ALTHOUGH A RELATIVELY YOUNG area of research, the field of Human Resource Development (HRD) has been long plagued with criticisms and doubts about the practical validity of its theoretical bases. Following a trip to Japan back in 1992, leading HRD theorist Richard Swanson lamented that HRD, in America at least, has a tendency to talk system theory at the expense of practice: “The lack of HRD systems follow-through in American business and industry is horrendous” (Swanson, 1992, p. 213).
At the same time, most interested parties agree that HRD rests on a multidisciplinary theoretical foundation. This multidisciplinary approach appears to be what ultimately led Swanson’s fellow theorist Kuchinke (2001) to argue that HRD cannot be rightly classified as an academic discipline. According to Kuchinke (2001), HRD suffers criticism in academic circles due to inconsistent use of terminology, particularly in regard to system theory. Because general system theory was originally devised as a means to unite the sciences, it cannot qualify as a discipline and HRD cannot lay claim to it as such: “Despite the many insights offered by system theory, it does not rise to the level of a discipline” (Kuchinke, 2001, p. 293).
As Swanson (2001) has explained, however, critics of HRD fail to mention that most other applied fields, such as medicine, engineering and education, also rely on multidisciplinary theoretical bases. Whether a “discipline proper” or not, system theory has rightly maintained its status as a foundational theoretical support of the emerging field of HRD (Swanson & Holton, 2001). The following exploratory study will present an overview of general systems theory, some specific applications within the field of HRD, and some general conclusions.
Systems, General Systems Theory, and Related Theories
From the field of industrial engineering, Banks, Carson and Nelson (1996) have proposed a helpful working definition of a system as “a group of objects that are joined together in some regular interaction or interdependence toward the accomplishment of some purpose” (p. 8). Features common to systems include the system’s boundary, its external environment, and sensitivity to disturbances both within and outside the system. (Banks et al, 1996).
For purposes of analysis, a system’s components may be said to include: entities, that is, objects of interest within the system; attributes, or defining properties of entities; states, i.e., “snapshots” of the system’s collective descriptive variables at a given time; activities, which are marked by actions occurring within specific stretches of time; and events, which have the potential to change the state of the system (Banks et al, 1996). Researchers have suggested that all this relates to HRD, in that organizations qualify as systems, and HRD itself amounts to a “system within a system,” a subsystem within the organization (Swanson & Holton, 2001).
General Systems Theory
Originally proposed by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1950’s, General Systems Theory (GST) provided a sort of theoretical common thread uniting the various sciences (Wang, 2004). The economist Kenneth Boulding, for example, applied GST not only to economics, but to all scientific research; whereas William Scott in 1961, and Herbert Simon in 1969, examined GST specifically in light of organizational systems (Wang, 2004).
As a unifying theory, GST therefore acts as a philosophical lens—through which to both interpret the nature of being, or reality, and to make further discoveries about the world. In other words, systems theory constitutes both an ontology and an epistemology (Swanson & Holton, 2001). The basic premise of GST, says Wang (2004), is the “nonsummativity assumption,” or the understanding that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The nonsummativity assumption also (whether stated or not) features frequently in the fields of economics and social psychology, and therefore provides further evidence of the close interrelationships between the theoretical disciplines or areas of research said to support HRD.
Chaos Theory
Research in chaos theory suggests that random, erratic and disordered behaviors in a system actually conform to larger-scale patterns. “The main tenet of Chaos Theory is that, from a conceptual-process perspective, dysfunctional systems and apparent disarray and displacement are a normal aspect of adaptation to high-stress conditions” (Piotrowski, 2006, p. 10). Chaos theory holds especially well for human social interactions in disruptive situations, as humans use all the wits and willpower at their disposal to adjust to the crisis. As history itself attests, social crises lead to riots, which lead to revolutions, then a new order. Piotrowski (2006) addresses chaos theory as a tool for making sense of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath.
In organizations, chaos theory has proven useful in day-to-day management, but especially crisis management (Piotrowski, 2006). In the sense that a downsizing represents a first-order organizational crisis, involving unusual levels of uncertainty and complexity (Mirabal & DeYoung, 2005), chaos and complexity theory could also help inform intervention efforts during the transition. Strange as it may sound, the presence of chaos, in the right amounts and at the right times, may also prove the mark of effective management. The immediate search for solutions, after all, does require some groping around in the dark. In the context of organizational learning, for example, Sullivan (2003) observes, “Chaotic phases occur in a true learning organisation because disorder often surrounds people’s perception of a particular issue before understanding and reflective learning set in” (p. 51).
Cybernetics
Norbert Wiener’s vision of cybernetics initially dealt with the power of information to predict various outcomes of various actions, and therefore make effective, reliable decisions in the present (Umpleby & Dent, 1999). At organizational levels, cybernetics means information transmission depending on communication, feedback, control, and knowledge of the system itself (Swanson & Holton, 2001). After Wiener, cybernetics passed through two major stages, inspired first by Alan Turing’s systematic method for decoding the Nazis’ Enigma machine messages during World War II (Umbleby & Dent, 1999). A contemporary of Turing, Warren McCulloch (with a colleague, Pitts) in 1943 presented the groundbreaking theory of “neuro-philosophy,” which purported to explain “how the activity of a network of neurons results in ideas” (Umpleby & Dent, 1999, p. 94). McCulloch’s theory helped spark the constructivist movement, which emphasizes the role of the observer as part of the system.
Complex Adaptive Systems
From chaos theory a subfield—complex adaptive systems—has developed, which suggests that systems are actually more complex than the chaos they contain. In other words, the order-chaos-order pattern has proven too simple in many situations. The theory of complex adaptive systems, according to Swanson and Holton (2001), “proposes that systems function in an area of complexity between chaos and order” (p. 115). Other researchers highlight the fact that complexity theory reveals the “openness” of complex, dynamic systems, through the self-organizing adaptability of the elements within it (Carlisle & MacMillan, 2006).
