Dynamic-Relational Analysis: A Multidisciplinary and Multidimensional Approach to Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems

ABSTRACT

?

This article introduces the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach, a multidisciplinary and multidimensional framework designed to examine how individual behaviors, organizational environments, and contextual factors interact within organizations as complex adaptive systems. Through a postmodern lens, this approach draws on psychoanalysis, sociology, and organizational studies to address three levels of analysis: micro, meso, and macro. At the micro level, the focus is on internal psychological dynamics, exploring how unconscious desires, modes of subjectivation, and individual agency shape organizational behavior. The meso level delves into interpersonal relationships, organizational structuration, and internal environments, emphasizing how different forms of capital - economic, social, cultural, and symbolic - along with holding environments, shape interactions between individuals. The macro level considers the influence of broader contextual and institutional forces on organizational behavior to explore societal power dynamics influence and constrain both individual and collective actions. The article demonstrates how this dynamic-relational framework can be applied to understand complex organizational environments where individuals navigate tensions between personal agency, organizational norms, and external pressures. By a multidisciplinary perspective, the approach provides practical implications for leadership, employee well-being, organizational adaptability and resilience, offering tools for analyzing the complexity of contemporary organizations. The article concludes by calling for further empirical research and interdisciplinary applications to assess the framework’s effectiveness in addressing current organizational challenges, such as resilience and change management.

Keywords: Organizational Dynamics, Psychoanalysis, Sociology, Power Relations, Complex Adaptive Systems.

Introduction

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach is a multidisciplinary and multidimensional framework designed to analyze the complex interplay between macro, meso, and micro levels in organizational dynamics. Through a postmodern perspective, this approach integrates insights from psychoanalytic theory, sociology, and organizational studies, offering a holistic view of how individuals, organizational environments, and broader societal forces interact to shape behavior within organizations (Freud, 1923; Winnicott, 1965; Lacan, 1977; Foucault, 1977; Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2007).

By examining these three interconnected levels - macro (societal and institutional forces), meso (interpersonal relationships and organizational environment), and micro (individual psychological dynamics) - the approach offers a comprehensive understanding of how external factors, internal organizational settings, and personal psychological processes influence organizational behavior (Winnicott, 1965; Lacan, 1977; Gabriel, 2016; Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012).

At the macro level, the analysis focuses on external forces such as demographics, economic conditions, regulatory frameworks, and other contextual factors that impact organizational strategy and operations. These external forces shape both the strategic decisions and the internal dynamics of organizations, influencing leadership decisions, employee morale, organizational adaptability and resilience (Giddens, 1984; Clegg & Kornberger, 2011). The intersection of these factors is crucial, especially when considering the impact of broader societal norms and regulatory forces on internal organizational strategies (Bourdieu, 1986).

The meso level shifts attention to relationships within the organization, examining how strategy, structure, culture, and management policies interact to shape interpersonal dynamics. This level explores how power structures and organizational hierarchies affect collaboration, conflict, and compliance among employees (Foucault, 1980). By applying Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and Foucault’s ideas on subjectivation, this analysis uncovers how employees internalize organizational norms and either conform to or resist the roles imposed upon them (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1977; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

Finally, the micro level delves into psychological aspects, exploring how unconscious motivations, personal conflicts, and emotional responses shape individual behavior within organizational contexts. Psychoanalytic theory, particularly the works of Freud and Lacan, helps to illuminate how repressed desires and internalized conflicts drive seemingly irrational behaviors or emotional detachment in the workplace (Freud, 1923; Lacan, 1977; Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2007). Winnicott’s notion of the holding environment further explains how supportive organizational cultures can foster emotional security and creativity, helping employees cope with workplace stress (Winnicott, 1965; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

Bridging psychoanalytic theory, sociology, and organizational studies, this approach provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how organizational dynamics are shaped by both internal (psychological) and external (societal and environmental) factors. This methodology enables an in-depth exploration of the dynamic relationships within organizations - between individuals, power structures, and their broader societal context (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

This integration becomes particularly powerful when applied to contemporary organizational analysis, given the complexity and rapid pace of change in current organizational environments. The approach allows for a nuanced examination of how individuals and organizations respond to socio-political and contextual pressures (Giddens, 1984; Lacan, 1977; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

This article introduces the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach and demonstrates its effectiveness as a tool for examining the intersections of individual psychology, environmental conditions, and contextual factors within organizational dynamics (Freud, 1923; Bourdieu, 1986; Clegg & Kornberger, 2011). The approach facilitates a multidimensional analysis of how individuals and organizations navigate complex environments and is particularly relevant for exploring how organizations reflect broader socio-historical and organizational contexts (Giddens, 1984; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

The goals of this article are twofold: first, to explain the theoretical foundation and interdisciplinary nature of the approach; and second, to illustrate how it can be applied to organizational analysis, particularly in the context of complex adaptive systems (Foucault, 1980; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). By examining psychological, social, and structural dimensions within organizations, this study provides new insights into behavioral dynamics in complex systems, and how individuals and organizations resist, adapt to, or are constrained by these forces (Bourdieu, 1986; Giddens, 1984; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

In terms of structure, the article begins by reviewing the current state of research on organizational dynamics. It then introduces the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach in detail, outlining its theoretical foundations in psychoanalysis, sociology, and organizational studies. Following this, the framework’s three levels of analysis - micro, meso, and macro - are presented, demonstrating how individual psychology, interpersonal relationships, and broader institutional forces interact within organizations as complex adaptive systems. Practical applications of the approach are then explored, highlighting its relevance in addressing contemporary organizational challenges such as leadership, employee well-being, and resilience. The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical contributions of the dynamic-relational approach, offering insights into future research directions and potential applications across diverse organizational settings.

?

A glance at the current state of research on organizational dynamics

?

The current state of research on organizational dynamics reflects a growing recognition of the complexity and multifaceted nature of organizations, particularly in an era of rapid technological, economic, and social change. Over the past few decades, scholars have increasingly moved away from static, mechanistic views of organizations, which characterized much of the early organizational theory, toward more dynamic and interdisciplinary approaches. These new perspectives emphasize the fluidity, adaptability, and interconnectedness of organizational systems, acknowledging that organizations operate within a broader context of external pressures, internal structures, and human behavior.

One of the most significant trends in contemporary studies of organizational dynamics is the integration of complexity theory and systems thinking. Organizations are increasingly viewed as complex adaptive systems (CAS), characterized by non-linearity, emergent behavior, and interdependence among their parts. This view shifts the focus from rigid hierarchical structures to more flexible, network-based models where interactions between agents within the organization lead to emergent outcomes that cannot always be predicted or controlled. Scholars such as Uhl-Bien and Arena (2018) have advanced this understanding, proposing frameworks that emphasize adaptability, innovation, and resilience in organizational settings.

