A few concepts are key in general systems theory and have a different application when we compare open versus closed systems.
Een aantal concepten zijn belangrijk om rekening mee te houden in de algemene systeemtheorie en zouden weleens verschillende mogelijke toepassingen kunnen hebben. Er zijn daarmee grote verschillen te benoemen tussen ‘volledige open’ en ‘volledig gesloten systemen’. Geen enkel systeem is ofwel volledig gesloten ofwel volledig open. Waarom dit zo is zoals het is, is voor mij ook nog een raadsel. Vanaf hier ga ik de Engelse tekst verder editen en zal ik steeds beetje bij beetje meer in het Nederlands schrijven als vertalen. Het zou ideaal zijn als ik deze website in verschillende talen kan gaan zetten op deze manier. Will see.
Let me try to shed some light on it, and see it in the context of human organizations.
Generally speaking we can assume that a system seeks equilibrium, a balanced and, ideally, stable state in which opposing forces are neutralized, resulting in some form of order or symmetry. Life seems to have a purpose of balancing out these forces into a stable bedrock as a matter of speaking, hence, the reason why we see so much symmetry in nature. Self-organization in nature can be seen as life’s ‘consciousness’ maybe, a governing force using natural selection to determine new pathways for evolution to occur.
In closed systems where there exists a ‘minimal’ interaction with the environment, the equilibrium is more static and rigid. The closer the system, the more closed its ‘boundaries’ are, the more structural integrity the system seems to have. In these systems there exists a linear and simple explanation how this state is achieved, because of low levels of diversity between the individual components and interaction among these. There exists just one or a few possible pathways to achieve a relatively stable form of equilibrium and when it does, entropy (the opposite state of order/symmetry) slowly increases until the equilibrium is lost. We can perhaps measure the amount of order in a system by determining/calculating the amount of entropy there exists. This is because energy starts concentrated and tends to dissipate over time based on the second law of thermodynamics.
Traditionally speaking, this is how human organizations have been modeled through the industrial management theory. Individuals are basically reduced to simple functions in a larger machine to achieve a certain equilibrium. There are just a few ways to achieve this equilibrium and this is typically communicated through a hierarchy of command and control. A problem that occurs here is that a complex, adaptive and open system like a human being becomes reduced to a simple function in a larger cogwheel, unfortunately.
This is why issues of alienation, lack of motivation and unhappiness at work exist from my view. The human being becomes reduced of its natural state and potential, resulting in many modern illnesses like unhappiness and depression. Therefore, to optimize well being around work related challenges, I think, it would be wise and healthy to help individuals in facilitating for the basic necessities so that self-realization can occur without having to live as a homeless person or ditching modernity all together. This makes sense rather then forcing a human to become something less then that it is, or potentially can be. Even when the structure of the organization is perfectly set out, humans will always continue the dynamics of self organization unconsciously, because this is simply hardwired in our DNA. So in many traditional industrial managed organizations you probably see phenomena of emergence regardless of how strict and closed the system is. This does not only happen internally, but also externally. The experience of wholeness can also be applied to the environment, the bigger systems and subsystems the organization is apart of. Without taking these dynamics into the equation, the organization becomes out of sync with its surroundings, and can even become irrelevant compared to how these other systems evolve and die off (entropy almost always increases in a system that is too closed from its environment). The only reason the industrial management paradigm worked and can work is the allowance of the people that work in it, and a static and predictable environment to work in. Otherwise, it is doomed to fail based on evolutionary principles. A metaphor to illustrate this on a higher level is probably the relation between nature and economics. Since our economy is a subsystem of the ecology, the socioeconomically systems will cease to exist if they are out of alignment with the ‘higher’ systems they are apart of. So the ecology or any other system that is ‘higher’ in the evolutionary chain of development of consciousness holds more power in the sense that many other systems are probably dependent upon those systems that are a bit higher in the hierarchical chain of systems. Again, as have been mentioned so often, the Maslow ‘pyramid’ is an example of how hierarchy can be orchestrated in finding a fulfilling lifestyle as an example of how hierarchical systems could be of use in so far as one sees it as just a mental model, a way to interpret reality. I think, however, there are many other ways to go about it.
So purely from a survival point of view, it makes sense to nurture the systems the organization is apart of, instead of just seeking for profit, causing negative externalizations. Our shortsightedness, and alienation from our environment is causing this behavior, and ironically is killing the organization on the longer term. An archetype for this is the tragedy of commons explained in this article;
So when we open up the organization internally and externally by acknowledging and taking into account the agency and mutual value of other entities, we arrive at a point of complexity in which traditional management theory cannot cope with it anymore. Now the organization determines it survival by seeking the best possible ‘fit’ with its environment by using the collective intelligence of all agents/employees. There is no static equilibrium here, the organization is achieving stability by virtually having none. There is less value in being centralized, big and firm, and more value in being decentralized, with small en flexible teams, constantly adapting based upon the information the agents receive. There exist equifinality now, there are multiple ways of achieving a ‘fit’ with the environment in achieving its purpose. By mentally playing out ideas and room to experiment in trial and error, the agents in the organization configure out multiple configurations to co-evolve with its environment. Entropy or disorder in the organization is constantly used as ‘fuel’ to shortly come to equilibrium again, until again that configuration is outdated and collapses on itself.
Entropy is less damaging to an self-organizing organization then it is for a closed one, because it is transforming it into useful and new configurations or dissipating it into buffers in the environment, whereas a closed system is trapped with it and does not have a dissipative structure. The open system is using existing building blocks in new combinations to come up with novel ideas to continue its evolutionary trajectory. It doesn’t matter that one or two components or agents in the organization are sick or broken, because the decentralized structure makes it possible for other agents to quickly fit in the gap. Also, the open nature of the organization makes the input of energy, matter and more importantly information a continuum. It makes the organization more dependent upon its environment, but the constant flow of inputs fuels the need for energy to try out different configurations.
Hope it was an interesting read,
Happy to hear your thoughts,