Insights and Applications of System Theory to HRD
Structure and Behavior of Systems
As systems theory research reveals more information about the structure of systems, HRD practitioners should be equipped to make better decisions, especially in organization design. Fortunately, all systems share certain defining structural characteristics. For organizational HRD concerns, the most important of these is the “openness” of systems, making them amenable to manipulation from within and outside. From this starting assumption, individual systemic particularities can be discovered. Torraco (2005), for example, specifies that sociotechnical systems (e.g. management information systems) have been shown to consist of both human and technological elements, each with specific characteristics, needs and requirements. Therefore work design and organization design in sociotechnical systems should reflect those concerns (Torraco, 2005).
Similarly, insights into system behaviors can lead to optimizing decision making among HRD professionals. Here the wealth of information provided by cybernetics, along with chaos and complex adaptive systems theories, have suggested that complex systems are deterministic, which means that causes of behavior patterns exist (Swanson & Holton, 2001)--which means in turn that, in principle and in the short term, the system can be controlled and its outputs predicted. The field of total quality management appears to have stemmed from the “control” aspect of systems and cybernetics (Wang, 2004). Information systems management and artificial intelligence research also may be said to derive from system theory.
Changes and Futures in Systems
System theory has helped “demystify” change, translating disorder, chaos and helplessness into distinguishable patterns and explicit change management strategies. Moreover, as indicated by Swanson and Holton (2001), systems are demonstrably more effective when undergoing some degree of tension from competing elements than when in a peaceful, predictable equilibrium. As Peters and Waterman (1982) documented in their study of “excellent companies” such as 3M, organizations that thrive most competitively are “loose-tight,” that is practically decentralized but philosophically centralized. “[T]hey are fanatic centralists around the few core values they hold dear,” so that 3M and like companies are “marked by barely organized chaos…” (p. 15). These insights should help managers to gain perspective on conflict and conflict resolution, and to appreciate the presence of unconventional, “outside-the-box” thinkers (Peters and Waterman refer to them as “champions”), those troublesome independent sorts who potentially can introduce changes by generating fresh ideas and creative, practical (non-political) solutions to problems.
Along related lines, managers could use systems information to modify the usual strategic planning approach, which seems to assume that long-term plans drawn up on paper can be successfully undertaken quite regardless of any real-world developments. Complexity and chaos theory suggest alternatively that planning must consider the state of the system, the most likely long-term prospects for that system, and the need to evaluate periodically (adapt) during implementation (Swanson & Holton, 2001).
Conclusions and Possible Future Research Avenues
In the current era of globalization, information systems-driven businesses, e-commerce and networking, a genuine understanding and appreciation of systems theory may prove invaluable. From the research presented here and elsewhere it should be clear that systems theory is far more than a “philosophical metaphor” or a trendy management fad or buzzword, but an interpretation of complexity that makes sense of numerous, otherwise completely disassociated and inexplicable (i.e., chaotic) phenomena. Systems theory also goes a long way toward justifying seemingly “instinctive” HRD investments, such as training, by connecting them with the bottom line, each treated as individual factors within the system (Wang, Dou, & Li, 2002).
Some possible areas for further study in systems and HRD could include the connection between systems theory and economic versions of the nonsummativity assumption, i.e., that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Economies of scale, for one example, could be interpreted as effective, productive systems. Diseconomies of scale would then be seen as the consequence of introducing chaos into the system, in the form of too many additional inputs or factors, including too many insufficiently trained new additions of labor or human resources.
The cybernetics ideal of control could be explored right along with complex adaptability, in studies of the use of simulation techniques. According to Banks et al (1996), “Simulation enables the study of, and experimentation with, the internal interactions of a complex system, or of a subsystem within a complex system” (p. 4). Simulation could also lead to more fruitful HRD uses of artificial intelligence tools. Genetic algorithms model the adaptability and evolution of living organisms (Laudon & Laudon, 2003), and analogously could serve to model organization design situations. These economic issues related to systems could also be coupled with psychological issues, in the way of studies in social behavior; group dynamics, group cohesion and groupthink; and the phenomenon of synergy.
References
Banks, J., Carson, J. S. II, & Nelson, B. L. (1996). Discrete-event system simulation. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8, 2-9. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from Business Source Premier database.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2001). Why HRD is not an academic discipline. Human Resource Development International, 4, 291-294. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from Business Source Complete database.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2003). Essentials of management information systems: Managing the digital firm. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mirabal, N., & DeYoung, R. (2005). Downsizing as a strategic intervention. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 39-45.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Piotrowski, C. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and organization development: Part 1. Implications of chaos theory. Organization Development Journal, 24, 10-19. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from Business Source Premier database.
Sullivan, T. J. (2004). The viability of using various system theories to describe organisational change. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 43-54. Retrieved October 21, 2006 from Proquest database.
Swanson, R. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 4, 299-312.
Swanson, R. A. (1992). Pick a system, any system. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 213-214. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from Business Source Complete database.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Work design theory: A review and critique with implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 85-109. Retrieved October 21, 2006 from Wiley Interscience database.
Umpleby, S. A., & Dent, E. B. (1999). The origins and purposes of several traditions in systems theory and cybernetics. Cybernetics and Systems, 30, 79-103. Retrieved October 21, 2006 from Business Complete database.
Wang, G., Dou, Z., & Li, N. (2002). A systems approach to measuring return on investment for HRD interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 203-224. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from Proquest database.
Wang, T. (2004). From general system theory to total quality management. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4, 394-400. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from Business Source Complete database.