Another key development in the field is the growing incorporation of multidisciplinary approaches to organizational analysis. Insights from psychology, sociology, economics, and political science have increasingly informed our understanding of how organizations function. For example, psychoanalytic theories, as applied by scholars like Gabriel (2016) and Fotaki (2012), shed light on the unconscious motivations, emotions, and internal conflicts that shape individual and collective behavior within organizations. Meanwhile, sociological perspectives, drawing on thinkers like Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault, provide critical insights into how power dynamics, social capital, and institutional structures shape organizational hierarchies and labor practices.

The role of digital transformation and technological innovation has also emerged as a critical area of focus in organizational dynamics. With the rise of artificial intelligence, big data, and digital platforms, organizations are experiencing unprecedented changes in how they operate, make decisions, and engage with employees and customers. Studies in this area emphasize the need for agility and continuous learning within organizations, as well as the challenges posed by automation, remote work, and global competition. Researchers like Clegg and Kornberger (2011) argue that organizational adaptability in this context depends on the ability to integrate new technologies while maintaining human-centered leadership and employee well-being.

Additionally, research on organizational culture and leadership dynamics has expanded significantly. The notion of psychological safety, popularized by Edmondson (1999), has become central to discussions of organizational health and employee engagement. Leaders are increasingly recognized not only as decision-makers but as key drivers of organizational culture, responsible for fostering environments that promote collaboration, creativity, and resilience. The concept of “holding environments” introduced by Winnicott (1965) and later applied in organizational contexts, underscores the importance of emotional support and stability within organizations, particularly in times of change or crisis.

Finally, the field has also seen a growing emphasis on sustainability and ethics in organizational practices. As organizations face increasing scrutiny from stakeholders regarding their environmental and social impact, there is a greater focus on aligning organizational strategies with principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental sustainability. This shift reflects broader societal demands for organizations to act as responsible global citizens, contributing to the well-being of communities and the planet.

In essence, the state of organizational dynamics research today is characterized by a rich, interdisciplinary exploration of how organizations function as complex adaptive systems. Contemporary studies emphasize flexibility, adaptation, and the interplay of psychological, social, and technological factors within organizational life. As the business environment continues to evolve, particularly in response to global crises, technological advancements, and changing societal expectations, research in this field is likely to continue focusing on how organizations can remain resilient, adaptive, and ethical in an increasingly complex world.

Having provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on organizational dynamics, contemporary studies increasingly emphasize the complexity, adaptability, and interconnectedness of organizational systems. This shift reflects a broader understanding of organizations as dynamic, evolving entities shaped by internal structures, human behaviors, and external forces. The need for multidisciplinary approaches, integrating insights from psychology, sociology, and organizational studies, has become more pronounced as scholars seek to capture the multifaceted nature of organizational life.

It is within this context that the dynamic-relational organizational analysis Approach emerges as a robust framework, offering a deeper exploration of how individual psychology, social interactions, and external pressures intersect within organizational environments. The following section introduces this approach, which synthesizes psychoanalytic, sociological, and organizational theories to examine organizations as complex adaptive systems, providing valuable tools for analyzing current organizational dynamics.

?

The Dynamic-Relational Organizational Analysis Perspective

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach is a methodological framework that synthesizes insights from psychoanalysis, sociology, and organizational studies to offer a comprehensive analysis of individual behavior within organizational systems. By integrating these three disciplines, the approach provides a multidisciplinary and multidimensional perspective for understanding how personal psychology, organizational environment, and contextual forces interact to shape individual experiences, particularly within workplace dynamics (Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1977; Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012).

Psychoanalysis contributes to this approach by offering a deep exploration of the psychological dynamics at play in organizations. Concepts such as unconscious desires, repression, and identity formation help illuminate how internal conflicts and emotional struggles of individuals are shaped by their personal histories and organizational experiences (Freud, 1923; Lacan, 1977; Gabriel, 2016). This discipline highlights the complexity of human motivation and explores how individuals react to organizational pressures, revealing deeper layers of emotional stress or internalized conflicts that influence behavior in workplace settings (Winnicott, 1965; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

Sociology, on the other hand, examines the external forces that influence individual behavior within organizations, focusing on societal norms, power dynamics, and institutional pressures. Sociological theories, such as Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, Foucault’s analytics of power and subjectivation, and Giddens’ structuration theory, are essential to understanding how individuals internalize organizational expectations, navigate power relations, and operate within social structures and norms (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Harvey, 2005; Fraser, 1995). By analyzing these external forces, sociology provides a framework for understanding how individual behavior is shaped by both personal psychology and organizational power structures. It illustrates how institutional rules and societal norms affect decision-making, behavior, and individual agency within organizations (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1977; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

Organizational studies add yet another important dimension by examining how institutional structures, workplace dynamics, and labor practices shape behavior in organizational settings. This discipline focuses on how organizations - whether formal entities like corporations or governments or informal systems like family and community structures - create hierarchies, enforce norms, and guide individual behavior (Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Organizational studies allow for a detailed examination of how individuals interact with systems of authority, navigate workplace hierarchies, and respond to organizational challenges that reflect broader societal patterns. By exploring these interactions, the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach uncovers how institutional forces can either limit or empower individuals, particularly in terms of autonomy, social mobility, and agency (Foucault, 1980; Bourdieu, 1986).

The strength of this approach lies in how these three disciplines interact to provide a holistic view of individual and organizational behavior. By synthesizing psychoanalysis, critical sociology, and organizational studies, it bridges the gap between internal psychological dynamics and external socio-political forces (Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). The approach acknowledges that individual behavior in organizations cannot be fully understood in isolation from the institutional and social contexts in which it occurs, nor can organizational systems be adequately analyzed without considering how individuals internalize and experience these systems (Bourdieu, 1986; Giddens, 1984; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

Through this approach, organizations are seen as complex systems where individuals’ psychological states are continuously shaped by their interactions with institutional norms and societal expectations. For instance, an individual’s unconscious desires or emotional responses may be shaped or repressed by organizational policies, while their opportunities for autonomy or career advancement may be constrained by hierarchical structures and power dynamics within the organization (Winnicott, 1965; Lacan, 1977; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019). By applying this approach to organizational analysis, scholars can explore how individuals both influence and are influenced by the systems of power and labor structures in which they operate, offering insights into broader organizational phenomena such as workplace dynamics, leadership behavior, and the psychological effects of institutional pressures (Fraser, 1995; Sennett, 1998).

This multidisciplinary integration enables a nuanced and comprehensive exploration of human behavior within organizations, addressing both personal and institutional, psychological and structural dimensions as interconnected forces. Through the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach, it becomes possible to explore how individuals respond to organizational environments, and how their inner psychological lives are intricately linked to the power structures, labor practices, and social norms that define these settings (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). Ultimately, this approach provides a robust tool for understanding the complex interactions between individual agency and organizational systems in dynamic and adaptive contexts (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

After examining the organizational structures that shape behavior, we now integrate these insights into a broader theoretical framework. The following section will synthesize these interdisciplinary perspectives to offer a comprehensive model for analyzing organizations as dynamic, adaptive systems.

