As the model unfolds, we are tempted to do one further step and go for a more general model, which does not only cover organizational choice but social choice in general. This one would be a model of the new open access world, a network world, to be distinguished from the institutional world of formal organizations we are about to leave behind. This model sticks with the re-entry-levels we already introduced - with one exception: it talks about "knowing" instead of "creating" -, but exchanges all the variables we haven't yet introduced formally ("behavior", "communication", "organization", and "society") and which hinted to autopoietical entities of some kind, for variables exhibiting an interface characteristics. Thus, we have a new model talking about "action", "talk", "budgets", "network" (this one we keep in place), and "system". It looks like:
social choice = action || talk || budget || network || system ||
The full model you find at http://homepage.mac.com/baecker/handouts/SocialChoice.pdf.
We here go for a "flow analysis of choice", assuming that "organization" or, better, "organizing" (Karl E. Weick) is only part of it, a part, that is, that stems from "budgets" attributed to you, you then decide on to know and make sure who works with you on what. I'll come back to this later.
The important point for now is that the new model is more like a flow model then an institutional model. It has organizing as one variables among all others, yet is not necessarily limited to organizational behavior.
That makes System One's contribution to a new form of work flow implementation even more far reaching. You may now enter budget variables among the search data you routinely account for, and extend your horizons of relevance the more the better you know where and how to account for them.
Budgets, to be sure, do not only consist in assets and liabilities accounted for in money terms, but may be viewed as budgets in reputation and prestige as well as in power and influence, or in knowledge and intelligence, or even in emotion and affect.
Tying does not come without switching, at least in sociology. Tying yourself and tying others is only possible and bearable if there are any networks others or you can switch to to avoid the one where tying is without promise. Harrison C. White sometimes even seems to have invented his use of the network notion (as in Identity and Control, 1992) in order to be able to draw our attention to any one element (or node) being one among others, and any one tie (or edge) exhibiting specific qualities (as regarding frequency, intensity, reliability, convertibility, and so on) among possible others. That is why networks are and need their own cultures defining what to expect from their elements and from their ties, and what not. And that is why both identity and control of any one network depend on its possibility to manage any desire or urge to switch to other networks.
Switching comes from any one network being embedded within a society. A society may thus neatly be defined as the horizon of possible alternative networks (including the empty one, the no-network, but that is only as means of reflection), viewed from a specific network. That means that the culture of any one network must describe, emphasize, and qualify the quality of its own network in terms of its comparison with possible others. Networks therefore, stemming from their inherent perspective on switching, feature their part of schismogenesis, as Gregory Bateson (in: Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972) would have called it. Schismogenesis means that any one culture is the product of the contact between one network and another one. Culture does not refer to a deep inherent quality, to any kind of substantial authenticity, defining the identity of any one group, or network. Instead, culture refers to identities being the product of their comparison with others. It refers to your ability to meet the other without becoming him, or her, be that as attractive as it may. Culture is an identity which is able to manage, or monitor, contacts with others. That is why Bateson calls the process schismogenesis: It is triggered by a difference, by a separation between one and the other, and it assumes itself as a difference that is able to keep the one and the other in touch. Note that this touch may be both in harmony or in conflict, in competition or in cooperation.
Organizational choice must be a choice with respect to both network and society, with respect to both ties and switches, let alone its respects for behavior, communication and organization. That means quite some degrees of freedom to be both introduced and to be determined in order to determine the choice in question.