Why Management Fails. How Organizations Function and How to Impact Them

Thèse de Master , 2020 , 122 Pages , Note: 1

Gestion d'entreprise - Direction d'entreprise, Management, Organisation

Despite innovations in management science, leaders struggle to adapt their organizations against rapid environmental changes. Based on the assumption that this struggle results from obsolete management paradigms, this work aims to outline a systemic view of organizations and groups, as well as approaches to manage and change them. This work adopts a fundamental question: What dynamics evolve in organizations and groups (or teams) as a significant part of organizations that increase or decrease management's influence and the organizations’ or groups’ ability to induce change? This work delivers a systematic approach to equip readers with analytical tools to arrive at their own understanding of a wide range of different organizations or groups.

This literature-based work describes causal and systemic theories to explain human behavior based on an analysis of organizations based on systems theory. Looking through different lenses provides insights into organizations’ underlying structures—namely, the machine, game, or façade metaphors. Formal and informal structures and their interactions have been analyzed in different lifecycle stages, immobility, and replaceability. The construction of a systemic view of groups shows group-specific dynamics and behavioral patterns. The specialization in groups drives local best practices, expected informal behavior, and a narrowed perspective of what is essential for the department or organization. These local rationalities are critical to leading groups or organizations.

The explanations of groups and organizations clarify that a hierarchical understanding or an understanding that an organization, or even its culture, can be rationally planned is misleading. Organizations continually adjust to changing conditions in their environment but, unfortunately, not as their executives intend. Therefore, the change of organizations or groups is hypothesis-driven experimentation that integrates the “change of the change” from the beginning. Systemic interventions are based on observations and do not claim predictability. The manager’s primary tasks are to develop team reflexivity and autonomous decision-making, as well as increase variation and promote selections in the group or organization. Incremental approaches to management, group-reflection, and development, and lateral and formal mechanisms of influence must be utilized in combination with a comprehensive organizational analysis.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Figures

Index of Tables

Table of Abbreviations

1 Why Organizational Theory Matters
1.1 Why Management Fails
1.1.1 Increasing Pace of Change
1.1.2 Management Dysfunction
1.2 A Comprehensive Understanding of Organizations and Groups
1.3 Approach

2 Key Terms and Definitions
2.1 Society, Institutions, and Organizations
2.2 Groups and Teams
2.3 Management and Leadership

3 Explanatory Models of Human Behavior
3.1 Personality Trait Theories
3.2 Behavioral Theories
3.3 Action Theory and Constructivism
3.4 System Theories
3.4.1 General Systems Theory, Cybernetics, and System Dynamics
3.4.2 Evolutionary Systems: The Model of Living Systems
3.4.3 Sociological Systems Theory: The Theory of Social Systems
3.4.4 Combinations of System Theories and Causal Approaches
3.4.5 Personal Systems Theory
3.4.6 Group Dynamics
3.5 Observing Systems
3.6 The Problem of Intervention in Organizations or Groups

4 A Systemic View of Organizations
4.1 Organizations as Goal-Oriented Structures
4.1.1 Membership
4.1.2 Goals
4.1.3 Hierarchies
4.2 Three Images of Organizations
4.2.1 The Formal Aspect: Organizations as Machines
4.2.2 The Informal Aspect: Organizational Games
4.3 Organizational Analysis

5 A Systemic View of Groups
5.1 Two Archetypes of Communication: Hierarchy and Group Communication
5.2 A Vertical View: The External and Internal Environment of Groups
5.3 A Horizontal View: The Visible and the Invisible in Groups
5.4 Norms and Roles in Groups
5.4.1 Evolution of Norms in Groups
5.4.2 Differentiation of Roles in Groups
5.4.3 Replacing Roles with Behavioral Activities
5.5 The Dynamic Field of a Group
5.5.1 In or Out: Membership
5.5.2 Up or Down: Power and Influence
5.5.3 Close or Distant: The Dimension of Intimacy
5.6 Group Processes
5.7 Groups in Hierarchical Organizations