?

Theoretical Foundations

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach is deeply informed by the theoretical contributions of Freud (1923), Lacan (1977), and Winnicott (1965) as well as Bourdieu (1986), Foucault (1977), and Giddens (1984). These thinkers offer crucial insights into the psychological and sociological dimensions of behavior within postmodern organizational studies. Each of these theorists provides key concepts that help explain how individuals internalize and respond to organizational norms, power structures, and social expectations (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

Freud’s psychoanalytic theory lays the foundation for understanding how unconscious desires and repressed emotions shape behavior within organizations. Freud (1923) argues that much of human action is driven by unconscious forces - repressed desires, unresolved conflicts, and internalized social norms - that influence decision-making, relationships, and professional interactions in subtle and symbolic ways (Gabriel, 2016). In organizational settings, these unconscious motivations manifest in behaviors such as conflict avoidance, irrational decision-making, or emotional detachment (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012).

Freud’s concepts of repression and the unconscious provide a framework for analyzing how employees and leaders deal with internal conflicts caused by the demands of their roles, hierarchical pressures, or unacknowledged personal desires (Freud, 1923). For instance, individuals may suppress dissatisfaction with their work environment or ambition due to fear of social or professional repercussions, which can lead to internal tension and workplace disengagement (Gabriel, 2016). Psychoanalysis thus allows for a deeper understanding of the psychological factors influencing organizational behavior by uncovering these hidden emotional dynamics (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012).

Lacan (1977) builds on Freud by further exploring how identity formation and unconscious desires are shaped within the context of the “symbolic order” - the network of social, linguistic, and cultural norms that individuals must navigate. In organizations, individuals continuously negotiate their identity in relation to the “Other”, representing external expectations and authority figures that shape self-perception and professional roles. Lacan’s “mirror stage” and “symbolic order” are particularly useful for understanding how individuals internalize organizational norms, adopt professional identities, and struggle with conflicts between personal ambitions and institutional expectations (Gabriel, 2016).

For example, employees may unconsciously align with organizational values and norms in ways that shape their sense of self, leading to compliance or resistance to the demands of their roles. Lacan’s framework explains the psychological complexity behind why individuals may feel alienated or conflicted within hierarchical organizations as they reconcile personal desires with the roles imposed by the organization (Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

Winnicott (1965) adds a unique psychoanalytic perspective, emphasizing the role of transitional spaces and the holding environment in organizational life. He suggests that individuals need a psychological holding environment - a supportive space that provides emotional security - especially in times of stress or change. Within organizations, this concept is vital for understanding how employees manage transitions, uncertainty, and professional development (Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

The transitional space, a mental and emotional area where individuals can explore new ideas, experiment, and adapt, is crucial in fostering creativity and innovation in the workplace. Organizations that provide a supportive holding environment encourage psychological well-being, allowing employees to cope with organizational pressures and professional changes without feeling overwhelmed or unsupported. Winnicott’s focus on psychological safety and emotional support helps explain why organizations with strong, supportive cultures tend to have higher employee satisfaction and resilience during periods of transformation (Winnicott, 1965; Edmondson, 1999).

On the sociological side, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is key to understanding how social positioning, class, and cultural capital shape behavior within organizational settings. Bourdieu (1986) argues that habitus - the internalized dispositions and ways of thinking acquired through one’s social environment - deeply influences how individuals behave, perceive their opportunities, and navigate organizational hierarchies (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

In the context of organizations, habitus explains how employees internalize the norms, values, and limitations of their workplace, leading them to act in ways that reflect their social standing and the roles they occupy (Bourdieu, 1986). For instance, employees from marginalized backgrounds may adopt behaviors that align with lower-status roles, making it difficult to break out of established professional patterns or ascend the corporate ladder (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012). Bourdieu’s theory reveals how deeply ingrained social structures reinforce inequality within organizations and shape individuals’ actions, expectations, and professional trajectories (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

Foucault (1977) offers a critical perspective on how power and disciplinary structures operate within organizations. His analysis of power extends beyond formal hierarchies to include everyday interactions, norms, and cultural expectations that subtly regulate individual behavior. In organizational settings, power dynamics are exerted not only through direct authority but also through subjectivation - the process by which individuals internalize organizational norms, adapting their behavior and identities to fit within the established system of control (Foucault, 1980).

Foucault’s work sheds light on how organizations use disciplinary mechanisms - such as performance evaluations, surveillance, and management practices - to shape behavior and maintain control (Foucault, 1980). By examining these mechanisms, we can better understand how employees are influenced to conform to organizational standards, often unconsciously aligning with institutional goals and norms (Foucault, 1980). Foucault’s analysis highlights the ways power operates invisibly within organizations, shaping both behavior and identity (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012).

Finally, Giddens (1984) offers a pivotal contribution to understanding the dynamic interaction between structure and agency. Giddens’ theory of structuration argues that individuals both shape and are shaped by the organizational structures they inhabit (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). His concept of the duality of structure - the idea that social structures are both the medium and the outcome of the practices they organize - provides a critical lens for understanding how organizational norms, rules, and hierarchies are created, maintained, and altered through everyday interactions (Giddens, 1984).

In organizational contexts, Giddens’ theory explains how employees and leaders navigate institutional constraints while exercising their agency to shape organizational culture, policies, and processes (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). For example, while organizational structures may impose limits on behavior, individuals still have the capacity to influence and reshape these structures through their actions and decisions (Giddens, 1984). Giddens’ emphasis on the continuous interplay between structure and agency enriches our understanding of how organizations evolve and adapt over time (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

By integrating these psychoanalytic insights with the sociological frameworks, the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach offers a comprehensive view of how individuals navigate the complex interplay between internal psychological dynamics and external social structures (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

Together, these thinkers provide a robust analytical framework for understanding the often-hidden psychological and sociological forces that shape organizational life. Freud’s focus on unconscious desires, Lacan’s exploration of identity and the symbolic order, Winnicott’s emphasis on psychological safety and transitional spaces, Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, Foucault’s analysis of power and discipline, and Giddens’ structuration theory collectively allow for a deeper investigation into how individuals both shape and are shaped by the organizations they inhabit (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008), as summarized in Table 1.?

This integration becomes particularly powerful when applied to contemporary organizational analysis, where rapid changes in technology, labor practices, and global markets demand a multifaceted understanding of human behavior within systems of power, labor, and social influence (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984). Through this lens, organizations are seen not as static entities but as dynamic, adaptive systems shaped by the continuous interaction of individual desires, social norms, institutional pressures, and individual agency (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2019).

