Characteristics of “a system”
• A system is an integrated whole, comprising interconnected and interdependent parts or sub-systems.
• A system is bounded – i.e. it has a clearly defined ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.
• “System” is therefore a spatial concept (as opposed to “process”, which expresses the notions of movement and time).
• A system which has a permeable boundary between itself and its (‘external’) environment is defined by systems thinkers as an “open system”.
• A system survives and thrives by adapting to changes in this external environment.
• Rules define how the parts relate to each other and to the whole, as well as how the parts behave dynamically.
• A system has an overall, unified purpose to which the parts (sub-systems) are aligned.
• The ‘whole’ possesses properties that are not present in the parts.
• There is a presumption of agency within the “system” – i.e. the system ‘as a whole’ has the capacity to act.
• Sub-systems are subordinate to the system ‘as a whole’ (which itself may be part of an overarching supra-system … which itself may be part … and so on).
• A system, by definition, behaves systemically. This means that a change in any part of the system affects the entire system, and also that the behaviour of any part of the system is a function of the system as a whole.
• The system cannot be understood by analyzing the actions of its parts but only by looking at it ‘as a whole’.
• The systems-thinking approach therefore takes a holistic view of the overall system; identifying and intervening at the key “leverage points”, which are seen as the “systemic” causes of action and behaviour.
It seems to me that all of the above ‘system characteristics’ apply to such entities as the human body and other natural phenomena - for example, a severed hand can’t function; it exists solely as a part of the body. The critical question here, though, is whether or not the same can be said in relation to an organization. My view is that it can’t! An organization is ‘man-made’ – a social construction. People have wills of their own. And so on. In other words, the dynamics of social interactions are fundamentally different from those that take place in naturally occurring systems.
NOTES
I can see why people view organisations as systems; it’s easy to think there is a core (CEO) and sub-systems (departments), and rules (procedures/policies), a boundary (the office), purpose (mission statement), etc…
Now if you are a follower of Chris Rodgers, then you will see the contrary, as like David Weinberger says, “work is conversation” (or is that Werner Erhardt) ie. the real organisation is a bunch of relationships and networks that connect via conversation. Conversation has no boundary; ants are rule based where as employees may workaround procedures as they may find they don’t serve their context or the way they work, more importantly employees have will, personal agendas, imagination (something ants don’t have), so behaviour could certainly not be a function of the organisation as a whole, etc..
Related
An essay on complex adaptive systems
How system SHOULD behave vs how systems ACTUALLY behave
Organisations are not Complex Adaptive Systems
The awareness of the agent in human complex systems
Humans do not behave like ants, termites, bacteria, etc…
Complex adaptive theory in human systems is different from in the physical world
