Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing ‘patterns of change’ rather than static ‘snapshots.’
Peter Senge[i]
It is often said that real understanding of a topic only comes once you see how its parts work together. The reality is that trying to understand some complex issue can quickly become confusing.
This is especially true if one attempts to understand the relationships between concepts from different disciplines. At times, it even seems impossible to make sense of all the different perspectives. There is the reminder in Ecclesiastes that “there is no new thing under the sun”[ii]. When reflecting on the origin of business ideas it becomes clear that many of the principles were formulated hundreds of years ago. There are also numerous similarities between principles in chemistry and physics, so-called laws of nature, and certain business concepts.
Before considering culture and its possible links with ideas from other subjects, it is important to develop a basic framework to assist in creating an overall understanding.
The animal that could best illustrate, or be “the face” of, culture is probably an octopus. Consider the complexity of multiple tentacles, three hearts, nine brains and a chameleon-like ability to change colour. Add to this the flexibility that allows it to mould itself into almost any shape. Attempting to understand an octopus from the perspective of its complex parts becomes an almost impossible task. Similarly, culture is a complex concept with multiple dimensions, drivers and ‘tentacles’ that affect and influence almost all aspects of business functioning. At times, the cultural tentacles are so well camouflaged and almost invisible, that it requires some serious consideration to identify. Just like with the octopus, trying to understand the detail of culture is almost impossible if you do not first understand its “octopus-ness”.
Perhaps the only other entity that could explain culture as well is a virus. However, the negative connotations – such as that a virus causes illness – make us reluctant to use this analogy. Culture is never a disease; this despite the fact that research has shown that culture may reduce and even inhibit organisation performance.
It is important to understand and manage one’s personal paradigms and biases when studying culture. The first — and often most difficult — bias is to understand and accept that culture is never wrong. At worst, a culture may be inappropriate (for a time or place) or in conflict with another culture. However, in itself, culture is never wrong. The more culture is studied, the clearer it becomes that every aspect of a culture is rooted in a successful solution to a problem the group experienced at some stage.[iii]
The reference to a group brings us to a second principle of culture. Just as culture is never right or wrong, culture is never for the benefit of a few. Culture is always for the benefit, protection or advancement of the group.[iv] If only a section or part of a community (e.g. men) or organisation (e.g. management) benefits, it is not culture and can best be classified as a tradition.
It might be pertinent at this stage to mention the seemingly simple definition by Deal and Kennedy (1982) of culture as “the way we do things”.[v] This seems to be an accurate perspective when considering culture but does not help in developing a deeper understanding. Nor does it bring us closer to objectively measuring or managing culture in any way.
To build a framework for understanding culture it is important to step back to review the concepts of processes, systems, and chaos.
PROCESS
The process model of work (Input – Process – Output) appears extremely basic and simplistic. It could, however, be described as one of the most powerful models for understanding and improving organisation functioning. This model features in many areas ranging from costing, strategy, production, customer care, and extensively in total quality management.
In the most basic terms, the model says that you need things (inputs) which you do something with (process) so that you get something (outputs). It seems simply to be a visual representation of a recipe with the ingredients, the method and the result. The problem with the model is that although things flow from inputs to outputs, it must be set up from the output perspective. An example of this can be seen with making a cup of coffee. The process followed and thus also the inputs all depend on the kind of coffee expected by the client. Just consider the processes and ingredients for making instant, filter, cappuccino or caffè macchiato.
In all disciplines, managers set up and use feedback processes to manage the process. The most often seen is customer feedback. The key to optimal organisational performance is that these processes must be monitored, managed and acted upon. A key problem with culture is that it is not a single process and, like an octopus, can change shape and is often hidden, making feedback systems difficult.
Sometimes people use the terms processes and systems interchangeably. At other times, processes are joined to become systems and systems are joined together to form larger systems. In order to better understand culture, it is important to touch on the concepts of systems and systems thinking.
SYSTEMS
Aristotle is credited with saying that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.[vi] More recently, the Austrian biologist — Von Bertalanffy (1901–1972), known as one of the founders of general systems theory — described a system as an entity, or grouping of parts, that maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of those parts[vii]. Looking at these, it seems as if the whole is greater, not only as result of the parts, but because of their mutual interactions and relationships. This begins to explain the distinction between a process, as discussed earlier, and a system.
A number of studies have described the inputs and outputs or effects of culture. In order to understand culture, one needs to understand how culture is formed. Culture can be seen as a system, and therefore the challenge in understanding culture is to understand the interaction of, and relationships between, the parts. Looking at the coffee example again it is clear that although it seems easy to describe the process, the pleasurable result does not lie only in the process of adding water to coffee. The result comes from the combination of many other factors such as the type of bean, its origin, amount of rainfall in the area, the roasting and so on, until the final preparation process.
Culture is similar to the coffee “system” where multiple factors affect each other and eventually the whole becomes bigger than the parts. Culture will over time even become bigger than the influence that the leadership of an organisation or community has on that culture. As with coffee, culture cannot be narrowed down to a coffee machine — or the leadership — it is everything that goes with and influences coffee making.
When trying to understand systems, the question “how long is a piece of string” comes to mind. The standard answer is “it is as long as you need it to be”, and that is where systems become complex.
Ackoff, (1919–2009), identified four types of systems, based on whether the parts, the whole, or both, are purposeful — able to pursue goals of their own. A deterministic system, such as a machine, has neither a purposeful whole nor purposeful parts. An animate system, such as the human body, has a purposeful whole made up of parts — cells, organs, sub-systems — that are not themselves purposeful. A social system, such as a business, has both a purposeful whole and purposeful parts: the organisation has goals, and so do the people in it. An ecological system has purposeful parts but no purposeful whole — an ecosystem is not itself pursuing anything, even though the organisms within it are.[viii] Culture sits closest to this last category: the individuals who carry a culture are all pursuing their own purposes, but the culture that emerges from their interaction – and personal histories – is not itself a single purposeful agent, which is why it can never simply be designed from the top.
Boulding (1910–1993) postulated nine different levels of increasingly complex systems. These levels are based on awareness, interpretation and ability to influence. A social system — such as culture — is at level eight, with only transcendental systems being more complex.[ix] A transcendental system can be described as beyond human comprehension. This level of system marks the boundary where empirical science ends and structural gaps in knowledge begin.
A cultural system is, put simply, a definable system – although extremely complex – made up of “thinking” elements which interact to attain an identifiable purpose. The problem with such a system is that the thinking elements also function independently and are involved in processes of their own. Elements also affect each other in varying and often non-linear ways.
To understand culture it is important to use systems thinking. However, as Ackoff argued, systems thinking reverses the usual order of knowledge. Just as with the process model of work., understanding is meant to proceed from the whole to its pa
[i] Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990).
[ii] Ecclesiastes 1:9 (King James Version).
[iii] Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 5th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2017).
[iv] Bronisław Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944).
[v] Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982).
[vi] Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book VIII (H), 1045a8–10.
[vii] Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (New York: George Braziller, 1968).
[viii] Russell L. Ackoff and Fred E. Emery, On Purposeful Systems: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behaviour as a System of Purposeful Events (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972).
[ix] Kenneth E. Boulding, “General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science,” Management Science 2, no. 3 (1956): 197–208.
Leave a Reply