Systems theory needs a package insert

I have been a manager for over 20 years in a wide variety of constellations and company sizes. I have encountered consultants of various types with multiple theories on what is right and what is wrong, what is beneficial or not in an organization, how a manager should be and which behavioural patterns they should avoid. Now, more and more actors influenced by systems theory are coming onto the consulting stage.

I have been working more intensively with the ideas of systems theory for about two years now. I have read Parson as the forefather, Luhmann and Adlaten and, because of my own very theoretical and ideological background - I am a theoretical astrophysicist - I am genuinely fascinated by the scope and complexity of the theory.

I have always seen systems theory as a very useful epistemology. It allows us to interpret the state of social systems within the framework of its defined boundary conditions, what is observed and what is not. Now it is increasingly becoming the basis of a consulting concept, whereby the great challenge from my perspective is to leave the pattern of analysis and take practical responsibility within the framework of the way of thinking. Maybe that's why there are only systemic consultants and coaches and no concept (that I know of) of systemic management ...

On the one hand, I find the perspective that systems theory offers at one point or another to be incredibly valuable and enriching in my daily work. On the other hand, I find that an overdose of systems theory in practical application triggers a noticeable aversion in me.

This leads me to the thesis that motivates this article: systems theory as a consulting model needs a package insert! Too much systems theory, even to the point of limiting oneself to this epistemological perspective, leads to bizarre side effects.

Intellectual arrogance

The first side effect is intellectual arrogance. There are sociology departments that are fully dedicated to analyzing social systems on the basis of systems theory. I have the greatest respect for this and it certainly creates significant value.

However, out of this awareness, the systemic consultant tends to assign his own view not only validity within the framework of his theory (which is not uncontroversial even among sociologists), but an almost scientific validity. Similarly, empiricism is often used as a convincing argument, whereby the examples used are often more reminiscent of the literal meaning of empiricism - empirical knowledge - than of the actual reference to a scientific method.

As a result, approaches that cannot be derived from the structure are often looked down upon with unnecessary arrogance and corresponding polemics.

Linguistic confusion

Let's move on to the second side effect. Like every scientific approach, systems theory has its own terminology. Many terms are uncritical in practical application, even if they are often used. Autopoeisis is one such term - the average manager has never heard of it (although that's a shame), so they just learn something new.

It is worse, however, when the terms overlap with terms that have a familiar meaning in normal language. My favourite example in this context is “self-organization”. Recently, at a conference, I actually had to watch a role play in which the organization was embodied by a speaker who instructed the audience that “self-organization” was a fundamental characteristic of every organization. Correct in terms of systems theory, but confusing for any outsider. If self-organization is an inherent, quasi-defining characteristic of an organization, then the term is of no use in practical application.

So why do so many people talk about self-organization? What constitutes self-organized teams from this perspective? How can people be self-organized?

Experience has shown that consulting approaches that initially require a glossary that the consulting delinquent has to internalize are not very compatible. The fanatical systemic consultant, however, is not bothered by this, but feels an inner satisfaction at being able to be instructive at this point. After all, it is science! ... see intellectual arrogance.

Blinders syndrome

The third side effect follows from the scientific-theoretical classification of systems theory: systems theory is a theory of knowledge. Like all epistemologies, systems theory serves to reduce complexity with the aim of improving our understanding of the world. This automatically buys us blind spots.

The systemic consultant succeeds in ignoring this through the complexity of their own world view. The degree of elaboration of the theory is so high that hardly anyone - certainly not me - knows all the facets and characteristics. The consultant is blinded by this and is under the delusion that the theory actually provides him with the miracle cure to fully grasp the complexity of the corporate world.

I experienced the peak of this symptom when a systemic consultant explained that a different perspective is “under-complex”. As if any man-made theory - certainly not systems theory either - was complex!

This ignorance of their own limitations is a critical symptom of systemic consultants suffering from an overdose. What does not fit is considered irrelevant or made to fit. The verdict of André Glucksmann, a French philosopher of the last century, is harsh in the face of such behavior [1]:

“The principle conceit of stupidity consists in the fact that it consistently continues its classifications; nothing escapes its attention between heaven and earth, the copyist proves the unclassifiable in its proper place: he classifies it as the unclassifiable.” (translated)

Relativism

Silos are neither good nor bad, hierarchy is neither good nor bad, transparency is neither good nor bad. The decisive factor is what is “viable” - feasible - for the organization; the strict systemic consultant knows no “right” or “wrong”.

It is not for nothing that he likes to talk about “management fashions” (also in contrast to his own scientific approach), because these usually try to point out concrete ways to improve. These are then often discredited, described as old wine in new bottles and attributed with solving one problem but creating another.

As a practitioner, I ask myself what I should make of this. If there is no hope of improvement, only trade-offs in functionality, why should I move at all? In a leadership role, where am I supposed to gain the strength for a change process if the world I live in is only interchangeable with a comparably good (or bad) one anyway? And all belief in improvement is an illusion?

The tendency towards relativism as a possible side effect makes it extremely difficult to find a concrete path and consistently pursue a goal. This brings me back to an observation I made at the beginning: perhaps it is not for nothing that there are hardly any managers who would describe themselves as “systemic” managers.

