Advertisement

White Blood Cell Behavior as an Organizational Metaphor

  • Robert B. HuizingaEmail author
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads
Part of the Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business book series (CFPLB)

Abstract

The immune system is a complex system of cells and organs that function as an identification system with the simple function of recognizing dysfunctional cells within the host and recognizing exogenous infections. White blood cell behavior brings together the understanding of threat identification, an appropriate response to the level of the threat, creation of memory to that response, and a return to a basal state after the threat. Both organizations and the immune system need to identify and create boundaries and core competencies. When organizational rules are created, they must include appropriate level of communication relative to the threat, corrective action plans to stop the error or threat, and the use of critical incident reports to describe the situation, mitigating factors, and successful conclusion of the event. For organizations, the metaphor of lymphocyte behavior allows for specific structural rules and processes that will allow it to respond appropriately to threats or error. This organizational metaphor is in keeping with our understanding of Scripture and its specificity to the world. As Christian leaders, we can use this organizational metaphor, both to better understand biologic behavior, organizational behavior, and to marvel at the specificity of creation.

References

  1. Barker, D. G. (1986). The waters of the earth: An exegetical study of Psalm 104:1–9. Grace Theological Journal, 7(1), 57–80. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.bethel.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000963833&site=ehost-live&scope=site&scope=cite
  2. Barrick, W. D. (2018). Exegetical analysis of Psalm 104:8 and its possible implications for interpreting the geological record. The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, 8. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol8/iss1/19/
  3. Birkinshaw, J., & Ridderstråle, J. (1999). Fighting the corporate immune system: A process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 8(2), 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boice, J. M. (1996). Psalms (Vol. 2). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.Google Scholar
  5. Cunningham, T. R., & Geller, E. S. (2011). What do healthcare managers do after a mistake? Improving responses to medical errors with organizational behavior management. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 4(2), 70–87.  https://doi.org/10.1179/175380611X13022552566290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(1), 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fawcett, A. M., Fawcett, S. E., Cooper, M. B., & Daynes, K. S. (2014). Moments of angst: A critical incident approach to designing customer-experience value systems. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21.  https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2012-0059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. General Motors. (2014). GM creates speak up for safety program for employees. Retrieved fromhttp://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Apr/0410-speakup.html
  9. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Huizinga, R. (2002). Update in immunosuppression. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 29(3), 261–267.Google Scholar
  11. Janssen, M. A. (2005). Evolution of institutional rules: An immune system perspective: Parallels of lymphocytes and institutional rules. Complexity, 11(1), 16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE impact of globalization. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mano, Y., Akoten, J., Yoshino, Y., & Sonobe, T. (2013). Teaching KAIZEN to small business owners: An experiment in a metalworking cluster in Nairobi. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2013.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Muhamad, A., & Deris, S. (2013). An artificial immune system for solving production scheduling problems: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 39(2), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nag, B., Han, C., & Dong-qing, Y. (2014). Mapping supply chain strategy: An industry analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(3), 351–370.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2012-0062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Page, S. W. (2012). Stem cells as metaphor. OD Practitioner, 44(2), 29–37.Google Scholar
  19. Papp, K., Bissonnette, R., Rosoph, L., Wasel, N., Lynde, C. W., Searles, G., et al. (2008). Efficacy of ISA247 in plaque psoriasis: A randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. Lancet, 371(9621), 1337–1342.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60593-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spurgeon, C. H. (1885). The treasury of David. (R. Meyers, Ed.)(10.4.0). e-Sword.Google Scholar
  21. Tykocinski, O. E., & Ortmann, A. (2011). The lingering effects of our past experiences: The sunk-cost fallacy and the inaction-inertia effect. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5(9), 653–664.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00369.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25006-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Welch, M. (2012). Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives of internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 246–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zou, X., & Ingram, P. (2013). Bonds and boundaries: Network structure, organizational boundaries, and job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 98–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regent UniversityVirginia BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations