Principles of Organizational and Social Systems, Research Paper Example

Abstract

The Breadth section identifies and critically analyzes systems theory/logic and outlines the ways in which systems theory can be applied to solving various practical tasks such as explaining, describing, and analyzing organizational and societal domains. I have conducted a historical comparative and critical overview of systems theory to answer the following questions: What was the development of systems theory from the 1960s until the contemporary period of time? What are the strengths and weaknesses of systems theory through the prism of understanding the nature and structure of organizational and social systems? How can the usefulness of systems theory be evaluated for the explanation of organizational and societal domains?

Depth

The subject of this section of the paper is the application of systems theory in organizational and social spheres. Systems theory is applicable in such organizational spheres as business-management, education and career development. Community and family spheres proved to be the most suitable social domains that may take advantage of the systems theory, as they reveal the systematic nature of human-made systems’ functioning and malfunctioning. The results show that the success of systems theory lies in systems thinking and holistic approach that facilitate decision-making process and take into account all the structural elements that function together (environment, behavior, experience, etc.), and contribute to problem-solving activities that can be effectively applied in organizational and social complex open systems. Thus, systems theory serves for the benefit of business-management, education, career development, community, and family spheres.

Application

The present section serves as a logical synthesis of theoretical findings and practical application of the systems theory findings in a real-life situation, i.e. for the solution of a real-life systemic problem within an organization. Applicability of the systems theory in a real organizational setting are analyzed, and a set of conclusions about practical implications of systems theory in the organizational and societal domains are made. The case study of Pratt-Whitney Rocketdyne and the application of a systemic approach to solving the company’s problems is illustrative of the benefit the systems theory can give to studying, analyzing, and improving organizations. Further on, conclusions and recommendations concerning other fields of systems theory application within organizations are provided.

Introduction

There is much complexity and inter-disciplinarity in the modern science and technology that have been producing a profound effect on the evolution of thought and focus of both within the past decade.  As Lin (1999) and von Bertalanffy (1968) note, the main instigators of the move towards an innovative mode of thinking and scientific perception have been the generation of energy with the help of various technological devices, the discovery of steam energy and creation of self-regulated devices, and surely the informational breakthrough that heralded the creation of cybernetics, computer science, distinction between software and hardware that both contribute to the overall functioning of a computer system etc.  Hence, the innovative stage in the development of science and technology requires an innovative and integrated approach that cannot any longer be isolated and fragmented.

Lin (1999) notes the modern trend of sciences to synthesize areas of knowledge into several large, meaningful blocks, which merged through the joint effort of a variety of conventional scientific disciplines.  This tendency clearly presupposes the turn of attention to the systemic approach to science that has entered the human life and the scientific endeavor less than a century ago, and has taken its firm position in practically all fields of scientific knowledge and its application.  The concept has penetrated all fields of human life at the present moment of times, and has even been taken as a tool in setting political agendas, as a part of jargon, as an instrument of mass media etc. (von Bertalanffy, 1968).

Von Bertalanffy was one of the first scholars to have admitted that the fundamental character of things is in their organization, and the investigation of a part or a component is in its essence limited, precluding the observer from acquiring the complete explanation.  The reason for this is that the segmented approach to the scientific observation does not provide the information about coordination of parts and processes, and does not enable to discover the laws of biological organisms (qtd in Lin, 1999).  This unique, though simple, truth, initiated the development of a completely new field of scientific enquiry–the system theory of an organism, which was then widely accepted and borrowed by other sciences (Lin, 1999).

It is obvious that the notion of the systems theory is not new to the world, though the name as such appeared only in the second half of the past century.  One of the illustrative examples is the philosophy of Chinese medicine based on treating the organism as a whole, logically functioning and interconnected system; the origin of medicine dates back to the third millennium BC, hence, the systems theory may be said to have at least five millennia of history.  In addition, the vague resemblance to the principles of the systems theory may be found in the works of such scientists of the past as Nicholas of Cusa (his coincidentia oppositorum was the basic precursor of systems theory’s emergence as it was based on the opposition, struggle of smallest elements within the whole), and Hegel and Marx’s dialectic structure of though and the universe deriving from it (Lin, 1999).

As one can see, the fundamentals of the systems theory had manifested themselves long before the first human inquiries in the concept thereof began.  However, as Lin (1999) suggests, there has always been one major barrier to the creation of a coherent systems theory–it is the fundamental principle of Aristotle’s teleology–“The whole is larger than the sum of its parts”.  The present statement has been precluding scientists of all times to assume the basics of the systems theory–to split the object into as many small parts as possible, and to observe them, identify the connections and relations existing between them within the unit of the investigation, and to synthesize the results about the functioning of the present system in the end (Lin, 1999).

One can claim that there has been no fertile soil for the creation of the sound basis for the systems theory before; these claims may be correct, taking into consideration the context in which the systems theory emerged.  The tendency of classical sciences to synthesize the body of knowledge with other sciences, creating the cross-boundary disciplines, the pressure of the quick scientific and technological developments, the need for the new esthetic approach for scholars–all this required the mechanisms of adapting to the new knowledge, ways of handling it effectively, and developing it constructively (Lin, 1999).  The emergence of the Second Industrial Revolution with the coming of cybernetics required the change of basic categories operated in sciences, and the new categories for dealing with complexities in all knowledge systems (von Bertalanffy, 1968).

The crisis awaited all sciences that were limited by their own boundaries, and no further development seemed possible without the move forward, beyond the measures of the conventional.  Hence, as von Bertalanffy (1968) shows, even such fields as nuclear physics, molecular biology, psychology and psychiatry, social sciences etc. needed an innovative integral approach to all phenomena constituting the subject of their inquiry.  Thus, the dilemma in the physical sciences demanded the modification of existing theories, the new world outlook that would incorporate the knowledge about all fundamental particles in a coherent way.  Molecular biology faced a barrier with the discovery of the DNA code and the deeper insight into the processes governing heredity, evolution, and fundamental human identity.  Speaking about social sciences, there was a major crisis of perceiving the distinct social sciences in their indispensible unity, such as for example reconsidering history as sociology in the longitudinal lens (von Beratalnffy, 1968).

Consequently, systems theory emerged in the response to the growing pressures from various sciences and human effort, and now it is used to establish the fundamental interrelations and interconnections in any coherent set of units.  Though there has been much debate about the practical value of the systems science, and its place in row with other classical sciences has been much doubted, the systems science is still recognized as a viable, full-range scientific field at the present moment.  The main ambiguity about the systems sciences derived from the ambiguity of the term ‘system’, as it has a great number of definitions, and few of them fit into the concept of the systems theory (Klir, 2001).  The notion of a system is highly similar to that of a “set”, the arrangement of things related or connected to form a unity or organic whole (Klir, 2001).  Judging from this point, the key formula describing the object of the systems theory research may look as follows:

S = (T,R)

The present formula’s components refer to the system, the set of things in a system, and the nature of relations between them respectively (Klir, 2001).  Deriving the further inquiry in the systems theory from the present formula, one can suppose that as a science, the systems theory has a body of knowledge, a methodology, and a meta-methodology called to explore the methodological interrelations and interconnections within the tools and methods of the science itself (Klir, 2001).

