Abstract
In 1956, Kenneth Boulding described the quest of General Systems Theory as “the need for a body of systematic theoretical construction which will discuss the general relationships of the empirical world [1].” Boulding suggests that the appropriate role for General Systems Theory is one that lies between highly generalized constructions and specific theories of particular disciplines. This suggestion allows for some variance in the role of General Systems Theory across broad catagories of knowledge; according to the degree of maturity of the sciences belonging to each category.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
K.L. Boulding, “General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science,” Management Science, Vol. 2, pp. 198–199.
R. Cyert, and J. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963.
P. Georgiou, “The Goal Paradigm and Notes Towards a Counter Paradigm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, No. 3, 1973, pp. 291–310.
E.A. Lowe, “Comments on Georgiou’s ‘The Goal Paradigm and Notes Towards a Counter Paradigm,’” Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 1974, pp. 253–254.
R. Steers, “Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, No. 4, 1975, pp. 546–558.
The feedback loop in Figure 1 through the environment by which each participant transaction reflects the influence of the level of inducements in one period to the level of contributions in subsequent periods.
This is illustrated by the number of alternative technical combinations underlying a production function.
The analysis applies equally well to non-business coalitions. Thus the opportunity cost of participation of a prisoner are the prospects he associates with an escape attempt. For a hospital patient, the best opportunity foregone may be learning to live (or die) with his problem.
The size of the F-Set is indicative of the “comparative advantage” or “slack” enjoyed by a particular enterprise, relative to the best alternatives available to coalition members.
C.I. Barnard, Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
H.A. Simon, “A Comparison of Organization Theories,” Review of Economic Studies 20, No. 1, 1952–53.
As March and Simon observe, it is the perceived foregone opportunities that are of relevance here. J. March, and H.A. Simon, Organizations, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958.
T. Burns and G. Stalker, The Management of Innovation, Social Science Paperbacks, London, 1961.
Model of the Environment of Organizations
F.E. Emery and E.L. Trist, “The Casual Texture of Organizational Environments,” Human Relations, 18, 1965, pp. 21–32.
P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch, “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1967, pp. 1–47.
S. Terreberry, “The Evolution of Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 1968.
M. Aiken and J. Hage, “The Organic Organization and Innovation,” Sociology, 5, No. 1, 1971, pp. 63–82.
R.B. Duncan, “Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1972.
H.K. Downey, D. Hellriegel and J.W. Slocum, Jr., “Environmental Uncertainty: The Construct and its Application,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 1975, pp. 613–629.
R. Whitley, “Organizational Control and the Development of Authority Patterns in Systems of Power Relations,” Working Paper, Manchester Business School, 1975.
A.M. Tinker, “A Note on ‘Environmental Uncertainty’ and a Suggestion for our Editorial Function,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, No. 3, 1976.
These two sets the present employment and the set of alternatives, are intended to be collectively exhaustive of the various possible uses of a “resource” or opportunities available to a participant.
Whether change is internally or externally induced, the consequences may be traced through the interactions of the sets in the Venn diagram.
In so far as market prices encapsulate a significant portion of the relative value of an opportunity, so the variability of an array of those prices in which an enterprise interacts could provide an operational measure of environmental variability. Further, each member of the array could be weighted by its quantity (of resources) in order to obtain a measure of variability on one dimension. Similarly, the feasibility or effectiveness (in the sense used here) of a coalition might be assessed in terms of whether a budgetary equation can be formed that meets the opportunity cost expectations of participants.
These additional role opportunity sets are circumscribed by dotted lines.
Figure 3 may also be related to more traditional models of an enterprise. For example, the F-Set would be very small in perfect competition and larger in imperfect conditions. However, such models say nothing about environmental dynamics; the F-Set may be either very “jumpy” or stable over time.
W.R. Ashby, Introduction to Cybernetics, University Paperbacks, Methuen, London, 1964.
A.M. Tinker, An Accounting Organization for Organizational Problem-Solving, Unpublished, Ph.D., University of Manchester, 1975.
E.A. Lowe and A.M. Tinker, “An Educational Design for ‘Shifting’ Degenerate Social Science Paradigms: An Application of General Systems Theory,” International Journal of General Systems, 2, 1976, pp. 231–237.
For a substantial part of this three year period, between one and three researchers were “resident” at the firm. This degree of contact together with many opportunities to meet some employees out of working hours, represented a most important source of data and means of attempting cross-validating.
A copy of the questionnaire can be obtained from the authors on request. This ten-page document was pre-tested before circulation. It contains approximately one-hundred and fifty data measures. Questions were structured to elicit interval (or higher) scale measures wherever possible. There was a 75% response rate to the two-hundred and forty-three questionnaires distributed to managers.
Over eighty taped interviews varying in length from one half-hour to over three hours were conducted with managers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1978 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tinker, A.M., Lowe, E.A. (1978). A Model of the Environment of Organizations: Theory and Evidence of Regulating “Jumpy” F-Sets. In: Klir, G.J. (eds) Applied General Systems Research. NATO Conference Series, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0555-3_64
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0555-3_64
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-0557-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-0555-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive