Theoreticians and practitioners continually present new arguments
addressing the possibility of planning processes in organizations. Sceptics doubt
that it is possible to predict processes and structures of organizations, or to
plan goal oriented organizational changes. They call into question thereby the very
essence of planning behavior in organizations. Systems theories strive for different
emphases. What therein is relevant? The focus of this lecture, without being able
to go into detail about every relevant concept from systems theory, will primarily
be the concept of Synergetics.
1. Developmental branches of systems theory
Although the concept of cybernetics (introduced by N. WIENER in 1948 in the U.S.A.
and VON HOLST in 1950) has currently fallen out of fashion, it remains the point
of departure for the development of concepts which address the question of how patterns
of order can originate at all in complex systems. In the last decades cybernetics
has become divided into differing sub-disciplines, out of which two primary directions
remain significant.
One direction describes the theory of information which in this connection plays
a rather subordinate role; the second, more important direction is represented by
theories of controlling and regulating out of which the known approaches have crystallized.
The common thread in all approaches is the central concept of the system.
In speaking of systems, two characteristics common to all definitions are pertinent:
a.) elements are distinguishable within systems, and b.) these elements exist in
meaningful relation to each other. As one can, for example, bring elements into
purely formal connections, the point here is broadly conceptualized criterion to
order intellectually according to similarities, symmetries, fits, etc. (the Periodic
Table, delusional system, and so on). In all of these cases the conceptual system
is intended as an abstract scheme with which the observer brings order to his perceptions
and ideas. A "meaningful connection" can, however, also exist in the fact
that the elements are causally integrated; accordingly, the connection is not merely
grounded subjectively by the observer, but, rather is palpably encountered as a
real catagory, (central nervous system, reticular or endocrine system). Also, an
organism, group, or a worker in his place of employment would be systems in this
concrete sense, "real systems", as they are called.
The concepts which are subsumed under the label systems theory, are at all times
engaged with real systems, which, accordingly, makes the following system definition
possible:
System = a concrete section out of the physical reality within which interactions
occur and processes are played out. Perhaps the expedience of my explication--my
extensively working out this definition--is not yet clear for all. At this point
my explication serves solely the possibility of showing that systems theoretical
emphases emerging from this definition are applicable in organizations.
What then are the different spurs emerging from systems theory approaches:
*chaos theory
*concepts of self organization
*autopoiesis
Due to the extremely complex and dynamic structure of communication, all of these
approaches lead one to a sceptical estimation of the possibility of planning actions
in organizations! Planability, goal oriented dealings and success are nothing more
than myths. Managers use such linguistic constructions and offer mutual confirmation
of their interpretation in order to bring to light the meaning of their managing
role. In this way, they construct their reality. And, certainly, aspects of these
approaches are in part pertinent, so that the unstable, chaotic and unsteerable
dynamic social systems may not be described with conventional, linear models--which
in turn call out for a new development of methods and theories to explain and analyse
such phenomena. But, it would be fatal were we-- being fascinated by such "butterfly
effects"--to leave stable and predictable structures unexamined.
Blood circulation, breathing, movement and the achievement of living creatures can
remain very stable even in complex and dynamic environmental conditions, as should
be apparent in the following: Let us think of a small evolutionary excurse. Only
those evolutionary species which were capable of successfully self-organizing appropriate
nourishment from their environment could survive. Species which had at their disposal
many faceted and flexible adaptive--organizational--learning capabilities could,
due to these capabilities, better assert themselves in the search for food. In this
connection, language proved helpful to human beings; language which was consciously
used to influence and steer other human beings. Through language goals could be
clarified, work tasks assigned, and rules for communal living communicated. Such
rules function extraordinarily precisely and stably. Human beings have a certain
self organizing competence to achieve stable and predictable performance results
in spite of continual small interruptions (for example, by planning gaps in one's
schedule); or, to put it another way, they can compensate for butterfly effects--a
fact which is all too often neglected. The coin has already been indicated on the
second page in this connection, wherein the system conditions alternate between
phases of instable chaos and stable order.
Energies or processes which are responsible for the final construction of order
are designated attractors in the chaos theory of natural science. Our thesis, then,
is that in the scope of organizational development, as well as in measures taken
in personell management, a function in the organization which is analagous to an
attractor is taken over by influential and competent inividuals. The argument is
this: constructivist systems analyses and team concepts to date have neglected the
compensatory self organizing capability of work groups in response to the additional
capabilities of single individuals functioning as production oriented models. There
is now, nonetheless, a concept of systems theories which is capable of delivering
concepts which may help us describe the changes and developments in organizations,
without becoming completely sceptical -- this is Synergetics.