The methodology of the systems science requires separate attention: in accordance with Lin’s (1999) account, the methodology of systems theory is the establishment of structural foundation for four kinds of organization theories: cybernetics, game theory, decision theory, and the information theory.  The objects for the systems theory research are also categorized: they may be the motivators, the objects that the system needs to produce, the sensors (through which the information is received by the system), and the effectors.  The structure of the described four theories may also be unified, as it is described by action of two laws: occurrence of interactions between systems, and between systems and their environment; the stimulation of the system’s efficiency by internal movements and reception of information about its environment (Lin, 1999).

Following the methodological basis of the systems theory, one can conclude that the systems approach is directed as developing the abstract foundation with concepts and frames that may be further applied to the study of different systems (Lin, 1999).  As this point, the systems theory appears highly universal and practically unlimited, since the discovery of relations within a system is highly abstract and detached from the specificity of any given system, so it may be applied to a large number of sciences, virtually to all classical sciences (Klir, 2001).  Klir (2001) recognizes the fundamental difference between the systems theory and any other conventional science, stating that the subject of the latter is ‘thinghood’, while the subject of the former is ‘systemhood’.  This is the main step forward in the scientific inquiry, and it enables the systems science to transcend the disciplinary boundaries, studying the relations of things, which is much better than studying the things themselves (Klir, 2001).

The basic assumption lying at the basis of the systems approach is the black box and the white box.  The latter is the problem being investigated, while the former is its environment.  The white box represents the information known about the issue, and the black box is something unknown (Lin, 1999).  Deriving from this basic assumption, the systems theory makes an active inquiry into a large number of issues connected with the systemic view of the world, namely:

• System characteristics
• System classification
• System analysis
• System identification
• System representation
• Signal classification
• System analysis
• System synthesis
• System control and programming
• System optimization
• Learning and adaptation
• System liability
• System stability
• System controllability (Lin, 1999).

With the emergence of the systems approach, science has started to develop more synthetically, and the research methods and results from one field of science were more readily intertwined to influence the overall research progress.  The systems science as a cross-disciplinary one possesses a set of indisputable advantages as compared to other sciences: first of all, its knowledge is applicable to all sciences; secondly, it can study the problems and objects of many sciences simultaneously; finally, its orientation influences the course of development of conventional sciences as well, which is the key point in the evolutionary science of modernity.  Thus the systems science and other classical sciences form the complementary dimensions of the modern science that is more able and ready to meet the needs of the humanity at the contemporary period of time (Klir, 1999).

The gist of the systems science’s emergence is awareness of the fact that the world does not consist of the isolated objects, and they are not united by a single causal relationship.  Hence, alongside with the human progress, studies of the human problems require more multicausality and multirelation alongside with their becoming more complex.  In order to move forward, the systemic relations within the major contemporary technical, social, biological, political, and other domains should be understood clearly.  The modern stage of the human development witnesses the intricate interrelations between people and machines, and the modern life represents an extremely complex, giant system incorporating the units of politics, economy, finance, society etc.  The requirements of economic production are fixed in the achievement of the optimal mix of economic efficiency and minimal costs; the organized crime and pollution, environmental changes and the transformation of the demographic distribution of the population are also subject to the systems analysis.  Therefore, a deeper insight into the core principles, laws, and concepts of the systems theory is needed to adequately assess its utility in the modern science, and for the exploration of the systems and structures within the societal and organizational domains.

The System as a Central Component of the Systems Theory

As one can see from the previous section, the science before the emergence of systems theory used to be shaped by the mode of thinking focused on the rigorous detailed knowledge.  Hence, it was assumed that the individual did not have enough capacity to store and process information, and if he/she was knowledgeable in one field, then he/she lacked in-depth knowledge of all other fields.  In case one was knowledgeable in many fields, the superficial knowledge was assumed (Laszlo, 1972).  People used to work in particular science fields in isolation, or created interdisciplinary teams that enabled the exchange of knowledge across disciplines, but at the same time also existed in an isolated way according to other scholars or teams (Laszlo, 1972).  The new emerging paradigm enabled the new way of ordering information, and it appeared more preferable than the atomistic approach since it crossed all scientific boundaries and enabled the universal, unified approach to the whole body of knowledge accumulated by all sciences in all times.  This approach is a systems theory, and the central component thereof is the concept of a system.

In order to understand the mechanics of a systems theory, one should have a clear idea of what a system is.  Meadows (2008) refers to the system as a set of elements coherently organized in a way that achieves something.  However, even despite the multiplicity of definitions for a system, there is a common agreement that one should explore systems.  The reason for this is that all people live in systems, and are influenced by numerous systems in every aspect of their lives.  Hence, it is only in case of understanding systems that people can anticipate their behavior, and work with systems to ensure their functioning in a favorable, positive way in terms of effect on their lives (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).

Every system should have three indispensible components: elements, interconnections, and purpose or function.  Everything that is not a system can be viewed as a simple conglomeration of items, since they do not interrelate and do not act for the fulfillment of one common purpose; this is why when a person dies, he/she seizes to be a living system as the natural processes directed at the maintenance of life in the organism are not enacted anymore (Meadows, 2008).  The systems can be natural and human-made ones (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).  Examples of natural systems are the life cycle of a tree, the human organism, and the natural processes involved in the weather change etc.  The human-made systems are not living systems, so they are more self-contained and usually have fewer elements, while the natural systems are more open in relation to other systems.  The examples of human-made systems are a car, an enterprise, a university etc. (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).

The task of identifying the components of a particular system is not always easy; the elements of the system can be both physical (like the constituents of the car) and intangible (such as the knowledge acquisition and communal pride of the students in a particular university) (Meadows, 2008).  Making a list of elements may be too lengthy depending on how many smaller units the system can be dissected.  Therefore, it is much more useful and effective to have a look not at the elements (are they are too plentiful, sometimes practically unlimited), but at the inter-relations and interconnections among the elements.  However, this task is even more complex than with the elements, since the interconnections are less visible and less clear in a system (Meadows, 2008).

The useful tip in the process of establishing the range of interconnections within a system is to pay attention to the communication flows; the information is mainly the chief component that keeps the system together and plays a great role in determining, coordinating, and regulating the system’s operations.  Further on, the inquiry in the purpose or function of a system should take place; it is the hardest task, since the function/purpose may not necessarily be spoken or written.  Sometimes it may be visible only through the operation of the system; hence, understanding of the purpose or function is sometimes possible only through careful and lengthy observation of the system in work (Meadows, 2008).

Each system has a set of universal characteristics that govern its operation; they should be known by any specialist, even the beginner in the field of systems theory, since they open the core essence of any system.  First of all, the characteristic trait of any system is that all its parts must be present to carry out its purpose optimally (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).  For example, one can consider a football team as a system for gaining the victories in football matches.  The team is strong and coherent when all people are present in the team, as they all strive for the achievement of the common purpose–winning the match.  However, in case one of the elements is absent (for example, some of the players has been shown a red card and was taken off the field), the system becomes much more vulnerable in the accomplishment of its purpose.  Another system, its rival team, is a full and well-functioning system; hence, it has many more chances than the team with some missing element on the way to achieving the purpose–gaining the victory.

