Systems_Thinkin

Systems thinking, as a theory, started in the natural sciences and only recently has been applied to organizational behavior (www.referencesforbusiness.com). However, it is very important for organizations to understand that they function in a broader environment. Traditionally organizations looked at each function, department or division as simply subsets of the organization and treated them as closed systems, not integrated with other subsets of the organization (McNamara, ND). We now know that this is not the case; every organization is actually a very live, open system where all parts of the organization interact with both internal and external environments working towards common goals. An organization cannot effectively or efficiently exist without understanding how in a broader environment it transforms inputs into outputs (www.accel-team.com). Organizations recognize and utilize open systems approach to some degree; the following will analyze two widely divergent organizations military units and orchestras looking at whether they are an open system; the awareness of their role in the open system; and their productivity (ability to transform inputs to outputs). Military Unit An open system is defined as “systems that interact with other systems or the outside environment” (www.referencesforbusiness.com). Fedorov (2001) states that the military unit, as a part of the production system (labor), is a subsystem of the military. Further the military is a subsystem of the U.S. socio-economic system. This recognizes the military’s impact on the larger environment that it is contained in and its overall goal, which is the contribution to “increasing the volume of the GDP and enhancing the efficiency of social labor” (Fedorov, 2001). This meets the definition of an open system. An organization’s environment may consist of many different systems. This analysis will concentrate on just two of those systems: 1) cognitive system, which is the awareness of the relationship with the environment; and 2) productive system, which is the transformation of inputs into outputs (www.accel-team.com). As previously discussed the military unit appears to have a basic understanding of its integration within a larger environment. According to Fedorov (2001), the military unit represents the production system of the military as both producer (input) and consumer (output) of goods. The individual laborer (soldier) produces a military activity which in turn produces “a special type of commodity: military service”, which contributes to the output to society in general by providing “security of citizens and the country as a whole” (Fedorov, 2001). This demonstrates a fairly strong awareness of the military unit’s relationship with the military and society. However, Fedorov (2001) also notes individual characteristics can impact the military unit which in turns then impacts the ability of the military to produce military service. As part of the productive system laborers need to also understand their role within the subsystem that they contribute to as well as the broader system. Fedorov (2001) notes that “commissioned officers and enlisted men oftentimes are not aware that their work is objectively predetermined by a system…” In other words they are not aware that they are part of an open system. This problem can contribute to a breakdown in effective and efficient production, military service, causing short sightedness in achieving goals and reactionary behavior instead of proactive behaviors (www.managementhelp.org). Fedorov (2001) summarizes his discussion on the military unit by explaining how the military can address this issue by improving the individual understanding and awareness of their activities impact on the military system. Orchestras Roelofs (ND) notes, similarly to the military, that an orchestra is part of a very complex broad system. Depending on how the orchestra sees its role it can have a large impact on society and in turn be impacted by that environment. An orchestra can establish internal boundaries seeing itself as a system consisting of the musicians, conductors, administration, volunteers, and the board of directors (Roelofs, ND). On the other hand an orchestra can also be part of a larger system that can include the audience and the orchestra industry or, even broader, the community and the entertainment industry (Roelofs, ND). Again, similar to the military, this supports the idea of an open system. Looking at the cognitive system, orchestras have a strong awareness of their role in this complex broad system. There is an understanding that “their success depends on how well their characteristics and behaviors aligns with their environment” (Roelofs, ND). By providing musical performances, musical recordings, and musical education orchestras impact society at many levels (Roelofs, ND). By accepting donations and general support, orchestras are dependent on society for their mere existence. Again, similar to the military unit, the musicians can be seen as the laborers contributing to the production system. As a subsystem the musicians (input) provide the music that is performed or recorded as part of the larger team, the orchestra, which in turn sells the performance or recordings (output) to the public. There certainly are more factors that impact the input and output of production, such as fixed assets and intangible assets. However, open system approach requires a focus on behaviors as opposed to events, which means focusing on the human element of the system (www.managementhelp.org). The potential difficulty that orchestras could face is the tendency to only look at their internal environments and not consider their impact o or the impact of the broader system on them. Roelofs (ND) notes, “Traditionally, the Institute, and the industry overall, has drawn the boundary to include members of the orchestra, administrative and conducting staff, the board, and direct service volunteers.” This lack of awareness of their membership in a broader system can contribute to short sightedness in achieving the goals of the orchestra and reactionary behavior instead of proactive behaviors by its various members (www.managementhelp.org). Roelofs (ND) further states, “An orchestra organization’s placement of its internal boundaries, and its choice about how permeable those boundaries will be, can help determine its success in its environmental context.” Conclusion As widely different as one would assume the military is from an artistic organization, when it comes to an open systems approach they are in fact very similar. Both must demonstrate an understanding of the organization’s interaction with both internal and external environments. They must be aware of how of their relationship with the broader environment impacts their successful achievement of their goals. They must understand how the macro level (individuals) of the production system impacts their ability to effectively and efficiently achieve those goals. The original definition of an open system referred to the living organisms, cells make up organs which make up the body which lives in an environment (www.referencesforbusiness.com). Organizations subsystems cannot “live” outside of their environment. The soldier (cell) makes up the military unit (organ) which makes up the military (body) which lives in an environment (society). The music (cell) makes the musician (organ) which makes the orchestra (body) which lives in the broader society (environment). Works Cited Fedorov, J. (1995). The structure of organized change: A conversation with Kevin Kelly. Retrieved on July 1, 2010 from http://www.findarticles.com/articles/mi_m0JAP/is_4_10/ai_78839805/ McNamara, C. (ND). Thinking about organizations as systems. Management Help. Retrieved on July 1, 2010 from http://managementhelp.org/org_thry/org_systm.htm Roelofs, L. (ND). Organizational change. Symphony Orchestra Institute. Retrieved on July1, 2010 from http://www.soi.org/reading/change/concepts.shtml No author. (ND). Open and closed systems. Reference for Business. Retrieved on July 1, 2010 from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Ob-Or/Open-and-Closed-Systems.html No author. (ND). Open systems approach: Analysis of the organization as an open system. Retrieved on July 1, 2010 from http://www.accel-team.com/business_process/systems_analysis_05.html