Having laid the theoretical groundwork, we now move toward a more practical application of the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach. This will involve exploring how the framework can be applied across various levels of organizational analysis, from individual psychological dynamics to broader institutional contexts.

?

Levels of Analysis

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach employs a three-tiered analytical framework - micro, meso, and macro - to examine organizations as complex adaptive systems, integrating individual, organizational, and societal lenses. Each level offers a distinct but complementary perspective, providing a holistic understanding of individual behaviors, interpersonal dynamics, and broader institutional influences within organizational environments (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984).

At the micro level, the focus is on the internal psychological dynamics of individuals within organizations. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, particularly concepts such as unconscious, desire, repression, and identity formation, this analysis uncovers the internal struggles that drive individual behavior in organizational contexts (Freud, 1923; Lacan, 1977; Winnicott, 1965). The micro level explores how personal desires, experiences, traumas, and motivations shape the psychological world of employees and leaders. It examines how individuals manage internal tensions - such as conflicts between personal values and organizational expectations - offering insights into their psychological complexity (Freud, 1923).

Individuals in organizations may exhibit behaviors that seem irrational or counterproductive, but psychoanalytic analysis reveals these actions as responses to unresolved internal conflicts or unconscious forces (Lacan, 1977). For example, a leader might make decisions that harm team dynamics or organizational goals, which, through a psychoanalytic lens, may be linked to repressed fears or unacknowledged desires (Freud, 1923). Thus, the micro level reveals how psychological factors influence decision-making, leadership styles, and overall organizational behavior, providing deeper insight into how emotional dynamics manifest in actions that impact the organization (Winnicott, 1965).

The meso level shifts the focus to interpersonal relationships and social interactions within the organizational environment. Grounded in sociology, this level examines how social dynamics, power relations, and organizational norms shape interactions between employees and leadership (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). It analyzes relationships within teams, departments, or across hierarchies, exploring how social roles, authority, and organizational structures influence behavior.

Key questions at this level include: How do individuals navigate power structures within the organization? How are relationships mediated by factors like social status, gender, or professional hierarchy? For instance, interactions between a manager and subordinates might be shaped by their positions within the organizational hierarchy, leading to compliance or resistance depending on the corporate culture (Foucault, 1980). Similarly, gender roles and workplace norms may dictate how individuals assert agency or collaborate within teams (Bourdieu, 1986).

The meso level provides a view of how individual actions are influenced by organizational expectations and broader corporate culture, as well as how individuals conform to or challenge these norms. Some individuals may conform to organizational pressures to secure promotions or avoid conflict, while others may resist through subtle acts of defiance or by negotiating power within the workplace (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). By examining these interpersonal dynamics, the meso level offers insights into how environmental holding and agency are exercised within organizational structures and how power relations shape day-to-day interactions (Winnicott, 1965).

The macro level broadens the scope to examine the broader socio-economic and institutional context that shapes organizational behavior. This analysis considers external forces such as market conditions, regulatory environments, and political factors that influence how organizations operate and adapt to their surroundings (Giddens, 1984). The macro level seeks to understand how large-scale forces - such as economic trends, global competition, or technological shifts - impact organizational structures and decision-making processes.

For instance, organizations operating in periods of economic instability may implement austerity measures, restructure operations, or downsize, reflecting the broader economic environment (Bourdieu, 1986). Businesses affected by environmental regulations or technological disruptions may need to adapt to new operational frameworks, altering internal dynamics and leadership decisions (Giddens, 1984). The macro level contextualizes these challenges, revealing how external pressures shape internal organizational strategies.

By examining how demographics, market forces, governmental policies, and global trends influence organizational behavior, the macro level highlights the interconnectedness of external socio-political factors and internal dynamics (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). For example, an organization facing intense global competition might shift toward automation or outsourcing, significantly affecting the workforce and operational practices (Giddens, 1984). This level underscores how external socio-economic forces and internal organizational structures are intertwined, providing a comprehensive understanding of how organizations adapt to changing environments.

Together, the micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis provide a comprehensive framework for understanding organizations as complex adaptive systems (Giddens, 1984). The micro level delves into the internal psychological world of individuals, the meso level examines their relationships within organizational structures, and the macro level places these interactions within the larger socio-economic and institutional context (Freud, 1923; Lacan, 1977; Winnicott, 1965; Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984).

This multi-layered approach allows for a nuanced exploration of how individual psychology, interpersonal dynamics, and external forces interact to shape organizational behavior, offering a thorough understanding of both personal and institutional influences within organizational settings. This approach is particularly useful in examining how individual agency, organizational hierarchies, and external pressures intersect, shaping the adaptive capabilities of organizations in a rapidly changing world. Through this framework, organizations can be better understood as evolving systems that respond to internal and external forces, reflecting the dynamic interplay of personal, social, and structural elements (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980).

With a clear understanding of the different levels of analysis, we now explore how these dimensions interact in real-world organizational contexts. The next section will demonstrate the practical applications of the dynamic-relational framework, providing concrete examples of how this approach can inform organizational analysis and decision-making.

?

Theoretical Framework

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and multidimensional framework that integrates insights from psychoanalysis, sociology, and organizational studies to explore how individual and collective behaviors are shaped by internal psychological dynamics, social structures, and broader societal forces. By examining these dimensions at the macro, meso, and micro levels, this approach offers a nuanced understanding of how individuals, organizations, and external environments interact to shape organizational behavior and decision-making (Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986; Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1980).

Figure 1 presents the dynamic-relational organizational analysis theoretical approach, which forms the core framework of this study. This model integrates multiple dimensions, including psychoanalytic, sociological, and environmental perspectives, to provide a comprehensive analysis of how individual subjectivities are shaped by both internal psychological forces and external societal pressures. By employing this approach, this paper aims to demonstrate the complex interactions between individuals’ psychological development and the socio-historical and environmental contexts of organizational dynamics (Freud, 1923; Bourdieu, 1986; Lacan, 1977; Winnicott, 1965).?

?In Figure 1, the topologies adopted reflect a Borromean knot structure, a useful framework to conceptualize the interconnection between theoretical constructs and analytical levels within the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach (Lacan, 1977). The Borromean knot, derived from topology, represents a configuration where three or more interlocking rings are connected in such a way that removing any one ring causes the others to become disconnected. This serves as a powerful metaphor for the dynamic interrelations between psychological, sociological, and organizational dimensions, each necessary to sustain the overall coherence of organizational dynamics (Lacan, 1977; Foucault, 1980; Bourdieu, 1986).