Secondly, one of the characteristics of any system is the right allocation of its constituent parts.  It is supposed that the system will function properly and successfully only in case the elements are arranged in a specific way within the system (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).  A good example may be drawn from any business organization.  There are typically some specific departments in any large company–the accounting department, the sales department, the product development, R&D department etc.  In case every specialist is allocated at the right place, the operations of the company will be flowing smoothly and logically.  However, in case an accountant is put to the sales department, and an R&D specialist will be urged to make the cash flow statements, profit and loss statements, and will calculate salaries for the whole staff, tremendous problems are likely to occur in the company.  Thus, one can see that in order to function effectively, the system should have all its elements in the right place, not missing and not scrambled.

One particular issue about the systems’ components’ functioning needs to be discussed as well in the present context; it is the observation that some sub-elements of a system may have minor purposes and logically contribute to the overall purpose of the system, sometimes in a negative and undesirable way.  Thus, the major pitfalls and drawbacks of the modern social systems such as unemployment, high rates of crime, drug addiction, and poverty can be perceived in terms of systemic functioning.  Speaking about unemployment, it may be low access to free education, the crisis or economic downturn in a country, a serious gap between the qualifications provided and the vacancies opened for applicants etc. that contribute to the formation of high unemployment rates.  The unemployment produces a strong negative effect on self-esteem and psychological well-being of individuals; hence they become subject to the seduction of earning easy money by committing crimes, or may try to escape from their psychological problems with the help of drugs.  Hence, all negative and positive implications of any system’s functioning derive directly from the functioning of systemic components, and negative consequences can derive from operations that did not presuppose or intend those effects.

The third characteristic of a system is that it has specific purposes within larger systems (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).  This way, a blood circulation system has a clear purpose within the human body–it disseminates oxygen around the whole body, bringing it to every cell, every organ and tissue.  There is no other organ in the human body that can perform this function, and no substitutes or complements to the system exist.  No organs can also be taken out of the system for it to function effectively, as in case they are really taken away, the whole system seizes to exist.  Consequently, one can make a conclusion that every system is a discrete entity with the feature of integrity, and it is non-divisible (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).

However, the issue with the integrity and non-divisibility of a system is not a simple one, as Meadows (2008) notes.  There is the constant change elements occurring within any system (the human body system renews its cells every few weeks, the tree renews its leaves every year, and the car also needs reparation in case some parts do not function anymore).  The elements can be replaced without the intrusion in the overall functioning of the system; however, the change of interconnections or purpose can lead to a much more drastic change.

The fourth characteristic feature of systems is that they maintain their stability through fluctuations and adaptations in the dynamically changing conditions (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).  It means that in case the system experiences the intensified or lessened influence of other systems, or of its environment, it has to adjust accordingly in order to preserve its functions and to serve the same purpose/function.  For instance, a running individual has a much more intense sweetening process, since he/she activates the body more intensely, resulting in a more intense body warming process.  Therefore, the system responsible for the regulation of the body temperature reacts in an adjusted way in order to achieve the estimated purpose.

Finally, the fifth characteristic feature is that all systems have a feedback (Anderson & Johnson, 1997).  The feedback of a system is in its transmission and return of information; in the process of the system’s functioning, it constantly reports about the progress, successes and failures in the operation.  The system feedback is the major catalyst for a change in behavior; in case the system functions not properly, or does not achieve its predefined purpose, the feedback signals about the change that has to be introduced either in the elements, or in the interrelations among the components, if not the purpose on the whole.

The concept of a system became a long-sought solution in the 1950s, and with its application, many solutions that were viewed as viable before the emergence of the systems approach turned out inadequate in their application to the new conditions, as the problems also did not exist in their original forms.  It was then accepted that systems existed as wholes, and they could not be understood through analysis as their primary properties derived from the interactions observed among their parts (Skyttner, 2005).  Such an approach also proved inadequate since the scientists had to wait for the system’s failure in order to understand how the system works.

Now the focus of the scientific inquiry has shifted from the anatomy of the system to its function, redefining the field of systems’ research fundamentally (Skyttner, 2005).  The systems can be self-organizing, and even self-repairing (especially the natural systems that have been created not due to the human effort that may leave out some pitfalls and weak sides, but by the nature functioning as an ideal system).  At the present stage of the systems theory development, systems are seen as entities that are able to:

• Change
• Adapt
• Respond
• Seek goals
• Mend injuries
• Attend to their survival etc. (Meadows, 2008).

Nonetheless, there is still a methodological dilemma with the studies of systems due to their complex interrelations and connections of multiple components.  The present problem has acquired the name of a three-body problem (movement of more than two objects under mutual influence) (Laszlo, 1972).  The conventional research may be conducted by a researcher to explore the causal or correlative relationships between some objects; it may lead to the systematization and exploration of those phenomena.  However, the researchers are unable to explore the whole complexity of influences conducted by numerous objects on another object at the same time.  Hence, the scientists have not moved much forward in the issue of exploring the interrelations and mutual influences within the bodies larger and more complex than an atom of helium (that has two orbital neurons).  Their influence on each other is explored, though there seems to be a much longer path in exploring more complex relationships in more complex systems.

This analysis is nowadays conducted by means of simplification of systems; this process involves the assumption that all forces of bodies calculated are interacting in sequences of interacting pairs (Laszlo, 1972).  This analysis means is rather effective; still it does not provide the true mapping of many things such as the real interactions and correlations between components in a system.  Hence, a new approach to the investigation of systems has been adopted recently–it involves looking at the number of different interacting things and noting their behavior on the whole (Laszlo, 1972).  There are a huge number of examples of such holistic thinking within the framework of the systems approach that have entered the conventional human practices as well, not limiting themselves to scholarly research.  This way, people think of sports teams and evaluate their performance instead of thinking of teams as a composition of several individual sportsmen; people perceive business corporations as a whole, though they are also composed of people working in them and contributing to the company’s efficiency.

Basic Ideas, Rules, and Concepts of the Systems Theory

Besides the ones already discussed in the previous sections, the systems theory is based on a set of postulates, assumptions, and ideas that emerged historically and define the science at the present period of time as well.  First of all, one should track the conceptual framework of the systems theory from the ideas of Hegel, Ferdinand de Saussure, Kenneth Boulding, Bowler, Churchman, von Bertalanffy, Litterer etc.  These theorists have made a significant contribution to the formulation of systems theory in different periods of time.

The basics of systems theory were formulated by a famous philosopher and writer Hegel who stated the following about systems:

• The whole is more than the sum of its parts
• The whole defines the nature of its parts
• Parts cannot be understood by studying the whole
• Parts are dynamically interrelated and interdependent (Skyttner, 2005).

As one can see from the present list of positions on systems, Hegel has managed to identify the fundamental features predefining their nature.  The continuation of systems-centered research was undertaken by Ferdinand de Saussure, an outstanding linguist who identified the concept of ‘holism’–he established the school of structuralism and explored the holistic approach to the scientific inquiry.  Gestalt psychology generated by Max Wertheimer was another step towards the systems theory.

A significant breakthrough in the systems approach was seen in the period of Kenneth Boulding’s activity in the field.  He was the first to formulate the five postulates of the general systems theory:

• Order, regularity, and non-randomness are much more preferable to their opposites
• Orderliness in the empirical world makes the world better and much more appealing to the systems theorist
• There is order in the orderliness of the eternal and empirical world; it is designated as a law about laws
• Quantification and mathematization are used to establish order
• The quest for order and law involves identification of abstract laws and order, in particular, their empirical representations (Skyttner, 2005).

