See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316283969

Systems theory

Chapter · March 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 46,372

2 authors:

Chih-Hui Lai Sapphire Lin

National Chiao Tung University Nanyang Technological University
38 PUBLICATIONS   1,383 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

disaster response resilience View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chih-Hui Lai on 21 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Systems Theory
CHIH-HUI LAI
National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan

SAPPHIRE HUILI LIN

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Historical development

Originating in biology, systems theory was developed in the 1950s against the backdrop
of a need to have a set of systematical theoretical constructs to discuss the empirical
world (Boulding, 1956; von Bertalanffy, 1951). “General systems theory is the skele-
ton of science in the sense that it aims to provide a framework or structure of systems
on which to hang the flesh and blood of particular disciplines and particular subject
matters in an orderly and coherent corpus of knowledge” (Boulding, 1956, p. 208).
Another origin of systems theory came from cybernetic systems theory in mechani-
cal engineering (Ashby, 1954; Wiener, 1948). The term cybernetics refers to control and
communication in the machine system (Almaney, 1974). Similar to general systems
theory, the concepts of cybernetic systems theory were found useful in explaining the
behaviors of social systems extended from machine systems. Specifically, cybernetic
systems rely on different feedback or control mechanisms to help the system maintain
a stable state. For example, if an organization’s marketing strategy fails to increase the
sales record, the feedback from the consumers and the market will force the organiza-
tion to change its strategy in order to survive and maintain its desired goal of keeping
up its sales performance. The disruptions or variations in the environment will thus
force the system to respond and adjust in order to maintain this state of equilibrium.
The third source of systems theory in organizational communication research is struc-
tural functionalism (Parsons, 1951). It emphasizes the functions fulfilled by system
components as the system responds to environmental demands. The four functions of
actions, including adaptation, goal attainment, pattern maintenance, and integration,
are necessary to maintain a system’s existence and effectiveness, as well as the system’s
goal of seeking equilibrium. Specifically, adaptation involves system components’ open
exchanges with the environment in order to acquire resources to maintain the develop-
ment of the system. Goal attainment concerns the use of resources to accomplish goals
with regard to other systems in the environment. Pattern maintenance and integration
focus on the development and maintenance of a system’s symbolic frames of reference
and use of resources for internal coordination.
Because of its congregation of origins from multiple disciplines (engineering, math-
ematics, biology, physics, economics), the principles and constructs of systems theory

The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Craig R. Scott and Laurie Lewis (Editors-in-Chief),
James R. Barker, Joann Keyton, Timothy Kuhn, and Paaige K. Turner (Associate Editors).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc203
2 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

are meant to be applicable to organisms and human behaviors in different disciplines.

Systems theory can thus be seen as a macro-level theory that can be used to understand
biological, physical, and social systems (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972).
By the 1970s, systems theory was eagerly embraced by organizational researchers
partly due to the realization that classical models were inadequate in accounting
for complex organizational behaviors. At that time, systems theory gained traction
especially through a series of seminal works closely tied to organizational commu-
nication (Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977; Goldhaber, 1974; Monge, 1973; Thayer,
1968). Compared to classical models that emphasize minimization of interactions and
autocracy, systems theory is based on the premises of maximization of interaction
and democratic governance (Scott, 1974). Moreover, the adoption of systems theory
was fueled by the increasing realization about the complex and rapidly changing
nature of organizational environments (Ashmos & Huber, 1987). Departing from
the machine metaphor, systems theory offers an alternative lens of understanding
organizations as organisms (Morgan, 1986). Not surprisingly, systems theory served as
the foundation of important theory development at that time, including the influential
open systems approach (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Because of systems theory’s abstractness,
the contingency view was later proposed, emphasizing the specific relationships
within and among subsystems of the organization as well as its relationships with the
environment in order to understand how organizations operate and adapt in response
to the conditions in the environment (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Despite the dominance of the interpretive-critical scholarship in the 1980s and 1990s,
systemic thinking was reflected in organizational communication research through
Weick’s (1979) model of organizing, which will be detailed later in the entry. Moreover,
structural functionalism’s focus on function fulfillments of system components also
facilitated the predominance of quantitative network analysis to study organizational
systems (Barnett & Rice, 1985; Rice & Richards, 1985). Reflecting on the introduction
of new systems theories such as chaos theory and complex adaptive systems theory,
Poole (1997) advocated the return to systems approaches to study organizational
phenomena, especially those that were presumably of interest to interpretive-critical
research. Indeed, systems concepts were adopted by scholars, including interpretive
and critical scholars, to investigate organizational communication topics such as orga-
nizational change in the 1990s and early 2000s. In sum, systems theory represents a
conceptual system of organizational theories and has become an important foundation
of organizational research over the past 60 years. Due to its potential to explicate
complex organizational behavior while considering agency, systems theory has become
“part of the DNA of organizational communication research” (Poole, 2014, p. 50).

