System Theory/Thinking: Principles of Organizational and Social Systems (part 3)

Albert Einstein, in “Ideas and Opinions” wrote that "A human being is part of the Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us.” He went on and added that, “Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.” (1954). He is clearly pointing out that we, as human beings should not restrict and isolate ourselves within our comfort zone. Einstein compares this scenario as equal to self-imprisonment. If we analyze the next paragraph on system theory by Bertalanffy, we will be able to understand that his primary goal on the application of the system theory is to achieve a view of the whole world as a great civilization.

The system theory, as propounded by Bertalanffy, was to achieve a general perspective; a coherent view of the “world as a great civilization,” a framework in which all disciplines could be understood in their place. As an interdisciplinary area of study, the system theory deals primarily with properties of systems as a whole, and it focuses on organizations and the interdependence of existing relationships. System theory has been also integrated into other areas of study such as sociology, and in recent years, it has been developed to provide techniques for studying systems in holistic ways to supplement traditional methods. System theory has been considered simply as a humanistic extension of the natural sciences.  Bertalanffy (1981) believes that the field of science, speaking in the way of oversimplification, consists of three majors levels which are: (a) physical nature, (b) organisms, and (c) human behaviors. (p. 16). He also added that, “The fact that man lives in a universe, not of things, but of symbolic stand-ins for things, indicates the difference between biological “values” and specifically human values… these symbolic universes may be adaptive and utilitarian in biological sense, as when technology allows man to control nature.” (p. 17).

System Thinking

After careful analyzes of “A Systems View of Man” by Bertalanffy (1981) and “Ideas and Opinions” by Einstein (1954), I analyzed the system thinking as presented by Thornton, Peltier, and Perreault, (2004) about educators and their understanding about schools as complex interdependent social system. They emphasized that with that kind of knowledge, it is possible to move the institution forward. Without these kinds of understanding, they will have little or no progress at all, and they can only address the symptoms and not the root of the problems. They suggest that the leadership should see the entire system as a complex organization with many interdependent components and examine how schools can avoid the barriers to system thinking regarding student achievement. It gives examples of failed educational programs that have been systematically used by veteran teachers. They try to implement them as new programs, but if checked carefully, one will be able to identify their long historical record. This is an example of non-systems thinking. As educators, it is important to avoid creating short-term solutions such as teaching to the test or test taking skills that are ineffective against long-term solutions.  It shows that, when systems thinking becomes an integral part of the instructional process, the benefits of the systems thinking as a method for improving student achievement will be enormous” (pp. 222)

The Fifth Discipline: Principles of Organizational and Social Systems (part 2)

Senge presents the five disciplines as crucial components for learning organization which is built on common vision, teamwork, openness, flexibility, ability to act under unfamiliar conditions, support for one another and so on. The learning organization according to Senge is an organization where people do not simply isolate themselves in their comfort zone and enjoy the exclusiveness. It is a place where together they work and share responsibility based on their common goal by creating teams to confront a diverse range of issues that an organization might face. Senge explains that (a) team learning is a group of different people willing to think together by promoting true dialogues for success. It means getting out of the comfort zone, being open minded, and presenting ideas openly for the sake of the team, (b) building shared vision by assuming that all members of the team are aware and excited about the future they want to achieve for the organization they are creating by doing all they can in order to become successful, (c) mental models as the ability to separate things, and being able and capable of working on assumptions, and to discuss and deal openly with them. It is about understanding one’s functionality, (d) personal mastery which focuses on developing personal visions and goals by improving the ability to accomplish, and be always positive in believing in oneself, and (e) system thinking, which is the ability of examining, improving, and fixing the entire system instead of isolated components of the organization. As an example, let us analyze a case by Yongmi Schibel regarding “Integration and the Role of Local Authorities” (2003) in Europe, and the way they are dealing with this matter.

