I’ve had a go at setting out what I see as the characteristics of systems on my Informal Coalitions blog (at http://bit.ly/4DRz8u). I would have used a trackback to your post but couldn’t see a trackback facility.

Cheers,

Chris

Jurgen, I can understand your point of view. You can question the usefulness of this discussion. But as Chris mentions, I think it’s useful because we have to understand the context where the discussion takes place.

Chris, I agree when you say when we call it a duck, we might treat it as a duck, even when we see any un-duck-like characteristics. It reminds me of the book ‘The Black Swan’ from Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I haven’t had the chance to read it yet, but a colleague was so kind to explain the meaning of it very good. Many events occur that are almost unthinkable at the time of impact, such as 9/11, WW 1, the global crises, etc. It’s on my reading list definitely.

Pim, I cannot speak for all of us, but like you I’m not an expert in organization science as well. This quest is helping me to learn more and more about it. Discussions like these are very fruitful and gives insights from various perspectives and viewpoints from various people. So thanks for adding this to the discussion!

You have an interesting point of view of defining a system as a network. An event in the system has influence on the surrounding network. Indeed, this is a matter of definition. I look forward to the organization scientists you informed, we probably can learn a whole lot from them.

Cheers,
Bas

Let’s adopt the view of banking: there are banks, and there are “system-banks”. We can agree on all banks being organizations without discussion (can’t we?) – they are groups of people working together who share a common goal (making money or making up; that’s up to you). In case of the system-banks (pardon my french, a translation that suffices but is awful nonetheless), they are part of the system surrounding us – that is, links that cause crashes if one of the links snaps.

In this example, systems can only be groups of organizations. To sectors, these are actors in the field (companies). To companies, these are their BU’s or departments. In that sense, disruptive events (e.g. bankruptcies or cutdowns) cause the system to shake.

A system to me will therefore be a defining network
- from society as a whole (a lot of organizations working together) to a family with children (their family being the system). Such systems always define, or try to define, behavior (from larger actors to individuals). As long as they define a structure all together, they are a system. It depends on your viewpoint – to children, their families define their behavior. If a link in the family snaps their worlds are upside down. To a sector, competitors define their behavior. If big players fall down their world is upside down. It is a matter of perspective (large ducks, small ducks, groups of ducks) on which scale or field you want to identify systems.

To me, these are the kinds of problems that only suffer from strict definition.

To science though, this matters. I’ve informed two organization scientists, let’s hope they join in on the argument.

I would suggest that Bas’s question is important because the way in which we frame issues and events is fateful. In determining how things (in this case, organizations) are viewed, the chosen frame will channel our perceptions and actions down particular paths (and foreclose others). That is, if we “call it a duck”, we’ll treat it as a duck – and this might or might not be useful. In particular, we’ll tend to ignore, or even fail to see, any ‘un-duck-like’ characteristics that ‘it’ might have.

Most significantly, perhaps, framing not only explains action, it determines action. By channelling people’s perceptions, interpretations and evaluations in particular ways, framing gives meaning to everyday events, experiences and outcomes that otherwise would be absent. It directs the ways in which people act; and it determines how the outcomes of those actions will be evaluated. As Fairhurst and Sarr also point out (The Art of Framing, 1996): “Frames exert their power not only through what they highlight but also through what they leave out.”

So I believe that Bas’s question is a wholly valid and useful one – and one which, if you’ll pardon the pun, I don’t think we should duck! If we view an organization as a system, this brings with it certain assumptions about its underlying dynamics. And these assumptions will tend to shape – for better or worse – the ways in which we participate in it (whether as managers, consultants or whatever). Understanding what we mean when we apply the label “system” to organizations – and exploring the implications that flow from it – therefore seems to me to be a reasonable (maybe even essential) step along the way to more insightful practice.

Cheers, Chris

Does it make sense discussing whether #FF4621 is red or orange?
It doesn’t. When you think it’s red, it’s red.

To me an organization is a system.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call it a duck.