Search results

The purpose of this study is to develop a meta-model for organisational change based on a literature review across organisational theories, specific theories about organisational change and systems theories related to theories of organisational change.

The research is based on an extensive literature review for the period 1972–2012 which covers organisational theories, systems theories relating to organisational change theories, and specific theories of organisational change. It used the Social Sciences Citation Index using as search items change, transformation, organization[al] model, theory, systems, and combinations of these terms. The research is based on an extensive literature review for the period 1972–2012 which covers organisational theories, systems theories relating to organisational change theories, and specific theories of organisational change. It used the Social Sciences Citation Index using as search items change, transformation, organization[al] model, theory, systems, and combinations of these terms.

The meta-model is constructed as a complex systems model including the four discourses and their process elements. As each discourse provides specific and different insights into how organisational change occurs, we can widen our field of view on change by switching between different discourses. This also allows a holistic rather than the reductionist methods of other approaches.

The meta-model makes it possible to look at organisational change from a variety of angles. Structural, cultural, behavioral and strategic change can be looked at from four different dimensions. It allows for insights from the different discourses to be drawn upon, as each of which have their merits but also their own limitations. By going beyond the normative discourse, it provides for a model of organisational change that better reflects the complexity of change in real life settings and captures the complexity of the research literature.

The paper seeks to demonstrate that a systems model of change is better able to capture the complex nature of change than are linear models. Synthesizing this literature has been undertaken previously but this has usually been done with linear models of change which have produced limited results.

The approach is based on an evolutionary interpretation of the fundamental concepts of cybernetics, general systems theory, information theory, theory of automata, autopoiesis, etc. In the author's view, this enables us to formulate principles of the evolutionary theory of cybernetic systems which is visualised as the theory of structures, functions and evolution of cybernetic or control systems. This suggests a heuristic idea of cybernetic evolution as the higher stage of negentropic universal evolution of open systems.

The emergence of public relations as an academic and practitioner discipline has benefited from input from many sources: social science, behavioural science, engineering, philosophy, business and management. One of the main theoretical underpinnings is systems theory, with parallels being drawn between systems and how communication is practised. Most public relations texts, however, including some of the most influential, do not do justice to the richness of systems theory, especially the most recent thinking on the subject. In this paper the author reviews the use of the better known systems theories, and examines some of the newer developments and applies these to the contemporary practice of public relations. The French school of thought called actor‐network theory is also alluded to in order to extend the discussion. The paper is in three sections. The first focuses on the older systems theories and their traditional application to public relations practice as propounded in the prevalent Grunig and Hunt public relations models. The second looks at some of the newer models in systems thinking, notes how they differ from the older ones and examines how they have relevance to modern practice. In the third section the author uses two practical examples, the breaking down of organisational barriers and current and potential uses of the Internet, to demonstrate the inadequacies of the older systems approach and the applicability of the new theories.

The purpose of this paper is to present the scientific background from which grey systems theory came into being, the astonishing progress that grey systems theory has made in the world of learning and its wide‐ranging applications in the entire spectrum of science.

The grey uncertainty is compared with other kinds of uncertainty such as stochastic uncertainty, unascertainty, fuzzy and rough uncertainty.

The advances in grey systems theory and its various successful applications are introduced individually by algorithms of grey numbers and grey algebraic systems, grey dynamic models and grey predictions, grey optimization analysis for decision making, grey control models.

Many scientific theories require the unremitting efforts of several generations of people and have gone through hundreds of years before reaching maturity and perfection. Grey systems theory is still in its growth period. So, it is unavoidable that there exist immature and imperfect parts in the theory.

Grey systems theory is a new method for studying problems of uncertainty with few data points and poor information. This new theory studies small samples and systems with poor information, which have partial information known, partial information unknown. It describes adequately and monitors effectively systems' operations and evolutions through extracting valuable information from the little known information. Grey systems theory comes into being along with the development of modern systems science and uncertainty systems theories and methods. It is also a result of deepened perceptivity about uncertain systems.

The economic theory of the firm apparently concurs with Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems with regard to the primary function of the firm to be complexity reduction, i.e. the alleviation of the cognitive burden on agents whose cognitive capacities are limited. At the same time, however, the theory of the firm ignores the attendant issues of societal sustainability emphasised by Luhmann. The paper aims to fill this gap.

Taking a theoretical approach, the paper builds on the conceptual construct of “the complexity-sustainability trade-off”, which combines two contrasting aspects of the relationship between a system and its environment, namely, the precariousness highlighted by Luhmann and the embeddedness highlighted by open systems theory. These themes are respectively reflected in the principles of complexity reduction and environmental dependence which constitute the trade-off.

Drawing inspiration from the classic Marshallian presentation of supply and demand in modern economics, the paper argues that the principles of complexity reduction and critical dependence translate into the demand for and supply of social systems. In the proposed systems-theoretic interpretation of the theory of the firm, demand and supply refer to the imperatives of achieving coordination and securing cooperation within the firm, respectively. Thus, in the theory of the firm, the complexity-sustainability trade-off manifests itself as a trade-off between coordination and cooperation.

