Governance: Systemic Foundations and Framework (Contributions to Management Science)

Citation

Andrew, A.M. (2010), "Governance: Systemic Foundations and Framework (Contributions to Management Science)", Kybernetes, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 386-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921011021598

The word “governance” was popularized by Stafford Beer, and defended as distinct in meaning from the more familiar term “government,” or even government judged by some criterion to be “good government.” The distinction seems to be that whereas “government” denotes the ostensible apparatus, with elections, committees, voting, statutes, and so on, “governance” refers to how it all really works, depending on many additional flows of information and influence. In the context of management consultancy under Stafford's direction it used to be said that the nominal “organization chart” of a firm has little bearing on viable operation and serves mainly as a means of assigning blame when things go wrong.

The distinction made by Türke early in his treatment is in general agreement with this view and he refers to: “the totality of interactions in which actors participate” as his object of study. He contrasts this approach with others that focus more narrowly on interactions between structures or sub‐systems within the governed whole.

I find it difficult, though, to accept the general aim of the book as set out in the first two sentences of the notes on the back cover:

Instead of yet another theory on good governance, this book presents a substantiation of contemporary notions. It builds on the theoretical foundations for taking an overall perspective on social contexts and culminates in a systemic framework that captures social structures based on first principles of viability and sustainability.

It seems to be suggested that a theory and means of governance can be built from a set of rules similar to axioms in mathematics (or mathematics as it was assumed to be, pre‐Gödel). In a final summary, the author poses as one of the research questions he has been treating:

RQ1. How can governance be captured in a holistic, integrated, and context‐independent framework?

Admittedly, the claim is that the question has been considered in “an explorative mode” which could mean that what is effectively asked is not just “how?” but also “to what extent?” There is however an assumption of definiteness that contrasts oddly with the warning in the book's preface that the reader must not expect the theory to match with any practical situation in an immediately apparent way. There is a curious mismatch between the acknowledgement of a need for interpretation and selection in the “way out” from theory to practice and the assumption of a rather firm body of theory implying greater certainty on the “way in” from practice to theory. This is not to deny that there are useful underlying laws, codified as management science by Stafford Beer and others, but these must be essentially pragmatic, and Beer repeatedly emphasized that his results were distilled from extensive experience. A warning against indiscriminate analogies between human and non‐human viable systems was made by Vickers (1983).

These reservations about aspects of the general approach should not disguise the fact that this is indeed a magnum opus and clearly stems from extensive and careful study of the literature. The biographical note on the author shows him to have an impressive “track record” in management in various parts of the world, such that his pragmatic judgment of what is valuable in management theory is undoubtedly solidly based, and in a foreword there is an assurance by Professor Markus Schwaninger that the book is full of valuable insights. The extensive study of the literature is emphasized by 14 pages of references and no fewer than 719 footnotes, many of which include references and seem to be suggestions for further reading. Many of the references are to works in German language including the voluminous ones of Niklas Luhmann.

I have a feeling that, despite the impressive scholarship, there may be some weaknesses in the arguments. As in many other works including those of Luhmann, the extension of the principle of autopoiesis to social systems seems to be accepted without question although Maturana himself is distinctly lukewarm about it in his comments reported by Poerksen (2004), and also in the early collection by Zeleny (1981) it was shown there was disagreement between Maturana and Varela even about the significance for biology. There is also uncritical acceptance of the applicability of Ashby's principle of requisite variety, over which reservations have been reviewed by Andrew (2009).

Although, the book is mainly about general principles rather than case studies, a lengthy penultimate chapter is devoted to application of the principles to analysis of the administration of the state of Hesse, or in German Hessen, of the German Federal Republic, which includes the city of Frankfurt as well as Wiesbaden and other spas (as well as a region producing much‐acclaimed white wines). Interactions between levels of administration are discussed in considerable detail with attention to their recursive nature. Limitations due to channel capacities are acknowledged, with also reference to major changes stemming from electronic means of communication.

Without anecdotal support from case studies the messages of the book tend to make rather dull reading, though it is entirely possible that they would slot into place in the Weltanschauung of someone close to the “coal‐face” of management. The second chapter (following the introduction) is on “Actors, images and systems” followed by a third on “Interaction” and a fourth on “Viability”, and then one on “Community” and then the long one dealing with Hessian Communities. They are supported by numerous diagrams and tables.

Some one dipping into the book at random is likely to be puzzled by aspects of the presentation, and there is no subject index to turn to for help. Certain terms, especially the word “system,” appear sometimes between asterisks as *system* but more often between little circles or “degree” signs, as °system°. In one of the forewords, and also on page 40 of the text, it is explained that the distinction is between ontology, or “surface view” (when with asterisks) and epistemology, or “inside view” (when with circles) of the concept indicated. A dipper‐in is also likely to be puzzled by superscripted groups of letters added to terms, between single quotes as in: ‘Requirements^OR’. The meanings of the letter groups are listed on page 139 of the book as logical level of representation, TR (tacit), OR (operative), SR (strategic) and NR (normative). The adoption of such a set of distinctions confirms that a deep level of analysis is undertaken.