Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 1. Systems Theory: In the Marriage and at the Workplace Michael Petitti Marist College

Transcription

1 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 1 Systems Theory: In the Marriage and at the Workplace Michael Petitti Marist College

2 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 2 Abstract This paper examines basic systems theory and General Systems Theory (GTS) and evaluates how the essential concepts of both are utilized to explain the dynamics of the workplace and the martial unit in two scholarly articles, Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig s General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and Management (1972) and Stephen R. Marks Toward a Systems Theory of Marital Quality (1989). Which of these two theories is the more valuable will then be discussed.

3 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 3 Systems Theory: In the Marriage and at the Workplace Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss (2008) describe a system as a [set] of interacting components that together form something more than the sum of the parts (p. 39). Since systems are embedded within one another, their parts are always constrained by their dependence on other parts, (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 40), a pattern that organizes the system itself (p. 39). Systems are also self-regulated and controlled (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 40), which prompts system theorists to not only examine the nature of the system and its functions, but also how said system manages to sustain itself over time (p. 40). Due to the connectivity present among systems, utilizing this approach to examine the dynamics of communication can seem a boundless pursuit. It is because of this wide applicability that variations of systems theory have sprouted: cybernetics, General Systems Theory and second-order cybernetics (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 41). For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on basic systems theory and General Systems Theory (GTS), a concept that expands on basic systems theory to show how many different fields are similar to one another in an effort to recognize the universal nature of systems of all types (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 41). I will begin with the essential concepts that define systems theory, namely subsystems or components; boundaries; open versus closed view; and feedback. From there I will examine how these essential concepts of systems theory are applied by Kast and Rosenzweig and Marks, respectively, in the aforementioned contexts: the workplace or social organizations and the martial unit. Finally, I will utilize a list of criteria to evaluate the usefulness and value of systems theory in examining the workplace and the martial unit. Essential Concepts and Their Application in a Martial and Workplace System In General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and Management, Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) provide key concepts of General Systems Theory that echo those listed by Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p ). These essential concepts include subsystems or components; boundaries; open versus closed view; and feedback. (Kast & Rosenzweig, p. 450).

4 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 4 Subsystems or Components Every system is composed of integrated parts or elements that are interconnected (Kast and Rosenzweig, p. 450). To examine one particular system requires the consideration of smaller systems within the system in question as well as that of related systems within a larger suprasystem (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 40). Subsystems or components in the marital system Clearly, the main interdependent components (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972, p. 453) that comprise a marital system are the two spouses. Marks (1989) claims that the married self is three-corned (p. 16), composed of a first-corner inner self, a second-corner partnershipself and a third-corner self that represents any recurring outward focus of the self (p. 16), such as children, a career, etc. These three selves are subsystems of the larger marital system, as both they and the marriage of which they are a part share an interconnected relationship where what transpires in each corner affects the viability of the marital system. As Marks (1989) states: any qualitative change in the energy coming into the self at any of its corners will change the entire triangular configuration (p. 18). Thus, the nature of how these subsystems interact impacts the status of one s marriage quality, which ranges from romantic fusion to separateness (Marks, p. 19). Subsystems or components in the workplace Examining the subsystems of social organizations, Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) acknowledge that all systems and their subsystems are organized. Due to the non-purposeful entities present in some systems, however, they wonder whether all systems are organizations (p. 453). The theorists claim that some subsystems that make up a system particularly organic subsystems, like the heart or lungs can not exercise their own will to respond to environmental inputs, and therefore cannot initiate activities and adaptations from within the system like those purposeful subsystems present in a social organization (p. 453). Boundaries A way to differentiate one system from its environment and thus another system is to establish its boundary (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972, p. 450). In physical and biological systems,

5 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 5 defining a boundary is relatively easy (p. 450), however in social systems, such as the system of a social organization examined by Kast and Rosenzweig, boundaries are difficult to delineate (p. 450). Boundaries in a marital system From the outlining of eight different relational types of marriage (including the four subtypes of Connection ) (Marks, 1989, p ), it can be inferred that Marks considers the establishment of boundaries on each spouse s triangular self integral to determining overall marital quality. This delineation is especially important when it comes to each partner s thirdcorner, as allowing significant external influences to affect the martial system through this outlet could contribute to the failure of the unit. Thus, each partner setting a boundary on how significant the influence of outside elements will be on the martial system equates to the degree of marital satisfaction, in turn defining which of Marks relational types a couple is classified. Boundaries in the workplace Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) confer significant importance on boundaries in systems, stating that theorists need to be much more precise in delineating both the boundaries of the system under consideration and the level of analysis (p. 455). Attempting to establish a boundary in a social organization is difficult, however, due to the fact that social organizations are contrived by humans, [which] suggests that they can be established for an infinite variety of purposes and do not follow the same life-cycle patterns of biological systems (p. 455). According to Kast and Rosenzweig (1972), a possible way to conceive of organizational effectiveness to help craft a boundary could be by examining three levels of analysis: the level of the environment, the level of the social organization as a system, and the level of the subsystems within the organization (p. 456). Open versus Closed View Open systems According to Kast and Rosenzweig (1972), open systems exchange information, energy or material with their environments and characterize all biological and social systems (p. 450). An open system is a transformative model that forms a dynamic relationship with its

