: Rediscovering Muzafer Sherif’s Psychology. (A. Dost-Gozkan & Doga sonmez Keith, Eds.). Routledge.

DuBrin, A. J. (2011). Impression Management in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis.

Edwards, R. C. (1981). The social relations of production at the point of production. In Complex Organizations: Critical Perspectives (pp. 156–181).

Endrejat, P. C., Baumgarten, F., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). When theory meets practice: combining Lewin’s ideas about change with motivational interviewing to increase energy-saving behaviours within organizations. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 101–120.

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: a multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 104–129.

Ferris, G, R., King, T, R., Judge, T, A., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). Applied Impression Management: How Image Making Affects Managerial Decisions. (R. A. Giacolone & P. Rosenfeld, Eds.). Sage Publications Inc.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture (Third edition). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Garfield, Z. H., von Rueden, C., & Hagen, E. H. (2019). The evolutionary anthropology of political leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 59–80.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, (March-April), 78–90.

Gonzalez-Castan, Oscar, L. (2013). The nest structure of our belief system and its consequences. Wittgenstein Studien. 4(1), 65–94.

Jervis, R. (2006). Understanding beliefs. Political Psychology, 27(5), 641–663.

Johnson, A. P. (2011). Beliefs systems, metaphysical paradigms, and educational practice. Encounter, 24(3), 8–14.

Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self Problem and Process in Human Development. Harvard University Press.

Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering Culture Control and Commitment in a High Tech Corporation. Temple University Press.

Loder, J. E. & Golding, E. W. (1989). The Transforming Moment: Understanding Convictional Experiences. Harper & Row.

Rediker, K. J., Mitchell, T. R., Beach, L., & Beard, D. W. (1993). The effects of strong belief structures on information processing evaluations and choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 113–132.

Rodriguez, N., Bollen, J. & Ahn, Y. Y. (2016). Collective dynamics of belief evolution under cognitive coherence and social conformity. PLoS ONE, 11(11), 1–9.

Rooij, B. Van, & Fine, A. (2018). Toxic corporate culture: Assessing organizational processes of deviancy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8(25), 38.

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organization Culture and Leadership. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sorokin, P. A. (1962). Society, Culture, and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc.

Walsh, J. P. (1988). Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers’ belief structures and information processing. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 873–896.

Walsh, J. P., & Charalambides, L. C. (2001). Individual and social origins of belief structure change. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 517–532.

Weber, M. (1947). Max Weber: The Theory of Organization. The Falcon Wing’s Press.