After a review of “Integration and the Role of Local Authorities” by Schibel (2003), I concluded that the European Union is concerned with the issue of immigrant integration and their lack of cohesiveness. It is true that as a whole, they have stepped up border security in order to avoid ‘terrorist’ problems, but they also are dealing with the issue of population, especially with immigrants of an Arabic or Islamic background. Despite government efforts toward community integration, the majority of immigrants are still residing in urban areas, where in many instances there are less jobs or economic opportunities, resulting in competition among themselves. Because of this matter, there have been many public debates in Europe regarding how to welcome economically viable immigrants versus those who are not needed for economic prosperity. There is an interest to integrate immigrants and minorities into European Union’s economic and social mainstream communities and governments are looking into providing housing, health care benefits, social protection, and employment as part of the integration process.

Civil servants in Europe have been analyzing different approaches of social integration and inclusion, and reports have shown that the security and equal treatment of residents is crucial for any concept of integration. Without security one does not feel like a valid member of his/her community/society and has little incentive for integration, and the government has to play the pivotal role as the central force in legislating fairness, equal treatment, and equal rights, as well as laws against discrimination. The framework for integration policies argues that governments at all levels need to provide adequate resources, administrative support, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of integration activities.

It is clear that the civil society makes important contributions in terms of social integration, but they also need to hold their government accountable in order to solve the issue of integration. The European commission supported social and civil partner organizations in promoting a conference in Brussels on “Immigration: The Role of Civil Society in Promoting Integration”. They discussed labor relations, social integration policies, citizenship, and political rights. Officials called for a stronger link between immigration and integration policies and national employment strategies. Researchers have found and proposed some solutions for effective integration. They propose low cost housing, training of local public servants in multiculturalism and cross-cultural communication, support for minorities, ethnic arts, and culture. The study also makes powerful recommendations about the continuing government responsibility in promoting integration (p.99 - 103).

Honestly, one can conclude that there exists a high level of cohesiveness in Europe as a whole and there is a deep understanding of the issue they are dealing with. They are focusing on the resolution as a system and not an isolated process by using pragmatic system theory and knowledge management principles.   

Goals and Scholars: Principles of Organizational and Social Systems (part 1)

This article is about understanding system thinking and system theories. It presents both theoretical and pragmatic dimensions from prominent scholars, and perhaps some solutions to help immigrant populations achieve their dreams of integration and citizenship. In this work, I am seeking (a) to analyze and understand the ongoing changes in the laws of the United States and the impact they will have on immigrants, (b) to study the participation/collaboration of immigrants in organizations throughout the United States, (c) to evaluate multiple organizational and social systems, including citizenship assistance programs, government policies, and academic papers, as well as (d) to seek to learn the possibilities of creating an immigrant virtual center for citizenship study and professional development/improvement, and (f) to understand the thinking behind theories of organization and social systems from prominent scholars, and the way their theories have affected organizational development. This study will also analyze and place much of emphasis on principles of knowledge management.

It is apparent that system thinking has revolutionized and influenced changes in terms of organizational and social systems, and the way they should operate. Because of my interests in multiple dimensions of system thinking and theories, I examined Barbara Pasamonik in her study, “The Paradoxes of Tolerance”, analyzes the paradoxes of political correctness and the faith in the positive value of tolerance. This is defined as social virtue and a political phenomenon that allows the coexistence of people in a peaceful manner, regardless of their views or cultural differences. Pasamonik (2004) said that even if we are not tolerant, we may behave as such if we are merely indifferent or pragmatic, but she acknowledges that some people question if tolerance is right or wrong, and the answer depends on the individual case (p.206).

Considering the importance of this topic, I do not want to assume that the audience knows the scholars I intend to analyze. For this matter, I begin by comparing them and by presenting a brief introduction of each one of them before moving forward with this work.

Who Are These Scholars?