Key concepts

Systems theory aims to explicate dynamic relationships and interdependence between

components of the system and the organization–environment relationships. A sys-
tem is established based on the structure and patterns of the relationships emerging
from interactions among components. As a result of these emergent patterns and
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 3

relationships, each system is different from another. In other words, unlike biological
systems, components of social organizations have their own wills and intended purposes.
In general, systems theory focuses on three levels of observations: the environment,
the social organization as a system, and human participants within the organization.
This multi-level focus can be traced back to the original pursuit of initiating dialogue
among disciplines through systems theory. It is argued that this pursuit can be
accomplished through different ways. One of them is to find general phenomena
that are observable across many disciplines. For instance, it is common to find in any
social systems where aggregations of individuals interact with one another and with
the environment and develop interdependent relationships. The biological notions
of population change and individuals’ interaction with the environment can apply
to human organizations. Populations refer to the aggregates of individuals defined
by common attributes and experiencing dynamic growth and declines of individual
components. Each population exhibits dynamic patterns of its own and engages in
dynamic interactions with other populations. These are essentially the tenet of the
ecological and evolutionary perspectives, which will be explained in a later section.
The other approach is to examine the empirical fields through a nine-level hierarchy,
arranged according to the complexity of the constituent unit of behavior. These nine lev-
els include: frameworks, clockworks, thermostat, cell, plant, animal, human organism,
social organization, and transcendental system (Boulding, 1956). Systems at levels four
(cells) or above are seen as more open and complex, operating on permeable boundaries
and the mechanisms of self-maintenance (Schneider & Somers, 2006). The advantage of
this latter approach in the form of a hierarchy helps expose the theoretical and empirical
gaps that have not been covered in different disciplines. For example, it was shown that
in the 1970s, theoretical systems were not fully developed to understand open systems
and social organizations. This hierarchy is also used to explicate the degree to which the
characteristics of agency are realized in systems. Six levels of the continuum include
determined systems, reactive systems, goal driven systems, problem-solving systems,
self-aware systems, and multivocal systems (Poole, 2014). In determined systems (level
one), there is a lack of consideration of agency because systems function in a prede-
termined fashion whereas in multivocal systems (level six), agents can dynamically
construct multiple selves in different situations that involve problem-solving and moni-
toring processes. In other words, if a system possesses higher levels of agency, it is likely
to be flexible and adaptable to change.
According to systems theory, components of each system are structured in a hier-
archical ordering, and components are interdependent with one another in the system
to the extent that one component cannot function without the support of other com-
ponents. Components of a system can be tightly coupled, where the components are
closely interdependent, or loosely coupled, where the smaller subsets of tightly con-
nected components are loosely connected to one another. At the organizational level,
the organizations and other organizations in the environment are also interdepen-
dent on one another. Underlying this interdependence are the permeable boundaries,
both within and among organizations. Invariably, social organizations have to main-
tain permeable boundaries of a certain degree in order to receive materials or export
products to survive. The process of receiving resources (input) and exporting products
4 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

(output) is the exchange process. When the raw materials are received, components of
a system will work together to transform the materials into products exported to the
environment. During this throughput process, the system is engaged in two types of feed-
back mechanisms: negative and positive. Negative feedback is to correct errors in order
to maintain the current state of the system whereas positive feedback is to change the
system through improvement or growth. In response to the change in the environment,
a system develops the capacity to become complicated as the conditions of the environ-
ment become complex. This matching capacity of requisite variety is important to make
sure the organization can function and survive in different circumstances.
Accordingly, because of these processes, the totality of a system is greater than the
sum of its part, which is the concept of holism. This links to the uniqueness of every sys-
tem based on interaction and interdependence among components. Interactions among
components give rise to the structure and the properties of a system, which is known
as emergence. Emergence therefore offers explanations for the higher-order entity by
lower-level activities and interactions. Emergence also refers to the unexpected and
surprising results of a system, especially a complex system, derived from such lower-
level activities and interactions. The interdependence between components means that
a system can reach a final state through multiple conditions and paths, which is known
as equifinality. The open exchange with the environment helps the system develop the
capacity to grow and survive without deteriorating, which is called negative entropy.
A system desires to maintain its steady state or homeostasis by balancing the energy
imported. If the produced output is below the goal based on the feedback, a system
will import more resources and adjust the throughput process in order to maintain its
desired state.
Similar to the biological taxonomy, theorists also attempted to use the different ways
organizations interact with the environment in developing taxonomy of organizations.
For example, Katz and Kahn (1966) divided organizations into four classes: productive or
economic organizations (e.g., farms, mining corporations), managerial-political organi-
zations (e.g., governments, advocacy groups), maintenance organizations (e.g., schools,
churches), and adaptive organizations (e.g., universities, research organizations).
In sum, systems theory espouses a dynamic view of social organizations, with perme-
able boundaries and stable state realized through interdependent relationships among
the components. Although systems theory has been extensively applied in organiza-
tional research, concerns or critiques are also raised about its environmentally deter-
ministic orientation. Organizations are treated as biological organisms undergoing the
life cycle of growth, maturity, and death; thus, chances for adaptations may be frowned
upon or ignored (Schneider & Somers, 2006). Later theories are able to address this
issue by focusing on the active enacting role of human participants of organizations.

Research areas: Application of systems theory

When general systems theory’s hierarchy of systems was introduced in the 1950s,
theoretical and empirical gaps existed for levels 4 and above in Boulding’s hierarchy.
That is, much less was known about the mechanism of self-maintenance in the social
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 5

world. Nonetheless, theories listed below have filled these gaps over time by enriching
the constructions of various mechanisms of sustaining a social system. Undoubtedly,
applications of systems approaches to organizational communication cover a wide
range of theories, including structural functionalism, communication network models,
structuration theory, chaos theory, complex adaptive systems and self-organizing
systems theories, social systems theory, and self-reflective systems theory (Poole,
2014). Below is an elaboration of four systems approaches that have gained growing
interest in organizational communication research.

