Science, Systems, and Change

“If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts – physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on – remember that nature does not know it.” – Feynman, R. P. (1964)¹

Introduction: The Dangers of Neat Categories

It is not unusual to hear people arguing about which is the “better” discipline – the exact or the social sciences. This debate surfaces equally in business, where people debate the importance of the so-called hard and soft sides of organisational life. There is no small irony in the observation that the so-called soft side of business is, in practice, the most difficult to manage effectively. The discussion gets even more heated when departments – finance, marketing, human resources, and production – argue over their importance to business success. The underlying assumption in all these debates is that the world, and the organisations that exist within it, can be divided into neat, manageable categories.

The tetrahedron (a three-sided pyramid of strategy, culture, and change) exposes the limits of that assumption almost immediately. Despite each falling, loosely, under specific business functions, none of them can be confined to a predefined category. All three require what Alexander Laszlo and Stanley Krippner² described so precisely:

Observed phenomena in the natural and human-made universe do not come in neat disciplinary packages labelled scientific, humanistic, and transcendental: they invariably involve complex combinations of fields, and the multifaceted situations to which they give rise require a holistic approach for their solution.

– Laszlo & Krippner (1998)²

This quote – and the one by Feynman above –sets the tone for this series of reflections. Together they make the case for the kind of integrated, systems-based thinking that this work is built around. The world that managers and practitioners are required to navigate does not divide neatly into disciplines. Understanding that interconnection is, arguably, a prerequisite for effective leadership and organisational development.

Understanding Systems

Before delving into science and the scientific method, it is important to develop a working understanding of systems. For something to be classified as a system, it should meet certain criteria³:

• It must have elements or components that interact with each other, with some form of feedback between them. These elements can be anything from parts of diagrams to machine parts to humans.
• The interaction of the elements has some purpose and occurs within a boundary that also acts as a constraint. The boundary can be a formal boundary or arbitrarily drawn to aid in understanding.
• The system exists within a broader environment with which it interacts – obtaining inputs and delivering outputs.

The reference to inputs and outputs connects directly to a widely applied yet frequently undervalued model in business.

In economics, there is a mathematical model referred to as the IO, or input-output, model. This model represents the interdependencies between different economic sectors.4 There is, at first glance, a similar model, namely the IPO, or input-process-output, model developed by McGrath in 19645. This model explains team interaction from a process perspective.[1] It was developed to outline the interactions among team members based on the unique contributions each person brings to the team.

The I-P-O model has since become a generic model in most situations involving transformation. This model has also been fundamental in the concept of Japanese quality management, to be explored in a subsequent reflection. It is encountered when discussing anything ranging from manufacturing, computer-based programmes, performance management, and systems thinking.

Kenneth Boulding⁶ suggested that there are nine levels of systems, each building on, but more complex than, the previous. Applied to an organisational context, these levels move from the relatively simple to the profoundly complex:

1. Static with a pattern, such as a filing system or an organogram.
2. Predetermined with fixed motion, such as standard operating procedures or conveyor belts.
3. Self-adjusting within predetermined parameters such as an inventory or accounting system.
4. Self-maintaining or open within its environment, such as an organisation or a franchise.
5. Growth and interlinked functional parts, such as functional departments.
6. Goal-oriented and environmentally aware, such as a marketing function or self-directed work teams.
7. Conscious, with self-awareness, such as individual employees.
8. Sociocultural interaction, such as cross-functional teams or organisational culture.
9. Unknowable or undefinable concepts. The most complex of all systems for example, vision, mission, and organisational ethics.

The critical insight here is that an organisation cannot be classified as fitting into a single level. Organisations are a combination of all nine levels simultaneously. This is not merely a theoretical observation. It has direct and practical implications for how one approaches strategy, culture, and change. Attempts to manage an organisation as though it were a level-three system (e.g., a stores system), when it is in fact operating as a level-eight system (e.g., a cultural system), are the source of many of the most persistent and costly management failures. Senge’s work on the learning organisation is particularly relevant at levels seven through nine, as it explicitly addresses the collective awareness and shared mental models required to function at these more complex levels.7

Meadows (2008)⁸ argued that one of the most powerful points of leverage in any system is the ability to change its goals – what she termed “the mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises.” This has direct implications for culture work: changing an organisation’s espoused values without addressing the deeper paradigm that drives actual behaviour is unlikely to produce sustainable results. It is, in Meadows’ terms, an intervention at the wrong leverage point.

It is important to note that any attempt to change a higher-order system in an organisation requires changing lower-order systems at the same time. It is also noteworthy that, given the interaction of systems, a change in a lower-order system – within a higher-order system – can have unexpected results in a totally different or unexpected area. Although they might be presented as the solution, there is a danger in utilising pre-packaged solutions in higher-level systems. Just as there is no pre-packaged strategy that will work for all organisations, there is no pre-packaged solution to problems within higher-level organisation systems. There might be standardised or uniform level-three systems that will work, but fitting them into the organisation requires care and an understanding of the total system.

Exact and Inexact Sciences

The distinction between exact and inexact sciences rests on the degree to which the principles of a subject can be uniformly demonstrated and replicated through study and research. In the exact sciences, universally accepted rules explain why and how things happen. In the inexact sciences – which include the social and organisational sciences – no such hard and fast rules can be established.

Consider gravity – a level 1 system. The gravitational pull on earth is approximately 9.8 metres per second squared – a constant that is, for practical purposes, uniform. Gravitational pull does vary depending on location and mass, but for everyday purposes, those differences are negligible. Now consider the question of attraction between two people. Researchers have long attempted to quantify this, and it remains elusive. There have been television programmes where people attempted to measure and match partners. Clearly, attraction exists. But unlike physical gravity, it cannot be reduced to a formula of mass and distance. The variables are simply too complex and too context-dependent.

When working with organisational development, we are firmly in the territory of the inexact sciences. This does not mean that there are no principles or patterns to identify – there are. Where they can be identified, they must be applied with judgement, contextual awareness, and an acceptance that they are at best guidelines, and that cause and effect are rarely simple or linear

Bringing It Together

Garvin and Roberto⁹ argue that sustainable change requires a carefully orchestrated persuasion campaign — one that must begin long before the change plan is finalised. This aligns with Kotter’s¹⁰ foundational observations that change is inherently a multi-phase process, and that any attempt to shortcut those phases produce only the illusion of progress.

Newtonian laws of nature refer to inertia, proportional force, and action and reaction. In business and organisational change, understanding these and their impact is not an academic exercise; it is reality. The laws of nature are foundational to the kind of systems thinking that effective work in strategy, culture, and change demands. In the reflections that follow, these and other laws of nature will be applied more directly to the realities of organisational life.

The key takeaway at this stage is straightforward: change is not an event. It is a process that unfolds within a system governed by real and identifiable forces. The practitioner who understands those forces – and plans accordingly – is significantly better placed to succeed.

References

1. Feynman, R. P. (1964). The Feynman lectures on physics (Vol. 1). Addison-Wesley.

2. Laszlo, A., & Krippner, S. (1998). Systems theories: Their origins, foundations, and development. In J. S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems theories and a priori aspects of perception (pp. 47–74). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(98)80017-4

3. Understanding System Definitions and Components https://www.scribd.com/document/638666640/Untitled

4. Leontief, W. (1986). Input-output economics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

5. McGrath, J. (1964) Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York

6. Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197

7. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Doubleday.

8. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

9. Garvin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 104–112. https://hbr.org/2005/02/change-through-persuasion

10. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2