Peter Senge:  Was born in 1947 and graduated with a degree in engineering from Stanford, and continuing on for a Masters in Social Systems Modeling at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and consequently went for his Ph.D. in Management. Currently, he is a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He is founding chair of the “Society for Organizational Learning,” and his current areas of special interest focus on decentralizing the role of leadership in organizations in order to boost the capacity of all people to work productively toward common goals. Senge (1990) sees organizations as places where people can expand their capacity to create the results they seek, where new ideas are encouraged, collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together (p.3).

Ludwig Von Bertalanffy: A native of Austria, Ludwig von Bertalanffy was born in a small village near Vienna in September of 1901. In 1918 he started his studies with history of art and philosophy at the University of Innsbruck and then at the University of Vienna. He finished his Ph.D. with a thesis on the German physicist and philosopher Gustav Theodor Fechner in 1926, and published his first book on theoretical biology two years later (Modern Theories of Development). As one of the most important theoretical biologists of the first half of this century, Von Bertalanffy developed the “Open Systems,” and the “General System Theory,” and was one of the founding fathers and vice-president of the “Society for General System Theory”. Bertalanffy began formulating “Systems Theory” in the early 1920's but did not publish his ideas until after the Second World War. He worked in Vienna, Austria, many areas in the United States, Great Britain, and Canada as a scholar, and published over 200 articles on theoretical biology and “General System” in different journals and countries. During 1937 and 1938, as a Rockefeller Fellow at the University of Chicago, United States of America, he gave his first lecture about the “General System Theory” as a methodology that is valid for all sciences.

Stafford Beer:  He was British scholar who was born in 1926 and died in 2002. He studied Philosophy at London University. He is a provocative, creative, and outstanding thinker in the field of management. While serving in the British Army, Beer became involved in operations research during the Second World War, and he was quick to identify the advantages it could bring to business. In the mid 1970s, he renounced material possessions and moved to mid-Wales, where he lived in an almost austere style, developing strong interests in poetry and art. In the 1980s he established a second home on the west side of downtown Toronto and lived part of the year in both residences. Beer kept active with work in his field and in 1994 he published “Beyond Dispute: The Invention of “Team Syntegrity”, a formal model, built on the idea of systems for non-hierarchical problem solving. Also, in “The Heart of Enterprise” Beer makes it clear that every enterprise is a system, and that they must be viable. He believes that we need laws that govern the capacity of any enterprise to maintain independent existence and  “The Heart of Enterprise” provides many examples and Beer provides many useful analytical frameworks for understanding and managing an enterprise, be it public or private.

Howard T. Odum: He was born in 1924 and died in 2002. He was an American ecologist and a scholar who played an important role in the development of the field of biogeochemistry by creating the idea of embodied energy as a unifying principle of energy flow through living systems. He defined it as a measure of energy used in the past and thus is different from a measure of energy now. Odum earned his B.S. in Zoology at the University of North Carolina and stopped his education for three years where he joined the U.S. Armed Forces. He later went to Yale where he earned his Ph.D. in Zoology. With his brother Eugene, he started the first English-language textbook on systems ecology, Fundamentals of Ecology, which was published in 1953 and had a major influence. Odum’s knowledge of the field led him to write 15 books and over 300 papers.

Kenneth Boulding: He was born in Liverpool, England in 1910 and died in 1993. As an undergraduate student at Oxford University, he published his first paper in 1932. In America he spend some time at Harvard and to Chicago where he wrote several papers on Capita theory. In 1937 when he came back from Scotland, he wrote the two-volume textbook, Economic Analysis - the epitome of the Neoclassical- Keynesian Synthesis. He wrote, "I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize – not, I suppose, at once, but in the course of the next ten years – the way the world thinks about economic problems" (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/keynes/keynesrev.htm). He insisted on bringing in more aspects of economic behavior into economic life. Boulding was also a poet, ethicist, and social philosopher, and as his practical efforts demonstrate, a scholar of social conflict, war, and peace.