The basic principles of Synergetics are easily clarified in light of the example
of Benard-Convection. In this case a liquid is heated from underneath. Following
a temperature difference between the bottom and top surface, a macroscopic movement
of the liquid begins in accordance with a specially ordered pattern. The molecules
move in such a way that a rolling movement within the liquid becomes identifyable.
Because of the increase in temperature, the liquid expands and the specific weight
of the single molecules decreases, which results in an upward movement of the liquid
elements. Up until a certain temperature, the upward movement can not overcome the
internal friction. The liquid remains, therefore, in a macroscopic resting condition,
notwithstanding fluctuations. One can represent the potential, i.e. the energy of
a macroscopic body yet to be transformed into movement, with a mountain.
The system structure is recorded along the X axis, (the exact scale of which need
not further interest us here; in general this is n-dimensional), with which we understand
the totality of all of the macroscopic characteristics which become transformed
when potential energy performs its work. The potential system energy is recorded
as a variable along the Y axis; accordingly, the macroscopically organized and consequential
potential energy can produce conditions, whereby it is important that the unorganized
energy can produce thoroughly organized macroscopic conditions. The drop of grease
on the surface of a soup Bs formed, for example, through just such transformations
of energy. The potential landscape of one such ball (which should reflect back upon
the systems condition), shows that in spite of fluctuations within the liquid, i.e.
in spite of the distraction of these balls, they return over and over again to a
stable condition of rest.
When, however, a critical difference in temperature is exceeded, the driving power
prevails. An instable balance is reached in which the liquid molecules, warmed from
below, push upwards and the yet cold liquid elements push downnward due to their
greater weight. As a consequence, configurations of rolling movements in the liquid
are "tested", with the goal of coming to the best possible elevation of
heat, wherein the movement or "mode" which best accomplishes this goal
succeeds. As HAKEN (1988) could mathematically derive, it is precisely the rolling
movement which fulfills these criterion.
For the analogy of the ball in the mountain landscape, the increase in temperature
means that the bottom of the valley becomes increasingly flat and finally, upon
exceeding the critical difference, it takes the form of a hill between two valleys.
The situation for the ball has then become instable. Nonetheless, there are often
numerous such instable conditions in complex systems, not mearly two possibilities.
This process of building structure, as it is postulated by Synergetics, is based
finally on four fundamental catagories: the guiding influences of the environment
on the system (in the case of Benard, for example, the one-sided heating) are summararily
designated as control parameter. The energy introduced from the control parameter
is, at least partially, transformed into macroscopic convection. The truly interesting
question is why the convection proceeds in an orderly fashion and not turbulently.
This effect is based on the quality of the material. At the microscopic level this
system is composed of numerous molecular elements, each of which is marked by chemical
and kinestetic attributes, and is accordingly subject to macroscopically uncontrollable
fluctuations. Each molecule then has a certain path of movement (in English: "mode");
Bischof designates these individual movements, accordingly, as Gestalt sprouts (in
German: Gestaltkeime). These modes agitate one another, thus battling for dominance,
wherein, most of the modes are repressed, only a few remain. However, the fewer
the number of victors, all the more regular is the common pattern of movement which
has been formed by them. The dominant modes determine the macroscopic order of the
system, and enslave the non-dominant modes; they are accordingly designated ordering
parameters.
As the final catagory, the external conditions need to be labelled; in the Benard
example, for example, the form of the container. In this case rigid structures determine
which material belongs to the system at all, thereby chanelling their interaction.
To understand the interaction of these four qualities, one can imagine the four
variables in a negative feedback or regulation system. (For example the room temperature
with PLANT or REGULATED SYSTEM as the room in which the temperature should be controlled;
the GOVERNOR as thermostat; the HOMEOSTATIC VARIABLE as the room temperature; the
MANIPULATED VARIABLE as the warmth produced by the heater; the DISTURBANCE VARIABLE
as the temperature outside).
I have yet only introduced systems theoretical approaches, and indicated the implications
for certain areas which until now have presented a rather pessimistic picture. With
Synergetics, however, there is now a concept with the help of which I can conceptualize
concrete measures for organizational developmental. This then will be the final
part of my lecture.
GTA Home page Deutsch |
GTA
Home page Italiano |
GTA
Home page Français