Downing Bowler was another theorist who has managed to outline a set of more universal laws governing the systems theory.  According to his research, one can state the following about the systemic nature of the world:

• The Universe represents the hierarchy of systems, in which simple systems are synthesized in larger and more complex ones
• All systems have common features, hence the statements about these characteristics are universal for all systems
• All levels of systems have unique characteristics that apply universally and move the systems upward in the hierarchy to more complex levels, but not downward to simpler levels
• It is always possible to identify relational universals applicable to all levels of existence
• Every system has a set of boundaries that indicate the degree of differences between what is included, and what is excluded
• The Universe consists of processes synthesizing systems of systems and disintegrating systems of systems; it will continue to its present form as long as one set of processes does not eliminate the other (Skyttner, 2005).

The present assumptions represent the present core of understanding the systems theory and the guiding principles that govern both the systems and the scientists examining them.  In addition to the basic ideas of the systems theory, there are the concepts that form the conceptual framework of the systems science.  These concepts are utilized by the majority of systems theorists and are applied to producing the characterization of any system.

Alongside with being natural or human-made, the systems can also be open, closed, and isolated.  The open systems are studied more actively, since they are easier to comprehend, and they are involved in more relationships with other systems and the surrounding environment.  The basic features of an open system have been outlined by West Churchman who was the professor of business:

• The open systems are teleological (purposeful)
• They are performance-directed
• They have a user or users
• They possess the purposeful components
• Thy are embedded in the environment
• Every open system should have a decision-maker who is internal to the system, can change its parts or performance to make the system fit its predefined goal
• Open systems have a designer who is concerned with the structure of the system, who changes the system to adapt it to having the optimal value, and ensures the stability of this system under the dynamically changing internal and external conditions (Skyttner, 2005).

The image of a designer should be perceived in a philosophical or religious way (such as God, nature etc.), however, it has become more popular with characterizing the human-made systems designed and sustained by people or machines.  There are certain properties that all open systems share. They are:

• Inter-relational and interdependent
• Characterized by holism
• Goal-seeking
• Transformative in nature
• Having outputs and inputs
• Characterized by entropy (a certain amount of disorder and randomness present in any system – the reverse attribute is called negentropy)
• Regulated
• Hierarchical
• Differentiated
• Possessing equifinality and multifinality (having equally valid alternative ways of achieving objectives, and the ability to obtain different and mutually exclusive objectives from a given initial state) (Skyttner, 2005).

Open systems get both the input from their environment, and radiate output back to it to sustain the stability of the system, and to continue operating.  In contrast to open systems, closed systems are open only for taking input from the external environment.  They have the high level of entropy, and long to the steady state, so they are mostly referred to as “dying systems” (Skyttner, 2005).  The third type, isolated systems, does not interact with the environment at all, so they are very rare; one of the examples of isolated systems is space (Skyttner, 2005).

All systems interact with their environment (it also represents one of the key concepts in systems theory-related research).  The environment is classified into the immediate environment represented by the next higher system minus the discussed system itself.  There can also be the total environment including the next higher system and all other systems existing in the world (Skyttner, 2005).  Environments are known to have some control over the systems.

The larger concept is space; the environment of the system exists in space.  There are several subtypes of space: pragmatic space denotes the physical action that integrates a living system with its natural, organic environment (Skyttner, 2005).  The perceptual space refers to the immediate orientation essential for identity of a conscious being.  The existential space denotes the stable image of an individual environment connecting it to social and cultural identity.  The cognitive space is the conscious experience of the physical world; while the logical/abstract space represents the world of abstract, conceptual systems that provide a tool for describing others (Skyttner, 2005).

Finally, several words have to be said about the hierarchy of systems; it is one of the central concepts utilized when analyzing not one system in isolation, but a set of systems in conjunction.  The hierarchy-related terminology comprises the following concepts:

• Macro-system
• System
• Subsystem
• Module
• Component
• Unit
• Part (Skyttner, 2005).

The systems theory seems to be quite unified and coherent in its essence; however, there are still some distinctive trends and directions of thought that may help distinguish a set of theories and teachings under the umbrella term of the systems theory, or systems science.  Alongside with the conventional systems theory that defines them all, there is a distinctive area of scientific inquiry in the field of systems theory is the critical systems thinking; Flood and Romm (1996) identify the critical systems theory as reliant on three commitments–critical awareness, human emancipation, and methodological pluralism.  The first notion refers to the understanding of strengths and weaknesses of theoretical assumptions of the existing systems methods, techniques, and tools.  It also involves understanding the context of systems theory’s application and the possible consequences of using various methodologies in those contexts (Flood & Romm, 1996).

The human awareness of the critical systems thinking refer to the achievement of maximum development of people’s potential by means of raising the quality of life in organizations and societies of which they are parts (Flood & Romm, 1996).  Finally, the methodological pluralism should be understood as a meta-theory directed at classifying the systems methodologies according to the assumptions they make about the systemic social reality of the modern world (Flood & Romm, 1996).  Other trends in the systems theory will be evaluated in the next section according to the subject of their concern, the time of their emergence, and their significance in terms of describing and explaining the societal and organizational domains.

Significant Trends and Developments in Systems Theory

Though the systems theory is considered a fairly young field of science, and it has witnessed its development only within the past half of the decade or so, emerging officially in the 1960s, there are a great number of directions, trends, and developments within the framework of the systems theory that have taken their own path and explore diverse systems, are applied in different classical sciences, and in different fields of human activity.  Understanding the most significant trends that are at the forefront of the scientific inquiry up to date will enable to get a deeper insight into what systems theory is at the present moment, and what prospects it is likely to have in future.

As Conte, Perdon, and Wyman (1991) state, the most popular trends in the systems theory at the beginning of the past decade were delineated as follows: the emphasis was made on the mathematical approach to linear and non-linear systems, their stability and stabilizability, robust control and adaptive control, and robotics.  As one can see, all these fields have acquired a wide application, being extensively researched, within the past two decades.  In addition, the authors emphasized the fact that both concrete and very abstract aspects of systems theory were popular subjects of scientific concern (Conte, Perdon, & Wyman, 1991).  Hence, one can see that the systems theory has been explored in all aspects, and has yielded many positive, feasible results applicable in the modernity.

One of the brightest scientists of the modernity who explored the systems theory from a mathematical standpoint is Sanjoy K. Mittler.  He has been working in such areas of scientific inquiry as optimization, optimal control, linear systems theory, and non-linear filtering.  He has also dealt with the image analysis and learning.  The significant contribution of Mittler is the fundamental interventions in the application of mathematics to the theories of representation and learning (Djaferis & Schick, 2000).  Hence, one can see that all theories of systems, disregarding their mathematical focus, still deal with searching for bridging the gaps between living systems and human-made ones.

Deriving from the main tasks outlined for the general systems theory, mainly, to define the meaning of systems and concepts related to them, to classify systems and to find their general properties, to model systems behaviors, and to study special models logically and methodologically, one can identify a set of trends and sub-divisions of systems theory that appear the most significant at the present period of time (Lin, 1999).  They have all been explored in depth already, and some of them have already brought about fruitful results and conclusions.  Hence, they have found their application in various fields of scholarly inquiry, and are studied intensely at the present period.