Information environment and theory of organizing

In explaining organizations, the open systems view holds dual emphases of under-
standing the relationship between organizations and the environment as well as the
process of communication in helping organizations respond to the interaction with
the environment. Therefore, under this view, communication is the substance of orga-
nizing, and communication among organizational members becomes a foundational
force of constructing shared reality and thus the system of meanings. An organiza-
tion can be defined in terms of processes of organizing, which are directed toward
information processing, and in particular, removal of equivocality in the information
environment enacted by actors of the organization (Weick, 1979). Weick’s systems view
contends that the environment exists through actors’ retrospective interpretations of
actions/retrospective attentional processes. Hence, actors adapt to the environment that
they create. Moreover, the processes of organizing rely on interlocked behaviors. That
is, individual behaviors are contingent on the behaviors of others. Such interdependent
and interlocked behaviors are critical in resolving equivocality, which requires actors to
interlock sets of their behaviors in order to produce certainty.
According to Weick, a group is formed after actors show a convergence of shared
ideas and interest, which then activates the collective structure in the form of repeti-
tive cycles of interlocked behaviors. These interlocked behaviors are then embedded in
enactment (variation), selection, and retention (V-S-R) processes.
The variation process involves the creation of information to which the organization
adapts. Using the criteria developed over time, the selection process removes equivocal-
ity by admitting the portions that fit the criteria. The newly retained items are integrated
with the items previously retained, which helps remove further equivocality.
According to Weick, human organizations exhibit choices at two points in this evo-
lutionary process: linking retention to enactment (how to act) and linking retention to
selection (what to select). That is, in response to a new and current situation, human
actors can decide whether to use the existing selection criteria (or a revision in selec-
tion criteria) and use the existing repertoires of responses (or a revision in the variation
process). Weick’s model of organizing has been widely used in different domains of
organizational studies, especially in the change processes of organizations, organiza-
tional learning, and organizational resilience. It showed that rare events serve as an
important source of variation for an organization to revisit and reorganize the exist-
ing routines, which can help improve response to future interruptions. In other words,
organizations can learn through rare events.
6 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

Communication network perspective

In the open systems theory, an organization and its members are viewed as a collec-
tive, which is linked through networks of relationships. Within the system, individuals
engage in patterned activities in the form of networks of relationships, which in turn
results in the construction and enactment of the whole organization (Katz & Kahn,
1966). Moreover, the systems traditions seek a holistic understanding of organizational
phenomena. Therefore, it follows that multiple levels must be considered in the inves-
tigation of organizational phenomena (Farace et al., 1977). This focus on cross-level
analysis is also aligned with the multilevel nature of communication inherent in the
network perspective. Communication networks refer to “the patterns of contact that
are created by the flow of messages among communicators through time and space”
(Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 3). In the organizational context, communication net-
works are often further classified into two types: formal communication networks (e.g.,
roles, positions) and informal communication networks that emerge in interaction.
Implicit in the communication network perspective is a picture of fluid boundaries
across units within organizations and across organizations. It is worth mentioning that
communication networks in this open systems view actually have more to do with
hierarchical structure and roles, instead of the emergent structure that is embraced in
contemporary network research.

Ecological and evolutionary perspectives

The way an organization is connected to its environment has consequences on the
functioning and performance of the organization. Various theories have attempted to
explicate this contingency view of organization–environment relationships. The two
approaches commonly cited in studying the role of organizational environments are the
population ecology model (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) and the resource dependence
model (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). These two approaches converge on the importance
of environments in organizational decisions and structures but diverge on the role of
environmental selection. The former emphasizes the processes of how organizations
are differentially selected and determined by their fitness, measured by structural
forms to their environments, while the latter focuses on active, managerial processes
of selection enacted by organizations in adapting themselves to the environment. In
other words, selection and adaption are the two key mechanisms that can characterize
these two approaches, respectively.
The population ecology model addresses the population changes manifested in
differential rates of births and deaths of structural forms, whereas the resource
dependence model examines organizations’ internal dynamics and decision-making in
response to external forces. Hence, these two approaches also differ in the level of anal-
ysis: the population ecology model focuses on species of organizations and the resource
dependence model is more concerned with individual organizations. In the meantime,
a broader ecological and selective perspective focuses on the selection mechanism of
certain organizational characteristics that fit the environmental demands; however,
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 7

the evolutionary and adaptive counterpart highlights the active and adaptive processes
enacted by organizations as they evolve.
In fact, under the resource dependence model, organizations are embedded in net-
works of relationships as they develop dependent relationships with external sources
of resources. But organizations are able to strategically negotiate their interdependence
in the process of changing and responding to the environment, which represents
the evolution of organizations, environments, and interorganizational relations
over time (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). These sets of strategies enacted by organiza-
tions represent variations of interorganizational linkages, which can in turn affect
organizational outcomes. The emphasis on strategies is also central to the internal
evolutionary view, or so-called intraorganizational ecological perspective, which
delves into the evolution processes of internal dynamics manifested through the V-S-R
mechanisms.