In this context, the three overlapping circles on the left-hand side represent the integration of key theoretical contributors to this approach, namely Lacan, Winnicott, Freud, Foucault, Giddens, and Bourdieu. These theorists provide the psychoanalytic, sociological, and structural insights that underpin the understanding of individual and collective behavior within organizational settings. The organizational dynamics represented in the center of these interlocking circles demonstrate how individual psychology (Freud, Lacan, Winnicott), power relations (Foucault), social structures (Bourdieu), and the interplay of agency and structure (Giddens) collectively inform our understanding of organizational environments (Bourdieu, 1986; Giddens, 1984).

The three circles on the right depict the three levels of analysis within the Dynamic-Relational Organizational Analysis Approach: Context, Environment, and Psychology. These correspond to the macro, meso, and micro levels, respectively. The macro level (Context) examines external forces, such as economic, political, and regulatory systems, that shape organizational strategies and behaviors (Bourdieu, 1986). The meso level (Environment) focuses on the immediate organizational structures, social relationships, and the cultural context that influence interactions and power dynamics within the organization (Foucault, 1980). The micro level (Individual) delves into individual experiences, exploring unconscious motivations, identity formation, and emotional responses to organizational pressures (Freud, 1923; Winnicott, 1965; Lacan, 1977).

The dotted lines connecting both sets of circles illustrate the dynamic interplay between theory and analysis. The organizational dynamics in the center act as a core intersection where theoretical insights and the various levels of organizational analysis converge. Just as the removal of one circle in a Borromean knot disrupts the entire structure, neglecting any one of these dimensions (either theoretical or analytical) would undermine a comprehensive understanding of organizational behavior (Lacan, 1977; Foucault, 1980; Bourdieu, 1986). Each element is essential to maintaining the integrity of the overall approach (Giddens, 1984).

By employing the Borromean knot topology, this framework emphasizes that psychological, social, and structural factors are not independent but rather mutually constitutive - each influencing and being influenced by the others in a continuous, adaptive process (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). This approach allows scholars and practitioners to account for the complexity and multilayered nature of organizational dynamics, ensuring that no single dimension is analyzed in isolation from the others.

Furthermore, Table 2 provides a structured framework with guiding questions for analyzing organizational dynamics at the macro, meso, and micro levels, using the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach. This table draws on key psychoanalytic and sociological concepts to offer a comprehensive understanding of the forces shaping individual and collective behavior within organizations.??

According to Table 2, at the micro level, psychoanalytic theories from Freud, Foucault, and Giddens provide valuable insights into the psychological dynamics at play within organizations. Freud’s concept of unconscious desires and repression highlights how individuals often suppress internal conflicts due to organizational norms, which may manifest in behaviors like conflict avoidance, emotional detachment, or irrational decision-making (Freud, 1923). These unconscious processes shape the way employees and leaders behave, often without their conscious awareness. Foucault expands on this by introducing the idea of subjectivation, emphasizing how individuals internalize organizational rules and norms, adapting their behavior unconsciously to align with the structures of authority (Foucault, 1980). His concept of power relations further underscores the internal conflicts individuals face as they attempt to reconcile personal ambitions with external organizational demands (Foucault, 1980). Giddens’ theory of agency adds another layer to this by exploring how individuals exercise personal agency within the constraints of organizational systems, suggesting that even under repression or internal conflict, employees still have the capacity to navigate and influence their organizational environments (Giddens, 1984).

At the meso level, interpersonal relationships and organizational dynamics are examined through the lens of sociology, particularly drawing on the works of Bourdieu, Giddens, and Winnicott. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus explains how individuals internalize social norms and expectations based on their social class and cultural capital. In an organizational context, this internalization shapes how employees navigate hierarchical structures, influencing their behavior, aspirations, and decision-making in alignment with their perceived social positioning within the organization (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu’s theory helps explain why individuals may accept certain limitations or opportunities based on ingrained social conditioning. Giddens’ structuration theory further explores how individuals both shape and are shaped by the organizations they inhabit, emphasizing the dual nature of social structures in both enabling and constraining actions (Giddens, 1984). Winnicott’s concept of the holding environment is particularly important in understanding how organizations provide emotional and physical support to their members. His notion of a psychological “holding environment” underscores the importance of organizational culture in fostering emotional safety, which allows employees to cope with stress, transitions, and challenges in the workplace (Winnicott, 1965).

At the macro level, Giddens’ theory of structuration and the broader sociological frameworks of Bourdieu and Foucault are employed to explore how societal and institutional forces shape organizational structures and strategies. Giddens emphasizes the continuous interaction between individual agency and organizational systems, illustrating how organizations are shaped by external societal pressures such as economic conditions, regulatory frameworks, and technological changes, while also shaping the behavior of individuals within the organization (Giddens, 1984). This dynamic process highlights the importance of adaptability in organizational structures, particularly in response to external pressures. Foucault’s notion of power dynamics is equally significant at this level, exploring how organizations exert control not just through formal hierarchies but also through subtle practices that regulate behavior and maintain discipline (Foucault, 1980). Bourdieu’s concept of social reproduction further illustrates how organizations often reinforce existing social hierarchies and inequalities through their institutional practices, thereby shaping individuals’ opportunities for social mobility and career advancement (Bourdieu, 1986).

Together, these perspectives provide a holistic view of organizational dynamics, where individual psychological experiences, interpersonal relationships, and external socio-political structures are interconnected. The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach is particularly valuable for understanding how organizations function as complex adaptive systems, where individuals and groups continuously navigate the tensions between internal organizational pressures and external societal forces. This framework offers deep insights into how power, control, labor practices, and organizational structures influence both individual well-being and the overall adaptability of organizations (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984).

In summary, the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach provides a comprehensive and integrative framework for understanding the complex interplay between individual psychology, social relationships, and broader institutional forces in shaping organizational behavior. By incorporating the psychoanalytic insights of Freud, Foucault, and Giddens, along with the sociological frameworks of Bourdieu, Giddens, and Winnicott, this approach offers a robust methodology for analyzing how individuals and organizations adapt, resist, and evolve within the constraints of power, hierarchy, and societal norms.

Having established the theoretical framework, we now turn to its practical implications. The following section will discuss how the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach can be applied to contemporary organizational challenges, particularly in managing complexity, adaptability, and resilience.

?

Applying the Dynamic-Relational Organizational Analysis Approach

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach can be effectively applied to organizations by examining how individuals and groups are shaped by the interaction of psychological, social, and institutional pressures. This approach provides a multidimensional perspective, where the internal struggles of individuals are contextualized within their social interactions and the broader organizational and socio-economic forces that shape their behavior. By synthesizing insights from psychoanalysis, critical sociology, and organizational studies, the approach offers a comprehensive understanding of how individuals respond to complex organizational dynamics, revealing both individual and collective experiences (Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986).