First of all, one should mention the classical systems theory as it appears the widest and the most generalized trend in systems theory, with other trends deriving from it.  It is a mathematical theory based on calculations, and is applied to studying the general principles governing the structures, and structures with some specific properties that are applied for the research and description within the field of systems theory (Lin, 1999).  The results obtained by general systems theory research may be used to solve particular problems.  However, there is a certain drawback of this theory as it is characterized by excessive generality, and it can provide information only about formal properties of the structures investigated (Lin, 1999).

The next field of research that has obtained a wide application in science is the catastrophe theory; it was initiated more than 300 years ago by Newton and Leibniz, and offers an alternative way of thinking about discrete, discontinuous, and unpredictable changes in systems.  It refers not only to systems, but to the change in the systems behavior, in the shape of the object, or in the sequence of events (Lin, 1999).  It is widely applied to the study of both real catastrophes of technical or natural essence (such as the fall of the bridge, or the tornado damage), and to the quiet but irregular changes (Lin, 1999).

The compartment theory was initiated by Rescigno and Segre, and deals primarily with the description of a problem or structure as consisting of parts that satisfy boundary conditions.  These boundaries refer to the divide connected by the process of transportation, or the transportation between the central part of the system and its surrounding, peripheral parts (Lin, 1999).  Nonetheless, the present theory experiences much difficulty in performing calculations and achieving feasible results when the constituent parts are three and more.  Here the Laplace transformation and networks theory, together with the graph theory, are successfully used (Lin, 1999).

One more essential field of systems theory inquiry is the cybernetics field.  It has acquired a wide range of applications in the modern science, and serves as a basis for many other systems theories, including those used to explain, describe, and predict the operations and change within organizational systems.  It is the “theory of systems and their environments, internal information transportation of systems, impact on environment of controlled systems” (Lin, 1999, p. 11).  It is often used in performing the description of ‘action processes’, but does not provide the clear structure of the system under research.  The system is represented as an input-output ‘black box’, though the understanding of the system offered by cybernetics is much more profound than that of some other divisions of the systems theory.

Fuzzy mathematics is a step forward in designing the human-made systems that would possess at least some qualities of a human being.  The subject of fuzzy mathematics is to bridge the gap between the precision of mathematics and the imprecision of the real world (Lin, 1999).  The basic notion on which the field is based is the one of fuzzy sets–the sets in which the boundaries are blurred, and the transaction from one state to another one is fuzzy.  Hence, the problem with which the field deals is to create machines that can successfully deal with uncertainty and fuzziness of the human decision-making process.  The present field is highly prospective for such sciences as psychology, sociology, political science, philosophy, physiology etc., and the touching points it looks for may become a breakthrough of the near future in the creation of artificial intelligence (Lin, 1999).

The game theory is widely applied in the study of systems with special reaction forces, and it rests on the assumption that ideal players have abilities to reason and make decisions guided by the wish to win, and not to lose.  Thus, the goal of game theory’s research is “to apply optimal strategies to confront other players” (Lin, 1999, p. 12).  The information theory initiated by Shannon and Weaver in 1949 is very similar to the game theory as it is based on the concept of defining information and its role in a system.  Some definitions for a system are the expression similar to one with the negative entropy in thermodynamics, and the measure of the organization’s structure (Lin, 1999).

Among other popular sub-fields of the systems theory, one can find the genetic algorithms theory that deals with the mechanics of natural selection and natural genetics, combines the principle of survival of the fittest with the string structures, and the string but random information exchange that result in the formation of the algorithm with innovative features resembling to the mechanism of the human search (Lin, 1999).  The graph theory also represents much interest for modern scholars as it refers to the organization and topological structures of systems; graph analysis describes in detail what relationships there are between systems, while its combination with the matrix theory results in the compartment theory applicable to open systems (Lin, 1999).  The networks theory is a part of the graph theory and the set theory, also having some features of the compartment theory – it researches the net structures of systems (Lin, 1999).

The set theory that has already been mentioned several times in the present overview was initiated by Mesarovic in 1964; it contains the general definitions and concepts of the systems theory.  All systems can be described as open and closed systems in terms of the set theory, and the systems can be described by axioms of the set theory language.  However, the major disadvantage and weakness of the set theory is that it is not applicable to solving practical problems (Lin, 1999).

The practical solution for mathematically unsolvable problems in the systems theory has been found in the simulation approach to systems theory.  The simulation affords achieving feasible results in the cases when the mathematical differential equations offer no way of solving the dilemma.  This happens in cases when the differential equations have non-linear equations, which makes the calculations come to the dead end.  Hence, the computer simulation has emerged as a significant method for solving such tasks, and it is applied to the study of markets and populations, doing what mathematics cannot (Lin, 1999).  The value of statistics in the systems theory cannot be underestimated as well–even Einstein underlined the importance of statistical data for adequate perception of the world and the real-world facts in their wholeness.  Thus, statistics is the mathematical theory that helps identify which event may cause another event to happen (Lin, 1999).  Finally, the theory of automata has emerged in response to the need to design an ideal automaton with input and output, and the ability to be corrected and learn (Lin, 1999).

As one can see from the present list and overview of the most popular and significant trends that have emerged in the systems theory shortly after its emergence, or even contributed to the process of its emergence, the systems theory is highly diverse and applicable to various classical sciences, contributing to the understanding of certain phenomena, and often borrowing the concepts and results of some neighboring sciences.  The systems theory is obviously universal, and it may be applied to both living and human-made systems.  Which is even more special about it, the systems theory seeks connections between living and human-made systems, and by means of researching the natural systems, it aims at borrowing some helpful mechanisms that will improve the human-made systems, and will move the science and technology ahead, at the same time deepening the human understanding of the nature.

There are certain fields of systems theory that deal primarily with the behavior and nature of the human relations, which has found its embodiment in the systems theory sub-divisions dealing with the social systems.  In addition, the systems theory has taken its firm place in the theory of business organization, and has proven highly helpful in explaining and describing the organizational structures.  These theories need to be further researched in more detail, as they offer a much more advanced understanding of the societal and organizational domains of the human activity.

Systems Theory’s Applicability to Social Systems’ Analysis

Analysis of social systems with the help of the systems theory has a long-standing history and many proponents.  Parsons (1971) initiated the research of the system of modern societies and have offered an extensive work on the subject.  In addition, the later work of Ford and Lerner (1992) was also dedicated to the exploration of the principles to which people’s behavior in a social system is subject.  They have extensively studied the ways people interact with their environment and how these interactions affect their biology, psychology, and behavior.  The central themes of Ford and Lerner’s (1992) work are the concepts of stability, variability, change, and development in the people’s multitude of systemic interactions, and the place of a person as an open, self-regulating, and self-constructing system.  The authors were primarily interested in the developmental processes and dynamics in the developmental systems theory–the way they perceived the dynamic social system (Ford & Lerner, 1992).

However, all scientific effort in the systems theory directed at explaining, describing, and analyzing social systems may be well illustrated by a couple of basic systems theories, the one initiated and explored by Boulding (the theory of systemic complexity), and the other–by Miller (the General Living Systems Theory).  Surely, Parsons’ theory of systemic of modern societies also deserves separate attention and will be dealt with later in the present section.