Complex adaptive systems and self-organizing systems theory

The chaotic and vulnerable situation in today’s organization environment may embody
nonlinear and spontaneous interactions within and among organizations. The theory
of complex adaptive systems draws on the concepts from systems theory, population
ecology, and information processing (Dooley, 1997). In a complex adaptive system, spon-
taneous order emerges out of chaos through self-organization. Compared to systems
theory’s emphasis on organizational-level of transformation process, complexity theory
focuses on the mechanisms conducive to self-organization (Yoon & Kuchinke, 2005).
Hence, the concepts of open systems theory might not be readily applicable to explain
complex adaptive systems. For example, the initial conditions under which complex-
ity adaptive systems are faced may influence the later adaption, which indicates path
dependence, instead of equifinality. Moreover, complex adaptive systems are open sys-
tems, yet with the aim for adaptation and evolution, instead of homeostasis. Rather than
being passively determined by the environment, complex adaptive systems reflect the
active role played by components of a system in adapting to external changes through
emergent self-organization (Schneider & Somers, 2006).
Self-organizing systems theory suggests that self-organizing systems have the
following features: mutual causality between components, self-generative components,
far-from-equilibrium state, and openness to the environment (Contractor, 1994; Con-
tractor & Seibold, 1993). A group communication context serves as an illustrative
example. Members’ communication activity shapes and is shaped by group norms.
This exhibits mutual causality, or a circular relationship, between system components.
Members’ communication activities will then be reinforced if they are consistent with
group norms. This exemplifies autocatalysis, which refers to the situation where one
component is causally influenced by another, resulting in increases in the original com-
ponent. Members’ engagement in group tasks is influenced by and reflects their prior
training and accumulated experience in the organization, which corresponds with the
process of autopoiesis. That is, the system operates in a far-from-equilibrium condition
because it “imports a large amount of energy from outside the system, uses the energy
to help renew its own structures” (Contractor & Seibold, 1993, p. 539). If members
8 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

have a sudden change in their work assignments, both their communication activity
and new group norms will evolve accordingly. This demonstrates that self-organizing
systems are open to random variations from the environment.
Building on self-organizing systems theory, Luhmann’s (1995) social systems theory
proposes that systems self-organize through communication. Specifically, a system
operates in a closed and self-referential manner through self-management where
communicative processes recursively influence and reproduce one another. In other
words, it is through communication that a system emerges and sustains itself and in
doing so, it distinguishes itself from the environment. By establishing the boundary
with the environment, the system is able to selectively respond to environmental
perturbations and develop interdependencies with the environment. Note that as one
type of self-referential systems, organizational systems are constituted primarily by
communication pertaining to decisions.
In addition to these four streams of research applying systems approaches, one way
to better understand extant systems research is through the following three dimensions:
the degree of complexity of a system, the degree of agency a system or the components
of a system are assumed to possess, and the formal/informal representation of a system
(Poole, 2014). Complexity can be decided by factors such as the number of compo-
nents, density of relationships among the components, nonlinear relationships among
the components, and whether the components can function independently. Agency
encompasses the aspects such as responsiveness to cues for action, meaningfulness of
action, deliberative problem-solving and reflexive monitoring of action, and awareness
of agency, other agents, and the environment. Formal representation draws on formal
systems approaches such as mathematical or computational methods to model orga-
nizational phenomena whereas informal representation applies systems concepts to
describe, explain, and understand organizational phenomena. According to this classifi-
cation, Weick’s theory of organizing represents the focus on moderate to high complex-
ity, moderate to high agency, and informal representation. Communication network
models and self-organizing systems can be classified as focusing on moderate complex-
ity, low to moderate agency, and formal representation.

Research areas: Practical applications of systems theory

Since its introduction into the organizational context in the 1960s, systems theory and
its related theories and concepts have been applied to the study of organizations – being
used as theoretical frameworks to understand how organizations function in relation
to the various environments and factors surrounding them. This section traces how
the theory itself has evolved from its introduction into the organizational context till
present-day empirical applications in organizational settings.

Applications before the turn of the century

The nature and design of postindustrial organizations, which were largely different
from their predecessors of the industrial age, necessitated the application of the systems
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 9