6 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 6 surroundings to receive inputs, process and alter these inputs, then exports a different output (p. 450). Closed systems Closed systems, however, have rigid, impenetrable boundaries and are subject to the force of entropy which can increase until the system fails (Kast & Rosenzweig, p. 450). Thus, a closed system must attain equilibrium with its inputs to remain unaltered and, in turn, avoid death or disorganization (p. 450). Open versus view closed in the martial system Marks (1989) states: The constant movement in open systems is what constitutes the unity of their elements (p. 18). Since the self is an open system with the same dynamics of organization that have been found to characterize all such systems (Marks, 1989, p. 17), and since the triangular self (p. 17) makes up a marital self, it stands to reason that, according to Marks, a martial system is an open system. Open versus closed in the workplace Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) express a concern about the tendency in General Systems Theory to dichotomize all systems as opened or closed (p. 453). Instead, they believe most social organizations are partially open and partially closed (p. 453). The popular notion that open-system thinking is good and closed-system thinking is bad (p. 454) must be abandoned, as it is helpful for social organizations to use closed-system concepts to reduce uncertainty and create more effective performance (p. 454). Feedback The concept of feedback is integral in understanding how a system maintains a steady state (Kast & Rosenzweig, p. 450). Information concerning what a system exports into its environment is fed back (p. 450) into the system, perhaps leading to changes in the transformation process and/or future outputs (p. 450). Feedback can be both positive and negative (p. 450) and, in a complex system, this feedback connects the parts to create networks (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 40). Feedback in the marital system and the workplace

7 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 7 In terms of feedback, Marks (1989) and Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) would likely agree that managing and responding positively and proactively to feedback in the both the marital system and the workplace could be what ultimately determines the success of either system. If the feedback returned to the system in response to what is exported holds negative implications to martial quality and the workplace dynamic, it would behoove all parties to examine from where the negative feedback enters and adjust the system to compensate. In the case of the martial system, this process may be implemented the most in the third corner, as it is an ongoing facet of any marriage, sometimes negative, sometimes positive, sometimes neutral, and always in part constitutive of the marriage s quality (Marks, 1989, p. 24). The Usefulness and Value of Systems Theory to Examine Marriages and the Workplace Littlejohn and Foss (2008) outline six criteria to systematically evaluate a theory: theoretical scope, appropriateness, heuristic value, validity, parsimony and openness (p ). Theoretical scope A theory s scope is its comprehensiveness (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 26). Both Kast and Rosenzweig s and Marks use of systems theory to examine the workplace and a marital relationship, respectively, meet the requirement of theoretical scope. Kast and Rosenzweig s argument that systems are partially open or closed as opposed to explicitly open or closed could be expanded beyond the confines of the workplace, and Marks triangular self system dynamic can be used to examine all intimate relationships. Appropriateness Appropriateness is a kind of logical consistency between a theory and its assumptions (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 27). If systems are as vast, essentially boundless and interconnected as the consensus posits, it stands to reason that any interactive relationship, including those that make up marriages and workplaces, is appropriate to analyze systemically. Heuristic Value Heuristic value asks, Will the theory generate new ideas for research and added theory? (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 27). In this case, Marks use of systems theory to examine marital relationships has more value than Kast and Rosenzweig s use of GTS to examine the workplace.

8 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 8 Much like the value of Marks theory in terms of theoretical scope, the triangular self concept could be utilized to examine the success or failure of every intimate relationship. Kast and Rosenzweig, however, do not offer a specific approach future theorists could easily grasp and apply to other social groupings. While there is indeed some value in their analysis to spur progressive research, much of it remains vague. Validity Validity is the truth value of a theory or [its] worth correspondence [and] generalizability (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 27). In terms of worth, both Marks and Kast and Rosenzweig s theories help to better conceptualize systems theory and the scope of its uses. Regarding correspondence, the theory presented by Marks more so hits the mark than that given by Kast and Rosenzweig. If correspondence means whether the concepts specified by the theory can be observed (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 27), then the vagueness previously mentioned in regards to Kast and Rosenzweig s theory precludes such easy observation, whereas every married couple can relate to Marks succinct offering. Parsimony Parsimony says: If two theories are equally valid, the one with the simplest logical explanation is said to be best (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 27). Marks theory exceeds Kast and Rosenzweig s by far in this category, as the former s clarity supersedes the meandering tendencies of latter, especially in terms of its habit to pose open-ended questions. Openness Openness means that the theory is open to other possibilities; it is tentative, contextual and qualified (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p ). Again, Marks eloquent theory of martial relationships presses all these buttons while Kast and Rosenzweig s generality fails openness latter two characteristics. Conclusion Both Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig s General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and Management (1972) and Stephen R. Marks Toward a Systems Theory of Marital Quality (1989) provide valuable applications of systems theory,

9 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 9 although Marks effort is much more digestible and, as such, more useful in future examinations and applications of the theory.

10 Running head: SYSTEMS THEORY 10 References Kast, F.E. & Rosenzweig, J.E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15, Littlejohn, S.W., & Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of human communications (9 th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Marks, S.R. (1989). Toward a systems theory of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51,