Kenneth Boulding has already been mentioned in the present paper due to his enormous contribution to the formulation of the basic principles and concepts of the systems theory.  However, it is not the only endeavor he has undertaken in the field. Boulding is also the author of the work “General Systems Theory–the Skeleton of Science” (1956) that is still used as a guideline for the consideration of the conceptual framework of the modern science in a much easier and simplified way (Skyttner, 2005).  See Figure 1 for Boulding’s hierarchy of the scientific concept of inquiry.  According to the present division, according to Boulding’s opinion, there is a particular hierarchy of sciences that study these scientific concepts (thus, many of the sciences were considered redundant by Boulding, and the focus was driven only to the most meaningful of them) – see Fig. 2.

Figure 1. The Hierarchy of Scientific Objects of Inquiry (Kenneth Boulding).

Source: from Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.

Figure 2. Hierarchy of Sciences.

Source: from Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific

As a result of these considerations, Boulding has managed to compile the given data on the hierarchy of the scientific concepts and the sciences that deal with them into a comprehensive scheme of systems complexity that may be seen on Figure 3.  There are ten levels of systems that result from the interaction between people and their artifacts, and they arise only sue to the human capability of forming images and conveying the complicated theoretical notions from one to another.  The interactive learning process, according to Boulding, is the key to the functioning of the present system.  The nature of interactions may be described only by three types thereof–it is threat, exchange, and interactions.  The social activity is exercised through the economic, political, communication, and integration systems; the activities are conducted by enacting the processes of mutation and selection, and the biological concept of the empty niche is also applicable for social systems, since they tend to fill the empty niche as well.

Figure 3. Boulding’s Scheme of Interactions in Social Systems.

Source: from Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, p. 117.

Another theory that may be efficiently applied to describe, analyze, and interpret the systemic nature of social systems is James Miller’s Living Systems Theory (LST).  The theory has found its embodiment in the 1978 work of the preset author titled “Living Systems”.  According to Miller, the living system is a physical phenomenon existing in time and space, and it is only the universe with the three-dimensional space and existence in one time that can create a favorable environment for the existence of life (Skyttner, 2005).  Miller noted that living systems are complex, adaptive, open, and negentropic, thus being purposive in nature.  The living systems maintain contact with the environment through metabolism, i.e. exchange of matter and energy that gives the energy for the living system in order to produce, reproduce, and to repair itself (Skyttner, 2005).  The mechanics of matter and energy throughput may be seen on Figure 4.

Figure 4. Miller’s Idea of the Energy/Matter Throughput in a Living System.

Source: Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, p. 119.

Miller distinguished five kingdoms of living systems:

• Monerans
• Protisans
• Fungi
• Plants
• Animals (Skyttner, 2005).

It is not only processing of energy and matter that is essential for a living system in its existence; processing information is equally important, as it regulates and adjusts the internal stress and external strain that all living systems experience throughout their existence.  They also perform the vital functions of self-maintenance and self-repair by means of the following processes:

• Information processing
• Energy processing
• Material processing
• Synthesis of parts for the sake of combining the materials
• Rearrangement and connection of disconnected parts
• Energy sharing for fuel reserves and maintenance of the necessary structure
• Removal of worn parts (Skyttner, 2005, p. 120).

There are also certain levels of the living systems’ complexity that predefine the presence or absence of certain living systems’ features: calls–organs–organisms–groups–organizations–communities–societies–supranational systems (Skyttner, 2005).  All living systems, according to Miller, have to perform twenty indispensible functions that will enable them to survive, successfully operate and achieve their goals, and react to the environmental changes efficiently and in a timely manner.  First of all, these are the functions of processing matter/energy/information: reproducer and boundary.  Then, these are the functions of processing matter/energy:

• Ingestor
• Distributor
• Converter
• Producer
• Storage
• Extruder
• Motor
• Supporter (Skyttner, 2005)

Finally, the functions of processing information include:

• Input transducer
• Internal transducer
• Channel and net
• Timer
• Decoder
• Associator
• Memory
• Decider
• Encoder
• Output transducer (Skyttner, 2005).

Every living system has to be able to adjust to the changes in the environment; according to Miller’s opinion, adjustment always entails cost (either money or energy), hence the system should be designed in such a way so that to perform adjustment at the optimal cost and energy expenditure.  The last resort of the system, when no other adjustment means works, is the collapse.  The continuous usage of too costly adjustment techniques presupposes the system pathology (Skyttner, 2005).

The living systems of the higher levels depend on the information flow much in their operation.  There are three most essential sources of information for the living systems: information from the world outside, from past, and data about parts and self (Skyttner, 2005).  Finally, a significant feature of living systems is that they recognize three types of codes in which information can be transmitted by them and to them, according to the increasing complexity:

1. Alpha code (it consists of markers of different spatial patterns, coded messages or symbols, for example the pheromones that affect people at the level of unconscious perception).
2. Beta code (variations in process–temporal or amplitudinal change, different patterns of intensity etc.).
3. Gamma code (symbolic information transmission, e.g. linguistic communication) (Skyttner, 2005).

The theory of Immanuel Wallerstein titled the Modern World–Systems Theory also has much to offer for the systemic understanding of social systems because it represents the structural approach to analyzing the social change.  It has been designed as a response to the liberal theory that differentiated three social spheres–market, state, and civil society (Mossman, 2007).  In contrast to the liberal theory, the Modern World System Theory claims that politics and economics cannot be viewed as distinct spheres, and both under-development and development of modern states, the status of states in the modern globalized world are not the result of the activities of countries themselves, but the consequence of the historical capitalism and interstate systems’ interrelations (Mossman, 2007).  Hence, the pursuit of power and profit are seen as one, and the markets are viewed as politically structured and maintained.

The clear advantage of the present theory is that it represents the structure in which every country is integrated, and it shows that there is only a single division of labor (the global labor market) but multiple polities and cultures (Mossman, 2007).  Both the global economy and all national economies are directed at the achievement of one unified goal–capital accumulation.  The capitalist world presupposes that the competition should be continued, as in case the equilibrium is breached, some super-powerful economic states can swallow less developed countries, thus making the economic system of the world collapse, resulting in the crisis of a social system as well (Mossman, 2007).

The Modern World System Theory is surely advantageous from many aspects, as it has made the world’s economic system more tangible.  Additionally, the theory has offered the interdisciplinary view of the political economy, and has seriously contributed to the understanding of the modern world.  It is clear now that the economic globalization produces a feasible impact on the national polities and understanding of systems may be achieved only through incorporating the political economic theory into the social science (Mossman, 2007).  However, the disadvantages and weaknesses of the theory are also visible; it is impossible to merge the university departments such as economic, political, social science, international relations etc. into one, as it requires the tremendous scientific integration effort.  Moreover, the Modern World System Theory does not describe the whole logic of the political system’s functioning, which is a clear disadvantage (Mossman, 2007).