theory in viewing the links between such organizations and their environments (Huber,
1984). The introduction of systems theory to the organizational context then led to a
new string of empirical studies, focusing on how the systems theory can be applied
to understand organizational behavior and communication, and how organizations
evolve due to interaction with surrounding environments. Researchers recognized and
advocated that organizations progressively had to function as open systems and that
potential for growth and increased efficiency depended on how well they knew their
environments. The open systems model was developed to illustrate how organizations
should develop communication processes that allow exchange of information and
adaptation to feedback from external environments – be they economic, political, or
social. An open systems model is also a more accurate depiction of an organization’s
health, for it considers all aspects in relation to it (Hickson, 1973).
Practically, this meant that systems theory was used to analyze organizational conflict
and problems. It was applied to study situations, to diagnose problems, and to prescribe
solutions. The key in using the systems approach to solving organizational problems
rests in the complete consideration of the structure, functions, processes, and environ-
ment where the problem is. By getting a fuller picture of the problem, senior manage-
ment could view the problem in a new light. For instance, in organizations where blue
collar workers are valued for their expertise and white collar workers for their educa-
tion, blue collar workers tend to have their loyalty tied with their specialty, and white
collar workers with the organization. Systems theorists suggested such organizational
imbalances could be worked out with interaction and complementation between these
two distinct types of workers, thus helping to achieve overall organizational goals.
In interviewing for entry into organizations, systems theorists also found that inter-
viewers should not just evaluate skills and aptitudes but more so a candidate’s potential
to fit into the job and organization. Other things apart from surface job descriptions,
like style, motivation, ability to adjust, and the overall fit of the candidate into the orga-
nization were singled out as qualities that interviewers should look for. Such a candidate
would be more effective and fit better into the organization in the long run.
Other applications suggest that in long-range strategic planning for their organi-
zations, managers are encouraged to consider goals and strategies together in order
to achieve successful and effective planning. However, if lower-level managers are
rewarded only for managing their own teams and meeting their own minute goals
without alignment to the larger organizational goal(s), they might sometimes find
system objectives less applicable to them. Such a situation is undesirable, as lower-level
managers will not be motivated to optimize the total organizational performance.
Appropriate reward systems also have to be put in place to motivate every level
of the system towards the common organizational goal and to align all their goals
toward it.
Researchers have also applied systems theory to develop effective communication
systems for organizations. Communication was recognized as an integral part of orga-
nizational systems as it oiled the whole system for smooth operations and integrated
subsystems for the stability of the larger system. A strong communication network was
needed to bind an organization internally and also to its external world. Organizations
must deal in multiple levels of communication with all kinds of stakeholders. These
10 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

include internal, external, and interorganizational communication, with employees,

consumers, clientele, and organized interest groups. Communication also serves as an
exchange and adaptive system for organizational effectiveness, as it helps organizations
improve according to internal and external feedback, which serves as vital information
for the growth of organizations.
To understand the lifecycles of organizations, research has also looked into the
pathology of organizations that had failed altogether or in specific areas. For instance,
why did a magazine fail? Or why did a non-profit organization have to shut down?
It could be that the magazine could not match up with changes in subscription or
advertising rates, or that the non-profit organization focused too much on being
profitable. If feedback mechanisms were not in place to ensure that subsystems achieve
a state of equilibrium, especially after an organizational change, then toxins could
hit that subsystem. Pathology exists in any system when a subsystem is unstable for
prolonged periods of time. Systems theory was used to analyze the pitfalls of such
organizations and to develop models for organizations to adjust their subsystems to
changing environments. Such studies did not just delve into organizational history
but sometimes even into the larger industry history. For example, studying the past
and evolution of advertising agencies helps to explain its present state, and more
importantly, to predict the future of the industry.
Health care systems are large organizations that have been studied with the systems
approach, due to their inherent complex nature. In line with systems theory and to
provide well-rounded and effective health care, health care professionals needed to
identify the environments of influences surrounding their patients so as to gain a
deeper understanding on recurrent health problems or to improve public health.
Knowing the community they work in and the social, demographic, and economic
variables would also aid the delivery of public health programs that can serve as
preventive or alternative health care tactics, thereby increasing overall healthiness.
Already during this era, health care organizations were making use of technology
for things like systems analysis and operations research. There were forays into using
computer systems to predict queues and manage the crowds at hospitals. In mental
hospitals, helping mentally ill patients required not only a good grasp of patients’ inner
psychopathological frameworks but also the environmental interventions surrounding
them, the medical team’s support and care made available to them, and how all these
factors interact together. When such patients rejoin the community, continuity of care
resides mostly in their community.
In the field of education, teachers were also encouraged to use techniques that
recognized students’ environments as influencing factors to their academic growth.
The decoding/encoding frame of references between a teacher and a student can
differ, leading to a communication breakdown. A good communicative relationship
between a teacher and a student, and a stable feedback system in place, would
enhance teaching. Like all other management teams, it was also important that school
management found a good fit between environmental demands and their response
capabilities – including its structure, planning process, and leadership style. Curricu-
lum is one of the main planning activities in an educational institute. Systems theorists
believed that both the educator and the practitioner should test the feasibility and
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 11

usefulness of any curriculum change, particularly so in schools that taught professional

skills like nursing. There should be constructive interaction between the educator, the
practitioner, and the researcher, so as to achieve effective and valuable education.
Marketing was another where system theories were applied. Due to the diversity of
skills needed by marketing departments, it was believed that marketing teams should
be made up of personnel with various specialties, like management, psychology,
consumer research, and statistics. Considering how much they depend on other
departments for resources, marketing personnel should also interact with personnel
from other functional areas in the organization, as they needed to communicate
effectively and depend on other departments for their campaigns to be effective. This
was essentially applicable to all other subsystems that depended on other subsystems
for resources. As international trading started to increase in volume, it was also
necessary for marketing teams to understand the complex and unfamiliar cultures
they were pushing their products into. Proper learning of their new environments and
adapting to it would make marketing efforts more effective.