At the micro level, the focus is on personal psychological development and how it is influenced by individual experiences, including trauma, repression, or internalized organizational norms. Employees facing intense work pressure or personal conflict within their roles may exhibit psychological distress, such as repressed emotions, feelings of inadequacy, or internal conflicts. Psychoanalysis helps interpret these behaviors as responses to unresolved psychological tensions or workplace stressors (Freud, 1923). This is particularly useful for analyzing how individuals wrestle with issues of identity and agency under emotional or organizational strain. For example, employees might experience self-doubt when faced with unrealistic performance expectations, leading to inner conflicts regarding their role within the organization (Freud, 1923).

Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, Freud’s concept of unconscious desires and repression provides valuable insights into how individuals may suppress their emotions due to organizational norms, leading to behaviors such as conflict avoidance or emotional detachment (Freud, 1923). Foucault extends this by exploring how power structures subject individuals to institutional norms, influencing how employees internalize control mechanisms within organizations (Foucault, 1980). Giddens adds to this understanding with his concept of agency, which examines how individuals navigate between internal psychological tensions and the constraints imposed by organizational systems (Giddens, 1984).

At the meso level, the focus shifts to the social relationships and interpersonal dynamics within the organization. Individuals must navigate complex hierarchies, team dynamics, and organizational cultures that often define their roles and interactions. This level explores how employees are shaped by, and sometimes resist, organizational norms and expectations. Power struggles may emerge between employees and management, reflecting tensions over autonomy, control, or recognition within the workplace hierarchy (Foucault, 1980).

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus explains how individuals internalize social norms and expectations based on their social class and cultural capital, which shape how employees navigate hierarchical structures (Bourdieu, 1986). In organizations, this internalization influences behavior, aspirations, and decision-making in alignment with their perceived social positioning (Bourdieu, 1986). Winnicott’s idea of the holding environment highlights how organizations provide emotional support, essential for psychological well-being and professional development. A supportive holding environment fosters a sense of security and allows employees to cope with stress and change more effectively (Winnicott, 1965). Giddens’ theory of structuration is also relevant at this level, as it explores how individuals both shape and are shaped by the organizational structures they operate within, emphasizing the interplay between social structures and human agency (Giddens, 1984).

For example, conflicts over authority may arise when employees resist organizational norms that challenge their autonomy or identity within teams. Gender roles and workplace norms also play a role, with traditional expectations often dictating how individuals assert agency or collaborate within teams (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980).

At the macro level, the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach focuses on the broader socio-political, economic, and environmental forces shaping organizational behavior. Organizations are often subject to external pressures such as economic instability, regulatory changes, technological disruption, or competitive market forces (Giddens, 1984). These macro forces create challenges that affect organizational structure, decision-making, and leadership, impacting employee morale and overall organizational health.

Giddens’ theory of structuration is pivotal at this level, highlighting the continuous interaction between individual agency and organizational systems in response to external societal pressures, such as economic conditions, regulatory frameworks, and technological advancements (Giddens, 1984). Foucault’s analysis of power and control mechanisms further reveals how organizations enforce discipline and regulate behavior through both formal structures and subtle, everyday practices (Foucault, 1980). Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction shows how organizations reinforce existing social hierarchies and inequalities through their institutional practices, shaping individuals’ opportunities for social mobility and career advancement (Bourdieu, 1986).

For instance, during a global economic crisis, organizations may implement austerity measures or restructuring efforts, which affect not only the internal organizational dynamics but also the psychological well-being of employees (Giddens, 1984). Navigating these external forces requires both resilience and adaptability from the organization and its employees.

Overall, the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach applies to organizations by considering how individual psychological development (micro level) is influenced by social relationships within the organization (meso level) and the socio-economic environment they inhabit (macro level) (Freud, 1923; Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986). This multidimensional approach offers a nuanced understanding of organizational functioning at the intersection of personal, social, and institutional forces. By applying this framework to organizational analysis, leaders and scholars can explore key issues such as leadership effectiveness, employee well-being, organizational change, and institutional resilience (Bourdieu, 1986; Giddens, 1984). This analysis provides deeper insights into how organizations adapt and thrive in complex environments.

With the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications now clear, we conclude by reflecting on the broader theoretical contributions of this approach. In the next section, we will assess how the dynamic-relational framework advances the field of organizational studies and contributes to our understanding of complex adaptive systems.

?

Theoretical Contributions

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach offers several important theoretical contributions to the analysis of contemporary organizations. By synthesizing insights from psychoanalysis, critical sociology, and organizational studies, this approach provides a multidimensional perspective on how individual behaviors, social structures, and institutional forces interact within organizations. Its theoretical contributions are particularly valuable in understanding the complexities of power dynamics, labor relations, organizational hierarchies, and the psychological dimensions of organizational life (Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1986).

One of the most innovative contributions of the dynamic-relational approach is its integration of psychoanalytic theory into organizational analysis. Traditionally, organizational studies have focused more on social structures and institutional forces, often overlooking the internal psychological experiences of individuals within these systems. By incorporating psychoanalytic concepts such as unconscious desires, repression, and identity formation, the approach adds a deeper layer to our understanding of organizational behavior (Freud, 1923). It reveals how unresolved psychological conflicts and internal emotional struggles can influence decision-making, leadership styles, and interpersonal dynamics in the workplace (Winnicott, 1965). For instance, leaders or employees may engage in behaviors that seem irrational or self-sabotaging, but when viewed through a psychoanalytic lens, these behaviors may be driven by repressed desires for recognition or unconscious fears of failure.

Critical sociology plays a central role in this approach, offering tools to analyze how power, social inequality, and institutional structures shape the experiences of individuals within organizations. Drawing on the works of theorists like Bourdieu and Foucault, the approach critiques the ways in which organizational hierarchies, labor divisions, and power relations reinforce social inequality (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). It highlights how organizational systems are embedded within larger socio-economic frameworks that perpetuate inequality, marginalization, and exclusion. This contribution is essential in contemporary organizational analysis, as it allows researchers and practitioners to explore how class divisions, racial disparities, and gender biases are reproduced within corporate structures, often affecting career trajectories and workplace dynamics (Foucault, 1980; Bourdieu, 1986).

For example, by analyzing the concept of habitus, the approach reveals how employees’ behaviors and aspirations are shaped by their social positioning within the organizational hierarchy (Bourdieu, 1986). This perspective helps explain why some individuals feel resigned to their roles or face challenges in navigating organizational systems that were not designed to support their social identities (Bourdieu, 1986). The focus on power and subjectivation further deepens our understanding of how individuals internalize organizational norms, often becoming complicit in their own subjugation (Foucault, 1980).

The dynamic-relational approach also contributes to the analysis of organizations as complex adaptive systems. Drawing from organizational studies, it positions organizations not as static entities, but as dynamic systems in which individuals and groups continuously interact with each other and with the broader social and economic environment (Giddens, 1984). This systems perspective is crucial for understanding how organizations adapt - or fail to adapt - to external pressures, such as technological changes, economic crises, and regulatory shifts.