Amorality

The fifth side effect is linked to relativism. If I, as a systemic consultant, have deeply internalized my theory, I consider myself a constructivist. As such, I am fully aware of the subjectivity of everything I perceive, feel and how I understand the world. If I also assert this for others, then I can only think relativistically.

Moral relativism to the point of amorality is a by-product that can hardly be avoided. The inability to answer a question in categories of “right” or “wrong” also extends to moral questions.

In addition, the radical systemic consultant, in his exclusively sociological approach, views the human individual with his desires and needs as an external disruptive factor, as a subsystem or adjacent system to his actual analytical space. A theory that does not include human thinking in its basic premise can only understand morality as a cultural phenomenon.

As a basis for analysis, this is a valid point of view. As support for someone in a position of responsibility, rather less so. For me, there is no benefit if I know that the consultant at my side is denying their own moral compass and retreating to “viability” within the framework conditions of the existing system.

With a lot of good will, perhaps something like the golden rule remains as a residual morality: there is probably hardly any individual world construction in which it seems “viable” to behave in such a way that the construction (in the form of the constructed, other participants) threatens my existence. This is not enough for me as a moral orientation in organizational matters.

As a result, consultants who are subject to this side effect behave in a latently cynical manner when it comes to really wanting to improve working conditions, for example. The criterion of “improving working conditions” has no intrinsic meaning for this clientele and is a systemic phenomenon that cannot be measured in cases of doubt because it is perceived individually. And so, darn it, once again outside the scope of observation.

Standstill

The final, critical side effect of an overdose - a standstill in organizational understanding - concludes the round.

We are all stuck in our world view, which helps to categorize our perceptions. We need this in order to master the complexity of the world. However, there are convincing examples from the history of science that the more attached we are to what we believe in, the more incapable we are of perceiving deviations and allowing change.

For example, the large minor planets in the asteroid belt of our solar system were only observed after the discovery of Uranus in 1781 broke the paradigm that our solar system consisted exclusively of the inner planets, Jupiter, Saturn, moons and comets. The technical possibilities for observation had already existed at least 150 years earlier. This makes it clear that a radical reduction to an understanding of reality without alternatives limits perception and prevents progress. What must not be is also not recorded [2].

Within the framework of established, generally recognized scientific theories with genuine predictive power, such a commitment is still comprehensible. The civilizational success of further detailing justifies a research focus and the real option of falsifiability through observation represents a safety anchor for self-reflection.

As a sociological theory, however, systems theory is positioned differently. It is a non-predictive epistemology, which in this respect offers no possibility of falsifiability. If one were to follow Popper, it would not be an empirical science in this sense [3].

Accordingly, the self-commitment to exclusively systemic thinking binds the consultant to a point of view that subsequently only offers room for something new in the further elaboration of the theory. Observations about behaviour in organizations that are easily grasped in the context of systems theory are regarded as unbreakable and unchangeable. The mistake is that the conclusion of immutability is an artifact of a theory that can never be refuted. The convinced consultant under the influence of an overdose thus enters dangerous waters that lead to a standstill in organizational understanding.

Finding a way to deal with it

As I said at the beginning, I am very fascinated by systems theory (even if the previous sections might suggest otherwise). And it is obvious that I am not the only one who is fascinated by systems theory. The increasingly widespread systemic-oriented consulting business shows us how addictive the approach is.

From a practical point of view, however, I believe it is absolutely imperative to avoid an overdose and the associated side effects that lead to ideological exaggeration and to view systems theory as one of various possible perspectives on what happens in organizations.

In a practical discussion about the different perspectives on the mechanisms of action of organizations, I would like to follow the attitude that Karl Popper called “critical rationalism” and put into words as follows:

“I may be wrong and you may be right. But if we make an effort, then perhaps together we can get a little closer to the truth.” [4] (translated)

For risks and side effects, ask your doctor or pharmacist ...

... or read the package insert. To conclude this article, I would like to attempt to formulate the dangers of the misuse of systems theory in the form of an overdose in the style of a package insert pointing out side effects.

When systems theory is used intensively or exclusively in consulting organizations, consultants can develop the following characteristics:

• Intellectual arrogance - deriving a cognitive superiority from the complexity of the category system of systems theory while simultaneously claiming to be scientific
• Linguistic confusion - attribution of new meanings to common, normal language terms, often occurring together with intellectual arrogance, as an effective means of differentiation
• Blinders syndrome - assimilation of a closed world view that reduces complexity and excludes external perspectives, with the risk of addiction
• Relativism - loss of the ability to clearly differentiate between alternative decisions, as many things and nothing seem “viable”
• Amorality - development of a pattern of thinking that does not recognize individuals and leads to a loss of moral standards
• Stagnation - assumption of structural immutability of organizations due to misguided understanding of the actual, scientific nature of systems theory

Sources

[1] Glucksmann, André, “Die Macht der Dummheit”, Verlag Ullstein GmbH, 1985, p. 195

[2] Kuhn, Thomas S., “Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen”, Suhrkamp Verlag, 14. Auflage, 1997, p. 127f.

[3] Popper, Karl, “Die Logik der Forschung”, Mohr, 10. Auflage, 1994, p. 15

[4] Popper, Karl, “Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde, Band II”, Mohr Siebeck, 8. Auflage, 2008, p. 263