Finally, the explanation and description of social systems is possible with the help of Parsons’ evolutionary theory.  According to this theory, societies are subject to the evolutionary path similarly to human beings, and the modern system of societies is at the forefront of the evolutionary development, mostly due to the fact that it has the best capabilities in adapting to the changing environment (Parsons, 1971).  The greatest capacity of adaptation is seen by Parsons in the ability to differentiation and integration, while the process of movement from a primitive to an advanced, modern industrial society is not the end of the development, and the culminating phase thereof is still the matter of the future.

Parsons has analyzed the American, Japanese, and European societies in their development paths, which brought him to the creation of the developmental social theory based on the evolution of societies.  The basis of evolution is seen by Parsons in the revolutions that took place in every advanced society within the past couple of centuries.  Thus, for example, the author distinguishes the Industrial Revolution, Democratic Revolution, and the Educational Revolution as evolutionary milestones of social system development (Parsons, 1971).

The theory of Parsons is beneficial in many ways as it helps the researcher in taking a comprehensive, unified glance at the history of the social development from a universal perspective, the universal evolutionary path that has manifested itself in various ways but still has shown its signs at different times in various states.  However, it is also notable that the theory has met much criticism due to the absence of unilinearity in the global history, little consideration to the human factor and human agency in the evolutionary changes within states, and surely the lack of universal applicability due to the high diversity of evolutionary paths of various countries (Parsons, 1971).  In addition, some country-specific and class-specific generalizations of Parsons have led to the identification of a certain bias in the Parsons’ theory, which made it even less universally applicable, though it contains a huge number of valuable findings for the explanation, characterization, and analysis of social systems.

Systems Theory’s Applicability to Organizational Systems’ Analysis

The basic principles of organizational functioning and of analysis, description, and study of organizations are outlined in the Viable System Model of Stafford Bier.  It was laid out by Beer in 1972 in his work “Brain of the Firm”.  The complicated model of an organization (the prototype for which is the human body) consists of the elements similar to the extremities, nerves, nerve centers, and brain (Skyttner, 2005).  The analogues for these human constituents are the five managerial subsystems designed by Beer.  The author states that the nervous system processes excess of information and regulates many variables; Beer has given the name of “neurocybernetics” to this system.  It is directed by the information flows and communication links in an organization (Skyttner, 2005).

The information and communication flows are essential in the way the organization functions, as they show the mechanics of functioning on the whole, and the intricacies of different parts’ coordination and performance as related to the organizational goals.  A viable system, in Beer’s understanding, is capable of self-repair, self-awareness, recursion, and maintenance of identity (Skyttner, 2005).  Managers of the organization should tame the mess in which the organization functions, and introduce the concepts of control and variety into the system.  Here, variety becomes a problem that needs to be solved the following way: based on the principle that variety neutralizes variety, the variety of the control unit should be at least equal to the variety of the governed system (Skyttner, 2005).  Thus, massive variety reduction is possible through the organizational recursion, i.e. every systemic level is a recursion, the original copy of its meta-system.

Variety is sometimes multiplied or dampened (which is done through the amplifier or the attenuator).  The transducer is needed to translate information in the communication process based on the premise that the information is transformed every time it crosses the boundary of one unit.  Based on the principles delineated above, there have emerged the four Beer’s principles of organizations (see Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Beer’s Principles of Organizations

Source: Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, p. 133.

According to the principles outlined above, and the concept of a complex organizational system worked out by Beer, there are 5 levels of organization present in the systemic view of the organization’s functioning.

1. Organization One–it includes those units that are to be controlled within an organization (see Fig. 6).
2. Organization Two–it coordinates the parts of System One for them to function harmoniously. It comprises the information system necessary for the execution of decentralized decision-making within System One, and problem-solving between several System Ones (Skyttner, 2005).

Figure 6. The Schematic Representation of System One (Stafford Beer).

Source: Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, p. 134.

3. System Three–it is the ‘here and now’ of the organization; it includes the organization’s functional components such as Marketing, Accounting, Human Resources Departments etc. The System Three is responsible for exercising the following tasks: to maintain the inner-connectivity and exact configuration of System One, and to allocate resources to the parts of System One. However, its own policies and objectives must also be coordinated and aligned with the objectives of System One, and implemented accordingly (Skyttner, 2005).
4. System Four–it is a framework for change and future in an organization, as System Four handles its external environment. The activities entrusted to this system are to handle external contracts, to conduct the development work and corporate planning (Skyttner, 2005). Hence, the task of System Four is to design the future of the organization, and to distribute the information about the environment downward the systems’ hierarchy.  The upward information flows are the alarm signals coming from System Ones, Twos, and Threes for the consideration of System Four.
5. System Five–it is responsible for monitoring the balance in operations of System Four and System Three. It is actually the meta-level of the organization in charge of main policies and investments, infrastructure etc. This level is usually represented by shareholders or the administration of some establishment (Skyttner, 2005).

The functioning of the whole organization with the harmonious coordination of all its systems may be seen on Figure 7.

Figure 7. Beer’s Viable System Model – Complete Scheme.

Source: from Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, p. 136.

The organization is able to promptly react to the changes in the environment; in case something unexpected happens, there is a reflex reaction, i.e. the spontaneous response to a stimulus without the immediate knowledge of the organization’s brain (the reaction similar to the human automated response to the stimulus).  The response may occur without the knowledge of the deciding unit (the brain, i.e. the managing director).  However, afterwards the interpretation of the event takes place, and the decider always becomes aware of the happening (Skyttner, 2005).

Every viable system has a set of indispensible components; they are the controlling units (that are in charge of checking whether rights things are done, and whether they are done correctly), and the units with an evaluating function.  In case the organization reaches inadequate results, the information about the outcome is fed back into the system, and measures are taken to correct the faulty operations for the sake of the whole organization’s functioning (Skyttner, 2005).  The improvement of performance is evaluated by Beer according to 3 indices of achievement:

• Actuality (current achievement level with the existing resources and under existing constraints)
• Capability (what can be achieved under the same constraints and with the given resources)
• Potentiality (what can potentially be achieved in case resources are extended and constraints – eliminated) (Skyttner, 2005).

The formulae according to which Beer calculates the performance indicators are as follows:

A/C = Productivity

C/P = Latency

A/P = Performance

Summarizing all characteristics of an organization enumerated above, and making proper conclusions from the implications they presuppose, Skyttner (2005) has managed to produce a set of commonplace statements about the signs of the organizational well-being and malfunctioning.  Some of them are highly valuable for the assessment and description of an organization system:

• Organizational freedom and autonomy is defined by means of interactions between operational horizontal forces and vertical unifying forces; in case the organization is isolated, the unifying forces disappear
• The degree of operational coherence depends on the purpose of the system
• Complicated systems’ malfunctions refer to the inherent instability and do not occur for a predefined reason
• Systems Two, Three, Four, and Five may strive for autonomy and may become autocratic, consequently–bureaucratic; it is the task of the organization to prevent them from gaining autonomy for the sake of the whole company’s functioning
• System Five collapses in case Systems Four and Three are too weak
• The weakness of System Four may be regarded to the staff function
• There may be mistakes in articulating different levels of recursion etc. (Skyttner, 2005).