21st-century applications
Over time, organizations and systems evolve and inevitably become more com-
plex. More recent scholarship has seen the systems approach better used and
developed in the study of organizations. With globalization and the dawn of the
information age, researchers found the systems approach useful in understanding
organizations in the relevant contexts of these new and changing environments.
Revolutionary advancements in communication technologies allowed organiza-
tions to outsource at lower costs and become more responsive to the changing
environment. With the growing adoption of information and communication
technologies within and outside the organizational settings, interaction domains
became fluid and blurred, which added more complexity to both the organiza-
tion and the environment in which it is embedded (Yoon & Kuchinke, 2005). The
Internet was viewed as a subsystem of the larger social system, and Hofkirch-
ner (2007) showed that it was probable that it triggered change in the larger
system.
The digital omnipresence of organizations reinforced systems theory as a viable
way to study and improve organizations, for in this digital age organizations became
more open systems permeable to the influence of surrounding environments. Though
there were already studies which focused on the link between technology and
organizations in the period before the 2000s, it became much more evident and
widespread in the current century. Many researchers have applied systems theory
to their studies of complex networks and organizations; how they can interact
with their huge pool of stakeholders; manage big masses of data, information and
knowledge; and improve the organization through digital feedback and control
mechanisms. Technology brought benefits to organizational processes and commu-
nication. Internally, it provided avenues for an intranet for personnel management,
tracking of teamwork, aligning of large, complex organizations towards common
and unified messages, and building an organizational network. Externally, public
12 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

relations personnel were also trained to use technology and social media to serve
the good of their organizations and its publics. By understanding social media’s
role in the larger open system, they could use them as a tool to build relationships
that helped with organizational survival. A good technological infrastructure also
enabled communication and feedback processes between organizations and their
various stakeholders, allowing an exchange of knowledge and information; this
gave organizations continual feedback and a flow of knowledge to which they could
adapt.
As technology was continually harnessed, it brought about practical and direct bene-
fits to organizational profit, with new technology built on systems theory. Organizations
had to learn to fit technology into their infrastructure and to benefit from it. Public
transport systems had access to climate change information, and could build intelli-
gent transport systems that were befitting their external environments. Hospitals could
pinpoint bottlenecks in their queue systems and predict crowds by analyzing patterns,
thereby allowing them to accommodate variations by deploying personnel in a more
efficient manner, cutting down on wastage of time and resources, and decreasing frus-
tration among staff and patients. Even art could be digitalized and profited from in the
digital form. There were, however, also organizations that could not match up with the
changing technological environments and fell behind – the pathology of such organi-
zations was studied and researchers suggested remedies for such situations based on
general systems theory.
General organizational studies continued to be conducted with the systems
approach. However, with globalization and expansion of organizations, researchers
took a broader view. Systems theory was applied to create large systems that controlled
organizational standards across the worldwide industry. For example, standards like
ISO 9000 were developed and used as parts of a Total Quality Measurement certifica-
tion to audit the quality of manufacturing and service industries. In crossing territorial
borders to expand their organizations, systems theorists also advised organizations
about the necessity of having a fuller understanding of the environments into which
they were venturing. Global inequality can affect organizations’ global ventures,
hence organizations have to understand the environments of their target audiences
in the foreign land, including details such as voting rights, social status, access to
amenities, etc.
Systems theory was also applied on public organizations like parks, libraries, schools,
and zoos – how their management, communication, and overall organizational effec-
tiveness could be improved. Understanding their environments and having the right
mix in their leadership team was important for success and would contribute to the
overall performance of the organization instead of lopsided gains. Staff training was
also noted for its importance in building teams that are well rounded and able to relate
the organization to the publics in its relevant environments without barriers. In such
public organizations, it was also important to build relationships and get feedback from
members so as to enhance service and retain membership.
Crisis management has also become one of the major empirical applications of the
systems theory, as organizational crises and their aftermaths were studied in detail,
or what Weick (1993) calls the sense making process. Understanding the diverse
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 13

stakeholders involved and examining in hindsight how the crisis was handled enabled
organizations to develop better foresight and crisis management plans. Systems theory
was applied to repair company image and public trust after crisis.
As health communication grew as a major field of study, systems theory continued to
be applied to many studies that dealt with health promotions campaigns, the profession
of doctors and nurses, and also health care organizations at large. The application of
the systems theory to empirical studies as such allowed researchers to understand
how physical and mental health can be influenced by various levels of environments,
how health care professionals need to improve their organizations by interaction with
other organizations, and how communication and knowledge gaps in the complex
medical network can be closed or narrowed. To improve health care, equipment
had to be advanced in technical complexity, which required the cooperation of the
health care industry with its engineering, technical and design contractors. Robust
patient information systems were created, better workstations were built, optimized
and ergonomic operating rooms were installed, and queuing systems continued to be
worked on and improved so as to ensure smoother flows at hospitals. Public health
promotion was also viewed with a broader mindset, one that took into view the
relevant needs of communities and catered to them accordingly, considering health
insurance, liabilities in certain geographical areas, and increasing health awareness for
early screenings and prevention measure. Lack of health infrastructure could lead to
pandemics; thus, a systems approach meant ensuring that proper prevention measures
and emergency budgets were in place to cope with such outbreaks and improve the
nation’s overall health.
Social work was another area that systems theorists took an interest in, as social orga-
nizations played a more and more important role in developed countries. Researchers
identified environments as a crucial aspect for help to be given. Family and community
played a major role in their development and in whether they had continued relapses or
whether they managed to walk out from their past. Stressors around the person and how
the individual reacted to them was important and varied from person to person. Social
workers had to understand all these underlying currents in order to provide useful and
substantial help to people who needed them. Social workers also had to see beyond
their field, sometimes even to medical fields, and work with health care providers to
give complete care to the cases under their charge.
Researchers also took interest in how disaster and accident management could be
improved with systems theory. Human interaction with the ecosystem has led to
certain manmade disasters like the loss or potential loss of natural resources. Taking
into account government policies, human intervention, and the earth’s natural course
of change, provided a broader view to geologists and ecologists in their study of the
world around us and in developing recommendations for governments and businesses.
The detriment of natural disasters could also be prevented or minimalized through
systems models and applications. Cohesiveness and cooperation between relevant
organizations was important in overall disaster management, instead of competition,
redundancy, dependencies, and lapses in care, caused by poor communication and
integration between all such organizations. Accidents in workplaces were viewed
through a systems lens, and instead of pushing blame from one department to
14 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