By focusing on the macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis, the approach provides a holistic view of how individual psychology, social relationships, and institutional structures influence organizational behavior (Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984). At the micro level, the approach examines the psychological mechanisms individuals use to cope with organizational pressures (Freud, 1923). At the meso level, it explores how interpersonal dynamics and team interactions are shaped by organizational culture and power structures (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). Finally, at the macro level, it contextualizes organizations within broader socio-economic forces, revealing how external market conditions, regulatory environments, and technological advancements shape internal strategies and operations (Giddens, 1984).

The dynamic-relational approach provides a critical framework for analyzing labor practices within organizations, especially in the context of capitalist economic systems. By drawing on critical labor theories, the approach critiques how organizations often prioritize efficiency, productivity, and profit at the expense of employee well-being and autonomy (Bourdieu, 1986). This perspective is particularly relevant in contemporary analyses of the gig economy, precarious labor, and workplace exploitation, where individuals are often subjected to long hours, low wages, and poor working conditions.

The approach also emphasizes the emotional and psychological costs of these labor practices, revealing how employees may experience alienation, burnout, or emotional distress because of exploitative organizational systems (Winnicott, 1965). By linking these personal experiences to larger systemic forces, the dynamic-relational approach provides a nuanced critique of labor exploitation and calls for a reevaluation of organizational practices that prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability and employee well-being.

Another significant contribution of the dynamic-relational approach is its focus on how organizations can adapt and evolve in response to internal and external challenges. By examining how power dynamics, social relationships, and psychological factors interact within organizations, the approach offers insights into how organizational change can be managed effectively (Foucault, 1980). It highlights the importance of addressing individual agency, leadership styles, and interpersonal dynamics when implementing organizational change, as these factors significantly impact how employees engage with new policies, structures, or technologies (Giddens, 1984).

Furthermore, the approach encourages organizations to consider how external forces, such as regulatory changes, market competition, or environmental crises, shape their strategies and operations (Bourdieu, 1986). By adopting a complex adaptive systems perspective, the dynamic-relational approach helps organizations understand the interconnectedness of their internal structures and external environments, enabling them to be more resilient and adaptive in the face of uncertainty.

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach provides a theoretically rich and interdisciplinary framework for understanding contemporary organizations. Its integration of psychoanalytic theory, critical sociology, and organizational studies enables a multifaceted exploration of individual and collective behavior within organizational contexts (Freud, 1923; Foucault, 1980; Giddens, 1984). The approach offers key contributions in understanding psychological dynamics, power structures, labor exploitation, and the adaptability of organizations as complex systems. By applying this approach, scholars and practitioners gain deeper insights into how organizations function, how individuals navigate organizational challenges, and how systemic issues such as inequality and exploitation are perpetuated or challenged within the workplace.

Having outlined the theoretical contributions of the dynamic-relational approach, we now focus on its practical implications. The final section will highlight how this interdisciplinary framework can guide leaders and organizations in addressing contemporary challenges, fostering adaptability, and promoting organizational resilience.

?

Practical Implications

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach is informed by foundational psychoanalytic theories and critical sociology and is highly applicable in contemporary organizational contexts. Freud’s (1923) psychoanalytic theory has long been crucial in understanding unconscious motivations that drive human behavior, particularly in how repressed emotions and desires can manifest in professional settings as workplace stress or conflict avoidance (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012; Gabriel, 2016). This perspective is particularly relevant as organizations today grapple with psychological dynamics, especially in the context of leadership behavior, decision-making, and employee morale (Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

Lacan (1977) advanced this discussion by introducing the concept of the “symbolic order”, a framework that helps explain how professional identities are constructed within the hierarchical structures of organizations. His theories are especially useful for understanding how individuals internalize organizational norms, often leading to internal conflicts between personal desires and institutional demands (Gabriel, 2016). More recently, scholars like Petriglieri, Ashford, and Wrzesniewski (2019) have expanded these ideas by examining how leadership and professional roles are negotiated in modern organizational settings.

Moreover, the work of Winnicott (1965), with his idea of the “holding environment”, offers valuable insights into how supportive organizational cultures can foster employee well-being, innovation, and resilience. This idea of psychological safety has been reinforced by recent studies emphasizing the importance of nurturing environments that allow for emotional expression and adaptation during periods of organizational change (Edmondson, 1999; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

On the sociological side, Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of habitus and Foucault’s (1980) theories of power dynamics remain essential for understanding how societal norms and power structures operate within organizations. Their insights into how individuals internalize social positioning and navigate institutional hierarchies provide a framework for analyzing not just how employees behave, but how these behaviors are shaped by broader social forces. For instance, the concept of habitus helps to explain why employees from marginalized backgrounds might struggle to navigate corporate hierarchies, as their internalized dispositions reflect broader social and cultural limitations (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012).

This theoretical integration becomes particularly powerful when applied to organizations viewed as complex adaptive systems, which continuously evolve in response to both internal dynamics and external socio-economic pressures (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration is particularly relevant here, as it examines the interplay between individual agency and the structural constraints imposed by organizations, emphasizing how employees and leaders both shape and are shaped by institutional frameworks. This dynamic interaction is crucial for understanding the adaptability and resilience of contemporary organizations, particularly in a fast-changing business environment (Clegg & Kornberger, 2011).

The ongoing shift towards more flexible, horizontal organizational structures - driven by technological innovation and the gig economy - makes the dynamic-relational approach even more relevant. Recent studies (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007) highlight the importance of this approach in analyzing how organizations must adapt to remain resilient amid external shocks like market disruptions, regulatory changes, and shifts in socio-economic conditions (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). In this context, organizations can benefit from scenario planning and risk management processes that incorporate both the psychological dynamics of employees and the structural challenges of operating within complex adaptive systems.

Leaders can also effectively apply the dynamic-relational organizational analysis framework to navigate contemporary organizational challenges by addressing the complex interplay of psychological, sociological, and institutional dynamics. This approach enables leaders to manage crises more effectively, foster resilience, and promote adaptability in the face of economic uncertainty, technological disruption, and cultural transformation.

In the context of economic crises, such as recessions or market disruptions, leaders face the challenge of maintaining employee morale, retaining talent, and ensuring organizational survival. The dynamic-relational framework helps leaders address these challenges across multiple levels. At the micro level, drawing on psychoanalytic insights, leaders can recognize how employees experience anxiety, fear, or emotional detachment due to uncertainty. By creating “holding environments”, as described by Winnicott (1965), leaders can provide emotional security, helping employees feel supported despite external pressures. For instance, during the 2008 financial crisis, companies that prioritized emotional support and open communication saw lower turnover and higher loyalty (Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

At the meso level, power imbalances often surface in times of crisis. Foucault’s insights on power and Bourdieu’s notion of social capital can guide leaders in promoting transparent decision-making and equitable resource distribution, fostering collaboration across teams (Bourdieu, 1986; Foucault, 1980). For example, after the 2020 pandemic, some tech companies formed cross-functional teams to share responsibility in navigating economic downturns (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

At the macro level, Giddens’ structuration theory reminds leaders of the importance of aligning strategies with external factors, such as market shifts and regulatory changes (Giddens, 1984). During the 2008 recession, companies like Ford, which secured government bailouts and adapted their strategies to market demands, were more resilient (Mazzucato, 2018).