Saying some more words about the malfunctions of an organizational system, one should turn to the work of Oshry (2007) in which the author explores the common problems that derive from the organizational blindness typical for the majority of organizational stakeholders at the present period of time.  Oshry represents the organizational system as a compilation of tops, middles, and bottoms, and customers being separated from the organizational framework but still inextricably linked to it.  Hence, the author identifies the key problems in the lack of efficient communication flows, as a result of which the top management level feels burdened by the unmanageable complexity and fight the fire when they should be designing the system’s future.  Middle managers at the same time are confused and torn between the conflicting demands of tops and bottoms, and cannot establish priorities, being alienated and non-cooperative with one another.  Bottoms, in their turn, are trapped in stifling pressures to conform, feel underestimated, and have negative feelings towards tops and middles that distract them from helping the system produce the products and services it is aimed at, i.e. achieve its goals (Oshry, 2007).  This organizational picture described by Oshry (2007) is highly typical for the organizational system of modernity, and illustrates the problems described by Beer.

The interdisciplinary synergy that can be achieved by means of applying systems thinking has become the cutting edge of research for many outstanding scholars in many fields of scholarly inquiry; one of the major contributors to building bonds between sciences is Peter Senge whose work The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization written in 1990 has revolutionized the approach to managing organizations. The hierarchy and interconnections between four key disciplines he drew gave a clear image of managing change, of operating within a system, and leveraging its performance in a holistic way. Senge (1990) recognized personal mastery as the ability to clarify and deepen one’s vision and knowledge, seeing the reality in objective terms; mental models as deeply ingrained assumptions and perceptions shaping the world image, building shared vision as the clue to building commitment in an organization, and team learning as a dialogue leading to shared thinking as key disciplines responsible for the successful systemic management. Integration thereof with the help of systems thinking is a rational and holistic way to managing organizational systems in an innovative and comprehensive way.

Summary

As one can see from the present chapter, systems theory is a widely developed and segmented science applicable to virtually all fields of classical sciences, including mathematics, biology, zoology, anatomy, computer science, social science, political science, psychology, physiology etc.  There are findings of the systems theory trends highly valuable for sciences studying both living and non-living organisms, and the vigorous attention observed to the systems theory at the present period of time as well as throughout the past couple of decades shows that there is much use and value of systems theory in the scientific inquiry of any field.  Roots of the systems theory are visible in the ancient Chinese medicine, in the scientific endeavors of Newton and Leibniz, in the studies of Marx and Hegel, and in many other studies relating to a set of sciences, which implies that the systemic nature of the world has been revealing itself many centuries ago, and people understood that they would sooner or later come to the full awareness of the overwhelming nature of the systems’ presence in the natural and human-made world.

Since its origination, the systems theory has been struggling for recognition, as it has been often incorporated in other sciences and was not initially considered a separate field of inquiry at all.  Nonetheless, it has proven to be an autonomous field of scholarly research since it has its own methodology, its scientific framework, the concepts and problems it investigates, and questions with which it deals on a steady basis.  The systems theory has also been recognized for its inter-disciplinarity, as it is a meta-science connecting all classical sciences, building links and interconnections between phenomena studied by various sciences, and enabling much more universality for the future research.  The fact is obvious–the systems theory has brought about the innovative concept of scientific research, and it has changed the mode of research considerably in response to the stifling pressures of science and technology development.

What is even more significant, the systems theory has proven highly efficient in the study of social and organizational systems.  Throughout the short history of its development, the systems theory has yielded a set of theories and studies referring to the studies of the societal domain (e.g. the system complexity theory of Boulding, the General Living Systems Theory of Miller, the evolutionary theory of Parsons, the Whole World – Systems Theory of Wallerstein etc.), and to the organizational domain (e.g. the Viable System Model).  They may well be applied to the description, discussion, and analysis of social and organizational systems, which will be proven and illustrated in detail in the Depth and Application components.

References

Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems Thinking Basics: From Concepts to Causal Loops. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.

Bertalanfy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.

Campbell, M. M. (2007). Motivational systems theory and the academic performance of college students. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 11-24.

Chun, M., Sohn, K., Arling, P., & Granados, N. F. (2008). Systems Theory and Knowledge Management Systems: The Case of Pratt-Whitney Rocketdyne. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-10.

Clark, T. D., Jones, M. C., & Armstrong, C. P. (2007). The Dynamic Structure of Management Support Systems: Theory Development, Research Focus, and Direction. MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 579-615.

Conte, G., Perdon, A. M., & Wyman, B. (1991). New trends in systems theory: proceedings of the Università di Genova-the Ohio State University joint conference, July 9-11, 1990 (Vol. 7). Genova, Italy: Birkhäuser.

Djaferis, T. E., Schick, I. C. (2000). System theory: modeling, analysis, and control. Springer.

Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Critical systems thinking: current research and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

Ford, D. H. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications.

Gill, C. M. (2010). Martyring Veda: Mildred Pierce and Family Systems Theory. Style, Vol. 44, No’s. 1 & 2, pp. 81-98.

Griffiths, P. E., Gray, R. D. (2005). Discussion: Three ways to misunderstand developmental systems theory. Biology and Philosophy, no. 20, pp. 417-425. Doi: 10.1007/s10539-004-0758-1

Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. New York, NY: Springer.

Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Klir, G. J. (2001). Facets of systems science (2^nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Laszlo, E. (1972). The systems view of the world: A holistic vision for our time. New York: Braziller, 1972.

Lin, Y. (1999). General systems theory: a mathematical approach. New York, NY: Springer.

Maracine, V., & Delcea, C. (2009). How we can diagnose the firms’ diseases using Grey systems theory. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, No. 43(3), pp. 39-55.

Matheny, A. C., & Zimmerman, T. S. (2001). The Application of Family Systems Theory to Organizational Consultation: A Content Analysis. The American Journal of Family Therapy, No. 29, pp. 421–433.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Mesjasz, C. (2010). Complexity of Social Systems. Acta Physica Polonica A, Vol. 117, No. 4., pp. 706-715.

Mossman, J. (2007). Modern World System Theory. Norderstedt Germany: GRIN Verlag.

Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing Systems: Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life. (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood, Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Passmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical systems perspective. New York: Wiley.

Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2006). The Systems Theory Framework of Career Development and Counseling: Connecting Theory and Practices. International Journal of the Advancement of Counseling 28(2): pp. 153-166.

Ragsdell, J., West, D., & Wilby, J. (2002). Systems theory and practice in the knowledge age. New York, NY: Springer.

Richardson, K. A., & Midgley, G. (2007). Systems theory and complexity: Part 4, The evolution of systems thinking, E:CO, Vol. 9, No’s 1-2, pp. 163-180.

Schneider, M. E. (2001). Systems Theory of Motivational Development. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (New York, NY: Elsevier Science Ltd.), pp. 10120-10125.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Skyttner, L. (2005). General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice (2^nd ed.). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.

Sousa-Poza, A., & Kovacic, S. (2008). Research Agenda for Complex Situations. Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 32-39.

Stavenga, G.J. (2006). Ultimate Questions of Science and the Theory of Systems Relations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 37: 111–137.

Tamas, A. (2000). System Theory in Community Development. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://www.tamas.com/samples/source-docs/System_Theory_in_CD.pdf

Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., & Jenkins, D. P. (2008). A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control paradigms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 479–499.

Yi, J. (2009). Cultural Influences on the Survivorship of Families Affected by Childhood Cancer: A Case for Using Family Systems Theories. Families, Systems, and Health, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 228-236.