another, organizations were encouraged to develop system prevention measures,

such as employing technology in high-risk working environments to develop safer
machinery, conducting thorough hazard and risk analysis, and educating all staff on
safety measures and matrices.
In the sporting arena, the systems approach also proved its worth as systems theo-
rists used it to integrate supporting disciplines such as sports science and psychology
to improve overall sporting performance. Technology also became an integral part of
sports as organizations took to managing their team with statistical tools to evaluate
performance and projects quantitatively into the future.

Future directions

Research on crisis management and disaster responses during disasters has tapped into
social media data to more precisely capture the dynamics and temporal patterns of
organizational systems (Lai, She, & Ye, 2015). Analysis of archived data is not new
in organizational communication research. For example, studies have used log data to
understand how members coordinate with one another through group decision support
systems, knowledge sharing platforms, or online gaming systems. Network analysis has
been conducted on network relationships within and outside the organization using
public directories or archived emails exchanged among members of organizations. But
publicly available data in the social media domain open up a new terrain for systems
research in an unprecedented way. Specifically, the big volume of data increases the
complexity of systems and the levels of agency assumed in systems. In organizations’
social media systems, the components could be the textual posts on Twitter during
a certain period of time, individuals who post comments on an organization’s Twit-
ter page, or organizations who follow each other or who mention each other in the
Twitter posts. Empirical studies on the extent to which these systems and components
construct agency in different situations in different social media platforms therefore
provide potential to enrich the conceptualizations of complexity and agency in systems
theory.
Moreover, related to the study of potentially complex social media systems is
the question of whether and how systems approaches can adequately account for
fluid forms of organizational systems. Self-organizing collectives enabled through
new media technologies take various forms ranging from disaster response groups,
social movement groups, to loosely coupled collectives connected through shared
interests. These collectives are usually examined when they are in conspicuous
existence. Yet of equal importance is whether and how these collectives are main-
tained in less apparent manners when the magnitude of environmental demands
is reduced such as the case after the political mobilization comes to an end. With
the archived social media data, systems researchers can investigate whether or how
self-organizing collectives morph into different entities as the nature of environ-
mental event changes, and how the collectives self-sustain through members or
technological components (e.g., features of social media). These inquiries will help
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 15

advance theoretical and practical knowledge about fluid forms of organizational

systems.
Collecting and processing large amounts of social media data usually requires the use
of programming languages such as Python. In systems research, formal and informal
systems analyses have long been considered to complement each other. Mathematical or
agent based modeling provides the sources and concepts for the empirical examination
of human systems through informal system analyses. In turn, informal systems analy-
ses contribute empirical evidence to advance formal model approaches (Poole, 2014).
Nonetheless, despite the obvious advantages (Poole, 1997), formal systems analyses still
have not gained as much interest among organizational communication researchers as
expected, partly due to the high threshold of admission. As a first step toward this
direction, interdisciplinary collaboration may help mitigate the challenges associated
with learning sophisticated analytic techniques. It can also potentially expand the scope
of systems concepts applied to other systems such as computer or ecological systems.
After all, human organizational systems are embedded and interdependent with other
systems in the broader environment.

SEE ALSO: Adaptive Structuration Theory; Boundary Spanning; Communica-

tive Constitution of Organizations; Contingency Theory; Environment; Feedback;
Micro/Meso/Macrolevels of Analysis; Networks; New Science Systems Theories;
Organization–Society Relationship; Structuration Theory

References

Almaney, A. (1974). Communication and the systems theory of organization. Journal of Business
Communication, 12(1), 35–43. doi:10.1177/002194367401200106
Ashby, W. R. (1954). Design for a brain. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ashmos, D. P., & Huber, G. P. (1987). The systems paradigm in organization theory: Correct-
ing the record and suggesting the future. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 607–621.
doi:10.5465/amr.1987.4306710
Barnett, G., & Rice, R. E. (1985). Longitudinal non-Euclidean networks: Applying Galileo. Social
Networks, 7(4), 287–322. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(85)90010-3
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science,
2(3), 197–208. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197
Contractor, N. S. (1994). Self-organizing systems perspective in the study of organizational com-
munication. In B. Kovacic (Ed.), New approaches to organizational communication (pp. 39–66).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Contractor, N. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Theoretical frameworks for the study of structur-
ing processes in group decision support systems. Human Communication Research, 19(4),
528–563. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00312.x
Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear
Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(1), 69–97.
Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goldhaber, G. M. (1974). Organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: Kendall- Hunt.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American
Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.
16 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

