The Definition of General Systems Theory - Book Report/Review Example

General Systems Theory Today it is possible to define at least three directions applying for concept of a metatheory in management. One of them is aGeneral Systems Theory founded by Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972) who took care about a so-called "compartmentalization" of science: "The physicist the biologist, the psychologist and the social scientist are, so to speak, encapsulated in a private universe, and it is difficult to get word from one cocoon to another." (Roeckelein, 1998) Bertalanffy stated that definite general ideas could have significance across a wide spectrum of disciplines. Specifically, they try to show that many of the most essential things studied by scientists - "nuclear particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, ecological communities, groups, organizations, societies, solar systems - are all subsumable under the general rubric of system". (Roeckelein, 1998) The definition of General Systems Theory Different scientists define GST differently. System theory is mostly concerned with questions of relations, structures, and also of interdependence, rather than with the constant qualities of the subject. Webster defines a system as a "regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole, which is in, or tends to be in, equilibrium". Negandi called it "a system's attributes, which are the interdependence and interlinking of various subsystems within a given system, and the tendency toward attaining a balance, or equilibrium forces one to think in terms of multiple causation in contrast to the common habit of thinking in single-cause terms". (Roeckelein, 1998) Generally, General Systems Theory is a special scientific and logic methodological concept of research of the objects, which represent systems. How systems theory applies to management/leadership How the leadership in the organization is represented from the point of view of General Systems theory M. Memford formulates alternative understanding of organizational leadership. Each social system including the organization consists of set of social subsystems, down to the separate individuals included in the organization. Complexity of construction of organizational system complicates the incorporated functioning subsystems, reduces efficiency of goals achievement in the organisation. The solution of this problem needs the definition of the role requirements borders of expected actions of organization members. Leaders are those individuals, whose roles demand that they supervise and coordinate actions of two or more subsystems. They carry out a boundary role between systems or subsystems. Leadership includes interaction with subsystems of various levels, and also with other systems and wider social environment. Leadership is shown in those actions, which are carried out by the individual as the carrier of certain boundary role in the organization. Efficiency of the leader is connected not with the traditional optimal form of his behaviour, but with the consequences of his actions during realization of a boundary role. His primary goal is the choice of such kind of actions, which would increase adaptation of all system as a whole. (Mumford 1986) How the organization will benefit from the systems theory According to GST the three main perspectives of organizations are a rational system, a natural system and an open system. The rational system and the natural system view the organization as a closed system detached from the external environment. Unlike closed systems, in the open system, organization is open to the external environment and depends on it. There are the following subsystems defined: Production and Technical Subsystem, Supportive Subsystem, Maintenance Subsystem, Adaptive subsystem, Managerial subsystem. According to the General Systems Theory the organizations which successfully decentralize the decision making system transforming it into self-regulated subsystems, will be more stable and powerful in the modern and complicated environment, than those who struggle for preservation of the centralized decision making model. General systems theory gives a group a connection to incompatible facts providing better problem solving methods. It also provides the understanding of relations between systems. It makes them to use usual material (spelling, biology, math, physics, reading, grammar) providing the additional understanding of how these parts are connected to make a whole. How this approach differs from traditional hierarchical management Let's try to understand this on the example of modernization of management organizational structures, according to R. Greene. Hierarchy control systems is reflected in so-called organizational structures of management concerning static models of managing system of the enterprise which represent an internal structure, that is the way of the organization of elements into system, set of steady connections and relations between them. The structure of management is the form within the framework of which the changes proceed, and there are the preconditions for transition of the system into the new state. (Greene 1999) The evolution of organizational structures is first of all connected with the interpersonal relations, they actually are the representations of the appropriate social and public forms, such as a community, a clique, a clan, a project, a network. The hierarchical structures of management reflecting such forms of relations as a clique, clan are the first regularly developed models of organizational structures. The "Progressive" structures of adaptive type reflecting planning and integrated relations are matrix, program-oriented and problem-oriented. Also it is the structures based on the group method: team, task-oriented, brigade and integrated organizational structures. Thus the matrix structure reflecting a strengthening in organizational construction of the company of two management directions - vertical and horizontal - is one of the most difficult. However, the theory of systems does not tell the heads, what elements of the organization are especially important as systems. It does not determine the basic variables influencing function of management, does not tell, how the environment influences the results of activity of the organization. Summary of concepts and ideas Generally, General Systems Theory is already recognized as better than hierarchical for organization. However, it is still actively researched by scientists who try to determine what GST stricture is better. According to Roeckelein the purpose of general systems theory is to discover models that can be applicable across different areas such as sociology, agriculture, business, music, psychology, metallurgy, and others. One of the most accepted of such complex models is a closed system model where every system may be provided in terms of ''openness/closeness'' and also in terms of how self-dependent or autonomous it is concerning outside influences. Various examples of such systems are an eddy in a stream as open system, the solar system as closed system, an ant's actions also as closed system, an even-tempered person as open system, education theory in psychology (a limited, or open and closed, system), and personality psychology. Differences are made between the concepts systems, general systems, and systems analysis when systems applies to a model within a discipline (like communication system, administrative system, governmental system, etc.), general systems refers to common models that are incorporated into two or more fields, and systems analysis is connected with the analysis of the structure of specific systems. Greene therefore states that management, and furthermore organizational management is a system process, which is viewed as a set of principles, methods, means, forms and managerial processes. Thus, everything that is necessary for management of complex subjects of public institute level is quite expressible in natural language. That means that we can't approach to such systems as to closed systems because their modelling closing is fraught with loss of the basic, essential properties of the subject. (Greene, 1998) In this connection there are a number of natural questions: what an information subsystem is, if the theory of open systems is deeply informational itself. How can we estimate system effectiveness as a whole at the presence of so many subsystems - by the efficiency of each subsystem or by a cumulative parameter of efficiency Why are social and cultural subsystems absent in the subsystems determination and how they influence managerial process However, these questions are rather new even for professionals. (Greene 1999). Greene states that the model of the organization as open system consists of three components: a) an input, b) transformations and c) an output. The input is understood as the information, materials, capital, and manpower resources. Processing and transformation of inputs (b) depends on management efficiency. If the organization of management is effective, then at the output in a process of transformation the production or services, additional cost is formed. As a result there are additional outputs: social responsibility, a market share, a growth of the organization, a satisfaction of workers. (Greene 1999) The system approach views the organization as the open system consisting of several interconnected subsystems. The organization receives resources from the environment, processes them and gives out the goods and services to the environment. The theory of systems helps the heads understand the interrelations between separate parts of the organization, between the organization and environment. This theory also helps to integrate contributions of all schools, which in different times dominated in the theory and practice of management. General System's theory is still actively researched by scientists. The main lack of the theory of systems is that it does not determine the basic variables influencing function of management, does not speak about the influence of the results of the organization activity on the environment. References Greene, R. R. (1999). Human Behavior Theory and Social Work Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine De Gruyter Roeckelein, J. E. (1998). Dictionary of Theories, Laws, and Concepts in Psychology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press Stickland, F. (1998). The Dynamics of Change: Insights into Organisational Transition from the Natural World. London: Routledge Mumford M. (1986) Leadership in organizational context. A conceptual approach and its applications // J. of Appl. Soc. Psychol. Read More