Cybernetics and Systems Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Note on the Relationship between Cybernetics and Systems Theory 2 See also 3 External Links 4 References

[edit] Note on the Relationship between Cybernetics and Systems Theory

Cybernetics, much like the word “system” itself, has become a common catchphrase in organizational and systems theory. In general, cybernetics is a term used loosely in reference to the technologies that enable organizations and systems to function. Today in the information age, cybernetics is much the evolution from bureaucratic systems of operational controls. Bertalanffy (1969), founder of General Systems Theory (GST) notes cybernetics is a model “to describe the formal structure of regulatory systems” (p. 22) in much the same way that Owens (2004) notes that bureaucracy aimed to provide more efficient structures to accomplish the same ends (p. 84-86). Nonetheless, whereas bureaucracy is a strict “top-down,” hierarchical model, the cybernetic organization is less rigid with less emphasis on hierarchy, more emphasis on feedback loops, group processes, limiting uncertainty, understanding organizational complexity and dynamics, etc.

The historical origins of classical systems in organizational theory with individuals such as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim in sociology and Frederick Winslow Taylor in scientific management laid the foundations of bureaucracy. These foundations integrated with later behavioral models of organizational psychology (i.e. behavioral systems of reinforced rewards and punishments that specifically aimed at “controlling” the human element). Here, it is important to expand knowledge of behavioral psychology in organizational and educational theory as discussed by authors such as Fuchs (2002) and Smith (2002), where behaviorism became institutionalized in what organizational theorist Kurt Lewin termed a “system of ideology.”

This is to say, where cybernetic systems have sought to provide solutions to classical systems of bureaucracy, the way in which structural systems are managed is particularly important. Cybernetics can be manipulated to "behavioral" ends. Issues related to artificial intelligence and computational views of the mind are relevant to such concerns; cybernetic schools that relate technology with neuroscience similarly become complicated in this respect (as defined by Bittel, 1978). Owens (2004) also notes concerns in understanding how technology affects schooling (p. 146). Theorists in the tradition of Bertalanffy advocate the need for interdisciplinary approaches and democratic designs. With the emergence of cybernetics from theorists that sought to provide solutions to the classical assumptions of bureaucratic theory, Bertalanffy (1969) emphasized that:

“Systems theory is frequently identified with cybernetics and control theory. This again is incorrect. Cybernetics as the theory of control mechanisms in technology and nature and founded on the concepts of information and feedback, is but a part of a general theory of systems;” then reiterates: "the model is of wide application but should not be identified with 'systems theory' in general," and that "warning is necessary against its incautious expansion to fields for which its concepts are not made." (p. 17-23).

Cybernetics has sought to improve upon industrial age technology and bureaucracy. In improving upon that structural frame, systems theory following Bertalanffy supports the need to remain conscious of the consequences of the misuse and mismanagement of technological systems. Simply, in correlation with differing schools of psychology, we all can recognize the need for discipline. Nonetheless - as cognitive and constructivist psychology maintains - this is best accomplished by developing individuals’ thinking skills rather than through the operant control of their behaviors. While the dichotomy between behavioral and constructivist psychology is commonly misunderstood and more complicated than there being two sides to the coin, GST would suggest technology need aim at improving organizational processes in the interests of those they are created to serve, certainly not to literally control them. The human side of human resources should not be lost.

[edit] See also

• Behaviorism
• Constructivist epistemology
• System engineering
• Systemic psychology
• Systems theory
• Systems theory in political science

[edit] External Links

• History and Systems of Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology by William Sahakian

[edit] References

• Bittel, R, Ed. (1978). Encyclopedia of Professional Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Bertalanffy, L. von. (1969). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.
• Fuchs, A. (2002). “Contributions of American Mental Philosophers to Psychology in the United States,” In Pickren, W.E. and * Dewsbury, D.A., Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology, Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association, 2002.
• Owens, R.G. (2004). Organizational Behavior in Education: Adaptive Leadership and School Reform, Eighth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Smith, D.L. (2002). “On Prediction and Control, B,F, Skinner and the Technological Ideal of Science.” In Pickren and Dewsbury, Eds., Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association.