When dealing with technological disruption, such as automation and digital transformation, leaders can apply the Dynamic-Relational framework to balance innovation with employee well-being. At the micro level, leaders can address the psychological impact of change by understanding employees’ fear of obsolescence. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory helps explain how unconscious fears of being replaced by technology can cause anxiety and resistance (Freud, 1923).

Leaders can mitigate this by offering retraining and development programs, as seen with IBM’s transition to AI-driven solutions, where extensive employee training helped reduce resistance (Chui, Manyika, & Miremadi, 2016). At the meso level, Bourdieu’s concept of capital can guide leaders in addressing how technological change disrupts organizational culture and power dynamics. Leaders should encourage a culture of continuous learning, as Google does with its innovation labs, to help employees see technological advancement as an opportunity rather than a threat (Schein, 2017).

At the macro level, Giddens’ theory of structuration helps leaders navigate broader industry changes driven by technology (Giddens, 1984). For example, retail companies like Walmart have successfully adapted to the digital era by investing in e-commerce and logistics technologies, ensuring their workforce is equipped to manage digital operations (Browne, 2020).

Cultural shifts, such as implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives or transitioning to more collaborative work environments, also require leaders to navigate resistance and power dynamics. At the micro level, Lacan’s concept of the symbolic order helps leaders understand how cultural shifts challenge employees’ professional identities (Lacan, 1977). Leaders can facilitate open dialogue, allowing employees to express concerns and align the new culture with their values. For example, leaders promoting DEI can encourage discussions about unconscious biases, fostering a psychologically safe environment for employees to reflect on their behavior (Edmondson, 1999; Ferdman & Deane, 2014).

At the meso level, Foucault’s analysis of power dynamics can guide leaders in managing resistance to cultural change (Foucault, 1977). For instance, when flattening hierarchies or promoting inclusivity, leaders must ensure that power redistribution is transparent and equitable. Microsoft’s cultural transformation under CEO Satya Nadella, which emphasized learning over hierarchy, successfully dismantled toxic work environments and promoted collaboration (Nadella, 2017).

At the macro level, cultural shifts within organizations often reflect broader societal trends. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus helps leaders align internal culture with societal expectations, such as sustainability and ethical governance (Bourdieu, 1986). Patagonia’s corporate culture, which is deeply intertwined with environmental activism, exemplifies how aligning organizational values with societal demands enhances both internal commitment and external reputation (Chouinard, 2016).

In synthesis, leaders who apply the dynamic-relational organizational analysis framework can address contemporary organizational challenges more holistically by understanding the complex interactions between psychological, interpersonal, and structural forces. By integrating insights from psychoanalysis, sociology, and organizational studies, they can foster adaptability, resilience, and innovation, ensuring their organizations thrive in the face of economic crises, technological changes, and cultural transformations. Table 3 illustrates the application of the framework in a multidimensional perspective.?

?In sum, the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach, through its multidisciplinary lens, provides a valuable framework for addressing contemporary organizational challenges. By integrating insights from psychoanalysis, critical sociology, and organizational studies, this approach equips leaders with the tools to foster more inclusive, adaptable, and resilient organizations, aligned with the complexities of today’s global business environment.

Finally, after considering the practical implications, we conclude by summarizing the key findings and outlining potential areas for future research. This will provide a roadmap for scholars and practitioners interested in further developing and applying the dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach.

?

Conclusion

?

The dynamic-relational organizational analysis approach integrates psychoanalysis, sociology, and organizational studies to examine how individuals, organizations, and broader societal structures interact, providing valuable insights into organizational behavior. By bridging these disciplines, the approach offers a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics within organizations, addressing both internal psychological struggles and external socio-structural forces (Freud, 1923; Winnicott, 1965; Foucault, 1977; Lacan, 1977; Bourdieu, 1986; Giddens, 1984).

The study successfully meets its objectives by providing a multidisciplinary framework that explains how individual behavior in organizations is shaped by unconscious motivations, interpersonal relationships, and broader institutional forces. Key contributions include a nuanced exploration of the intersection between psychological, social, and organizational dimensions, particularly within complex adaptive systems. This approach offers practical implications for leadership, employee well-being, and organizational adaptability in the context of rapidly evolving business environments (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

However, the study also presents certain limitations. The broad theoretical focus may pose challenges in translating these insights into specific, actionable solutions for organizations. Additionally, the reliance on psychoanalytic concepts such as unconscious desires may be difficult to empirically validate in applied organizational settings (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012). Future research should explore integrating complementary methodologies, such as ethnography or behavioral psychology, to enhance empirical support and address practical limitations in measuring unconscious motivations (Gabriel, 2016).

Recommendations for future studies include examining how leadership teams manage these complex dynamics and applying the framework across diverse industries. This could enhance the framework’s relevance and applicability, particularly in addressing socio-economic disparities and organizational inequalities (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012). Expanding the research to investigate leadership strategies in navigating these forces would provide a more comprehensive view of organizational behavior, contributing to a deeper understanding of adaptive strategies in complex organizational systems (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Petriglieri, Ashford, & Wrzesniewski, 2019).

?

References

?

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Browne, M. (2020). Walmart and the digital era: Strategies for retail innovation. McGraw-Hill.

Chouinard, Y. (2016). Let my people go surfing: The education of a reluctant businessman. Penguin.

Chui, M., Manyika, J., & Miremadi, M. (2016). Where machines could replace humans - nd where they can’t (yet). McKinsey Quarterly.

Clegg, S. R., & Kornberger, M. (2011). Strategy: Theory and practice. Sage.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1-44.

Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. Jossey-Bass.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

Gabriel, Y. (2016). Psychoanalysis and the study of organizations: How the self forms and transforms. Routledge.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.

Lacan, J. (1977). écrits: A selection. Norton.

Mazzucato, M. (2018). The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. Penguin.

Nadella, S. (2017). Hit refresh: The quest to rediscover Microsoft’s soul and imagine a better future for everyone. Harper Business.

Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 124-170.

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. Wiley.

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W. W. Norton & Company.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.

Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. International Universities Press.

[1] Professor at FGV-EAESP. Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Postdoctoral Fellow in the Psychiatry Graduate Program at USP. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna .

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2024). Dynamic-Relational Analysis: A Multidisciplinary and Multidimensional Approach to Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems. Manuscript Discussion Series, 2(23):1-25. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress)

?