GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY APPROACHES TO ORGANIZATIONS: SOME PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION BY Newnan S. Peery, Jr. Abstract General Systems Theory appears to have been unctitically accepted as the leading paradigm within administrative theory. This paper examines systems formulations and concludes that they overemphasize growth and show little appreciation for intra-organizational conflict, diversity of values, and political processes within organizations. Neglect of these factors pose limitations for realistic system design, integration, and adaptation. However, the limitations of G.S.T. formulations within administrative theory seem to be more due to the users of G.S.T. than to weaknesses inherent in G.S.T. Introduction In the last twenty-five years, systems has emerged as the key concept within administrative theory. Many recent books in organization theory, personnel, management and administration, use General Systems Theory (G.S.T.) as a basic framework and most recent texts include some reference to systems on the title page. In view of the apparent acceptance of G.S.T. as a major paradigm within the theory of administration, it is remarkable that few attempts have been made to examine its limitations in a critical way.! There- fore, an assessment of the contributions and implications of systems formulation within administrative theory seems appropriate at this time. After a review of early writers on administration, March and Simon concluded that their work had a number of basic limitations. Nearly all G.S.T. formulations within administrative theory have appeared since the assess- ment of the classical writers by March and Simon in 1958. A review of the literature published since that time suggests that most of their criticisms listed above have been met by the proponents of G.S.T. However, it is the central argument of this paper that most systems design formulations within administrative theory continue to have little appreciation for intra- organizational conflict, diversity of values, and political action within 1-Von Bertalanfly, Ludwig, ‘General System Theory, A Critical Review,’ in General Systems Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, VIL, 1962; Peery, Newman S., ‘General Systems ‘Theory: An Inquiry into its Social Philosophy,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 1972, pp. 495-511; Phillips, D. C., ‘Systems Theory — A Discredited Philosophy,” in Schoderbek, Peter, (ed.), Mangaement Systems, New York: John Wiley, 197%. Topyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved1975 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY APPROACHES TO ORGANIZATIONS. 267 organizations. Also, the emphasis on growth by G.S.TT. formulations within administration results in a theory of adaptation which is incomplete and applicable only to growth situations. Administration generally refers to the activities which occupy those in management or administrative positions within organizations. These activities traditionally included such processes as planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling. Systems formulations call for a reorientation of the administrator’s job from focusing on subunit activities, which ate narrowly defined, to activities emphasizing the total organization; to concentrate on the flows and interactions of mattet-energy and information rather than isolated events; and to consider as many variables as possible when making a decision.” Moreover, the principal activities of administration under systems formulations related to the definition of system goals and to the design, integration and evaluation of systems. These activities closely parallel those discussed by the classical writers in administration such as Fayol,? Urwick,* and Mooney and Reiley.5 Before one concludes that systems formulations have contributed little, it is suggested that the perspective of the systems administrator is more broad than those of his earlier counterparts. As evidence of this assertion, systems formulations include the additional administrative activity of environmental interface and the responsibility of system adaptation under conditions of accelerating technological and environmental changes. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine a number of these administrative activities as defined within G.S.T. formulations in an attempt to assess its contributions to our understanding of administration. Systems Design: Differentiation G.S.T. formulations within administrative theory use open systems con- cepts emphasizing the permeability of organizational boundaries. Open systems or, more specifically, organizations, adapt to their environment by becoming more elaborate and this elaboration process results in incteased differentiation of organizational activities which must be planned. Thus, the design of systems and subsystems is a major administrative activity within + Johnson, Richard A., Kast, Fremont E, and Rosenzweig, James E., ‘Systems Theoty and Management,’ Management Science, Vol. 10, No. 2, January 1964, pp. 367-84; Seiler, John A., Systems Anahysis in Organizational Bebavior, Homewood, Ull.: Irwin, 1967; Young, Stanley, ‘Organ ization as a Total System,’ California Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1968, pp. 21-32. * Fayol, Henri, General and Industrial Management, London: Pitman, 1949. 4 Gulick, Luther and Urwick, Lyndall, Papers in the Science of Administration, New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937. ® Mooney, James D. and Reiley, Alan C., Onward Industry, New York: Harper, 1931. Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved268 THE JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES OCTOBER G.S.T. formulations. Basic concepts used when discussing systems design are holism, hierarchy, and goal orientation. In systems design, much attention is given to the holistic or total systems viewpoint, whereby interlevel and intersubsystems interactions are explicitly designed to contribute synergistically to the accomplishment of the total system goal. The establishment or determination of this goal is a major responsibility of the administrator.” Systems formulations rarely, if ever, follow the suggestion of Cyert and March that organizational goals are the result of an organizational political process.* Rather, the total system goal is assumed as a given for the purposes of system design and is factored into a number of subgoals by systems designers. These subgoals provide the focal point for all subsystems design and account for most of the multiple goal seeking activities within complex organizations under G.S.T. formulations.® Thus, multiple goal seeking characterizations found within G.S.T. formul- ations are due more to the factoring process to which the total system goal is subjected than to the diversity of values within the organization.'° The assumption of goal consensus, that is, the acceptance by organizational members of the total system goal, is implicit within G.S.T. formulations of administrative theory. Subsystems are viewed purely as instrumental means to total system goal accomplishment. The only suggestion of a lack of consensus found within G.S.T. discussions is the problem of suboptimization where subsystem optimization adversely affects total system performance. A primary objective of G.S.T. concepts within administration is to avoid this problem; however, it is generally assumed to be due to a lack of rational decision-making or poor subsystem design rather than systemic dissensus. This assumption of value consensus common to G.S.T. proponents poses some fundamental theoretical limitations when applied to social organ- izations. In addition to its inability to deal with the problem of goal displace- ment except in terms of a suboptimization problem, the place of divergent organizational values in the formulation and change of organizational goals, as well as in systems design, is almost always neglected. Also, the assumption of consensus is limited because of its inability to deal with intraorganizational conflict as inherent within authority structures and as a major source of Johnson, R. A. et. al. op. cit. 7 Thompson, James D., Organizations m Action, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. ®Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.z Prentice-Hall, 1963. * Kast, Fremont E. and Rosenzweig, James B., Contingency Views of Organization and Management, Chicago, Ill: Science Research Associates, 1973, PP. 120-37. 39 For examples see Baker, Frank, Organizational Systems: General Systems Approaches to Complex Organizations, Homewood, Ill: Irwin, 1973, pp. 425-37; Tilles, Seymour, ‘The Manager’s Job: ‘A Systems Approach,’ Harvard Business Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, January-February 1963, pp. 73-815 and Young, Stanley, op. cit. ory tt 2001 All Rights Reserved - —____—