Organizations and "systems thinking"

In the latest chapter of his continuing "quest on self-organization and online collaborative spaces", Bas Reus asks the question:"What defines a system?" 

On several occasions in this blog, I have argued against a systems-based view of organizational dynamics (see here, for example). Nevertheless, I thought I'd 'have a go' at answering Bas's question - from the point of view of a 'systems sceptic'!

So here is my 'starter for ten' (or thirteen, to be precise), on the characteristics of "a system".

• A system is an integrated whole, comprising interconnected and interdependent parts or sub-systems.
• A system is bounded – i.e. it has a clearly defined ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.
• “System” is therefore a spatial concept (as opposed to “process”, which expresses the notions of movement and time).
• A system which has a permeable boundary between itself and its (‘external’) environment is defined by systems thinkers as an “open system”.
• A system survives and thrives by adapting to changes in this external environment.
• Rules define how the parts relate to each other and to the whole, as well as how the parts behave dynamically.
• A system has an overall, unified purpose to which the parts (sub-systems) are aligned.
• The ‘whole’ possesses properties that are not present in the parts.
• There is a presumption of agency within the “system” – i.e. the system ‘as a whole’ has the capacity to act.
• Sub-systems are subordinate to the system ‘as a whole’ (which itself may be part of an overarching supra-system … which itself may be part … and so on).
• A system, by definition, behaves systemically.  This means that a change in any part of the system affects the entire system, and also that the behaviour of any part of the system is a function of the system as a whole.
• The system cannot be understood by analyzing the actions of its parts but only by looking at it ‘as a whole’.
• The systems-thinking approach therefore takes a holistic view of the overall system; identifying and intervening at the key “leverage points”, which are seen as the “systemic” causes of action and behaviour.

It seems to me that all of the above ‘system characteristics’ apply to such entities as the human body and other natural phenomena - for example, a severed hand can't function; it exists solely as a part of the body.  The critical question here, though, is whether or not the same can be said in relation to an organization.  My view is that it can’t!  An organization is ‘man-made’ – a social construction.  People have wills of their own.  And so on.  In other words, the dynamics of social interactions are fundamentally different from those that take place in naturally occurring systems.

I guess that the question that 'systems thinkers' might put is how an interactional-based, complex social process view of an organization (or complex responsive process, in Ralph Stacey's terms) would deal, in particular, with characteristics that they see as being "'systemic".  But that will require a separate post -when the mood takes me - and when time allows!

Comments

[Dancrissco]

Thanks for an excellent review on the characteristics of a "system".

[Chris Rodgers]

Hi Dancrissco,

Many thanks for the comment. I'm glad that you found the post helpful.

Cheers, Chris

[Bas Reus]

Chris, thanks for answering my question. This is a clear outline of why you think organizations are not systems. As I said earlier, I don't think they are sytems as well. (see http://basreus.nl/2009/11/03/systems-thinking/) On the other hand, I think that it can help to look at organizations as it were a system. There are some characteristics that are valid for both. But we have to be careful not to simplify the complexity of an organization. The most important assets of organizations are humans, both internal as their interplay with the outside world (such as customers). Thanks again, and I look forward to your next post on this subject!