The implicit focus of the theory of the firm on complexity reduction disregards the nature, importance and fragility of cooperation in real-world firms. In so doing, it impedes the authors’ understanding of unconventional types of business organisation, such as cooperatives. These defects can be corrected by reorienting the theory of the firm according to the proposed systems-theoretic approach, which holds that firms should not be governed or studied in isolation from their environment, as they too often are – and, accordingly, that apparently anomalous forms of organisation should be taken seriously, as they too often are not.

The present article pertains to recent advances in social systems theoretical analyses of moral communication.

An introduction to basic concepts and requirements for systems-theoretical approaches to morality and communication is provided, as is an introduction to 14 contributions to a pertinent special issue of Kybernetes.

The review of these 14 cases suggests that social systems theory enables researchers to study moral communication without necessarily performing it.

This article reappraises and challenges Niklas Luhmann's occasionally distanced attitude to morality, which has occasionally been understood as a form of moral communication itself.

The purpose of this paper is to state new formulation of the programme‐styled framework of pansystems research and related expansions.

Pansystems‐generalized extremum principle (0**: (dy/dx=0)**) is presented with recognitions to various logoi of philosophy, mathematics, technology, systems, cybernetics, informatics, relativity, biology, society, resource, communications and related topics: logic, history, humanities, aesthetics, journalism, IT, AI, TGBZ* <truth*goodness*beauty*Zen*>, etc. including recent rediscoveries of 50 or so pansystems logoi.

A keynote of the paper is to develop the deep logoi of the analytic mathematics, analytic mechanics, variational principles, Hilbert's sixth/23rd problems, pan‐axiomatization to encyclopedic principles and various applications. The 0**‐universal connections embody the transfield internet‐styled academic tendency of pansystems exploration.

The paper includes topics: history megawave, pansystems sublation‐modes, pan‐metaphysics, pansystems dialogs with logoi of 100 thinkers or so, and pansystems‐sublation for a series of logoi concerning the substructure of encyclopedic dialogs such as systems, derivative, extremum, quantification, variational principle, equation, symmetry, OR, optimization, approximation, yinyang, combination, normality‐abnormality, framework, modeling, simulation, relativity, recognition, practice, methodology, mathematics, operations and transformations, quotientization, product, clustering, Banach completeness theorem, Weierstrass approximation theorem, Jackson approximation theorem, Taylor theorem, approximation transformation theorems due to Walsh‐Sewell mathematical school, Hilbert problems, Cauchy theorem, theorems of equation stability, function theory, logic, paradox, axiomatization, cybernetics, dialectics, multistep decision, computer, synergy, vitality and the basic logoi for history, ethics, economics, society OR, aesthetics, journalism, institution, resource and traffics, AI, IT, etc.

The stakeholder theory encompasses instrumental and normative varieties whose mutual relationship remains unclear and exhibits a classic tension between rational self-interest and moral motivation. The purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy for navigating this tension.

Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory is concerned with the limited ability of social systems to codify, and be receptive to, the complexity of the environment. Drawing on this theory, the paper juxtaposes the codification problems of two types of social systems: the for-profit firm and the economic function system.

This juxtaposition allows to identify four firm behavior patterns, two of which can be aligned with instrumental and normative stakeholder theories. If the codification capacity of the economic function system is assumed to be sufficient, the codification problems of the for-profit firm are shown to specify the range of applicability of the instrumental stakeholder theory. Dropping the above assumption is shown to specify the range of applicability of the normative stakeholder theory.

The argument offers a fresh way of understanding the institutional economics foundations of the stakeholder theory. Given that the systems-theoretic idea of codification reflects the functioning of the real-world institutions, the argument shows that both instrumental and normative stakeholder theories reflect the institutional texture of the modern society in distinct but equally legitimate ways.

The purpose is to forward systems theory one more step towards social theory and integrate problem-solving and theory-building, and search for the integration and unity of science by revealing the nature and role of critical systems thinking (CST).

This article describes relations between systems theory and social theory in three parts. First, it examines the links of systems methodologies with three social science approaches as well as the role of CST. Second, the focus of theory and the form of explanation are discussed from critical social science (CSS) perspective. Third, the direction of theorizing of a CST-based systems theory is investigated.

First, CST is a hidden assumption of system dynamics (SD)/systems thinking (ST). Second, systems theory is positioned in CSS. Third, CST integrates traditional and soft systems methodologies (SSM), and connects systems science and social science. Fourth, this article reveals hidden links between systems approaches and three corresponding social science approaches. Fifth, the theoretical focus of a CST-based systems theory could be formal/structure theory and/or substantive/content theory. Sixth, the form of explanation could be structural/mechanismic explanation combining causal and interpretive explanations. Seventh, a CST-based systems theory may adopt abduction, which complements a defect in deduction and induction in a difficulty of nonlinearity.

It illustrates a graph of the competing approaches in systems science corresponding to paradigms in social science.

With the popularity of electronic commerce, many organizations are facing unprecedented security challenges. Security techniques and management tools have caught a lot of attention from both academia and practitioners. However, there is lacking a theoretical framework for information security management. This paper attempts to integrate security policy theory, risk management theory, control and auditing theory, management system theory and contingency theory in order to build a comprehensive theory of information security management (ISM). This paper suggests that an integrated system theory is useful for understanding information security management, explaining information security management strategies, and predicting management outcomes. This theory may lay a solid theoretical foundation for further empirical research and application.