Hickson, M. (1973). The open systems model: Auditing the effectiveness of organiza-
tional communication. Journal of Business Communication, 10(3), 7–14. doi:10.1177/
002194367301000302
Hofkirchner, W. (2007). A critical social systems view of the Internet. Philosophy of the Social
Sciences, 37(4), 471–500. doi:10.1177/0048393107307664
Huber, G. P. (1984). The nature and design of post-industrial organizations. Management Science,
30(8), 928–951. doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.8.928
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and
management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465. doi:10.2307/255141
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Lai, C.-H., She, B., & Ye, X. (2015). Unpacking the network processes and outcomes of
online and offline humanitarian collaboration. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/009365
0215616862
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Monge, P. R. (1973). Theory construction in the study of communication: The systems paradigm.
Journal of Communication, 23(1), 5–16. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1973.tb00928.x
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Poole, M. S. (1997). A turn of the wheel: The case for a renewal of systems inquiry in organiza-
tional communication research. In L. O. Thayer & G. Barnett (Eds.), Organization communica-
tion: Emerging perspectives, Vol. 5: The renaissance in systems thinking (pp. 47–64). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Poole, M. S. (2014). Systems theory. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE hand-
book of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 49–74).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rice, R. E., & Richards, W. D. (1985). An overview of network analysis methods and programs.
In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 105–165).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implica-
tions of complexity theory for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 351–365.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006
Scott, W. G. (1974). Organization theory: A reassessment. Academy of Management Journal,
17(2), 242–254. doi:10.2307/254978
Thayer, L. (1968). Communication and communication systems. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1951). General system theory; A new approach to unity of science. 1. Prob-
lems of general system theory. Human Biology, 23(4), 302–312.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652. doi:10.2307/2393339
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: On control and communication in the animal and the machine.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yoon, S. W., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2005). Systems theory and technology: Lenses to analyze an
organization. Performance Improvement, 44(4), 15–20. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140440406
 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y 17

Further reading

Anderson, R. A., & McDaniel, Jr., R. R. (2000). Managing health care organizations: Where
professionalism meets complexity science. Health Care Management Review, 25(1), 83–92.
doi:10.1097/00004010-200001000-00010
Blaschke, S., Schoeneborn, D., & Seidl, D. (2012). Organizations as networks of communication
episodes: Turning the network perspective inside out. Organization Studies, 33(7), 879–906.
doi:10.1177/0170840612443459
Brummans, B. H. J. M., Cooren, F., Robichaud, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). Approaches to the
communicative constitution of organizations. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and meth-
ods (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Contractor, N. S. (1999). Self-organizing systems research in the social sciences: Reconcil-
ing the metaphors and the models. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 154–166.
doi:10.1177/0893318999131009
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 34(1), 127–145. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.35713319
Holland, J. J. (2012). Signals and boundaries: Building blocks for complex adaptive systems. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organi-
zations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5–23. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90050-b
Krippendorff, K. (2009). On communicating: Otherness, meaning, and information. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Luhmann, N. (2005). Communication barriers in management consulting. In D. Seidl & K. H.
Becker (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 351–364). Copenhagen, Den-
mark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
McMillan, J. J., & Northern, N. A. (1995). Organizational codependency: The creation and
maintenance of closed systems. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 6–45. doi:10.1177/
0893318995009001002
Miller, J. G. (1972). Living systems: The organization. Behavioral Science, 17(1), 1–182.
doi:10.1002/bs.3830170102
Miller, K. (1998). Nurses at the edge of chaos: The application of “new science” concepts to
organizational systems. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 112–127. doi:10.1177/
0893318998121004
Miller, K. (2011). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (7th ed., pp. 60–81).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rice, R. E., & Cooper, S. D. (2010). Organizations and unusual routines: A systems analysis of
dysfunctional feedback processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Röttger, U., & Preusse, J. (2013). External consulting in strategic communication: Functions and
roles within systems theory. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(2), 99–117.
doi:10.1080/1553118x.2013.765437
Van Every, E. J., & Taylor, J. R. (1998). Modeling the organization as a system of communica-
tion activity: A dialogue about the language/action perspective. Management Communication
Quarterly, 12, 128–147. doi:10.1177/0893318998121005
White, W. L. (1986). Incest in the organizational family: The ecology of burnout in closed systems.
Bloomington, IL: Lighthouse Training Institute.

Chih-Hui Lai is assistant professor in Department of Communication and Technology

at National Chiao Tung University. Her research focuses on how individuals, groups,
 18 SY S T E M S TH E O R Y

and organizations use information and communication technologies to communicate

and how relationships evolve or emerge through the process. Her research has been
published in top-tier communication journals such as Communication Research,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Computers in Human Behavior,
Human Communication Research, Management Communication Quarterly, and
Communication Monographs.

Sapphire Huili Lin has a master’s degree in mass communications from the Wee Kim
Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University
and is currently working as a research assistant. She has completed her thesis with a
focus in corporate communications leadership. Her research interests include organi-
zational communication and communication technologies.

View publication stats