6 Controlling Groups and Organizations
6.1 Lateral Leading
6.1.1 Mechanisms of Influence: Power, Trust, and Understanding
6.1.2 Connection to the Formal Structure of Organizations
6.2 Reflexive Control - How “Control” works in Groups
6.2.1 Leadership Styles
6.2.2 Delegation in the Context of the Formal Structure
6.2.3 Leadership as a Developmental Work
6.2.4 Team Reflexivity
6.2.5 Reflection Cycle
6.3 Systemic Strategy Development
6.3.1 Conceptional Understanding of Systemic Strategy Development
6.3.2 Structural Reflexivity as the Main Requirement
6.3.3 Strategy Loops as Process Architecture

7 Conclusion and Critical Reflection

8 Future Outlook

Table of Appendixes

Bibliography

Abstract

Despite innovations in management science, leaders struggle to adapt their organizations against rapid environmental changes. Based on the assumption that this struggle results from obsolete management paradigms, this work aims to outline a systemic view of organizations and groups, as well as approaches to manage and change them.¹ This work adopts a fundamental question: What dynamics evolve in organizations and groups (or teams) as a significant part of organizations that increase or decrease management's influence and the organizations' or groups' ability to induce change ? This work delivers a systematic approach to equip readers with analytical tools to arrive at their own understanding of a wide range of different organizations or groups.

This literature-based work describes causal and systemic theories to explain human behavior based on an analysis of organizations based on systems theory. Looking through different lenses provides insights into organizations' underlying structures—namely, the machine, game, or facade metaphors. Formal and informal structures and their interactions have been analyzed in different lifecycle stages, immobility, and replaceability. The construction of a systemic view of groups shows group-specific dynamics and behavioral patterns. The specialization in groups drives local best practices, expected informal behavior, and a narrowed perspective of what is essential for the department or organization. These local rationalities are critical to leading groups or organizations.

The explanations of groups and organizations clarify that a hierarchical understanding or an understanding that an organization, or even its culture, can be rationally planned is misleading. Organizations continually adjust to changing conditions in their environment but, unfortunately, not as their executives intend. Therefore, the change of organizations or groups is hypothesis-driven experimentation that integrates the “change of the change” from the beginning.² Systemic interventions are based on observations and do not claim predictability. The manager's primary tasks are to develop team reflexivity and autonomous decision-making, as well as increase variation and promote selections in the group or organization. Incremental approaches to management, group- reflection, and development, and lateral and formal mechanisms of influence must be utilized in combination with a comprehensive organizational analysis.

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - U.S. Economy-wide Return on Invested Capital (ROIC; 1965-2009)

Figure 2 - Conceptualization of Communication

Figure 3 - The Dimension of “Sense” and its Underlying Differences

Figure 4 - Hierarchical communication and group communication

Figure 5 - Overlapping Groups in Hierarchically Structured Organizations

Figure 6 - Four Communication Styles

Figure 7 - Decisions and Leadership Styles

Figure 8 - Control Process as Reflection Cycle

Index of Tables

Table 1 - A Group's Need for Communication

Table of Abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1 Why Organizational Theory Matters

Organizations and groups structures compose of a large part of our work and leisure time. Although they define our lives, we never receive training on how to interact within them. Primary and secondary school curricula do not offer classes in organizational theory, and most advanced courses prepare us for specific activities while only peripherally addressing how to behave in such complex organizations. Management positions are usually awarded to those who display expertise in a particular technical or functional competency, rather than real leadership skills or talents.³ An examination of university curricula shows some specialized courses provide information on how organizations function. As a result, some incidentally acquire knowledge about organizations and how they behave.⁴

Every well-evaluated management initiative reflects on its basic assumptions about the market, customers, partners, or suppliers. Only a few master plans or strategies reflect upon the actual possibilities and the constraints of influence within the organization. The same is true for research on management. Despite the “humanization at work” movement,⁵ the implementation aspect remains a “rational issue.”⁶ Since master plans, visions, and target conditions are straightforward and attractive; they are used to develop “energy for change.”⁷ However, the more a master plan is implemented, the clearer it becomes that it harbors contradictions. The failure to achieve the desired state is initially explained by blaming the environmental conditions, lack of resources, or personal abilities. Such a recourse to causal explanations allows a plan to be kept alive for some time.

Nevertheless, ultimately, nothing about the fundamental problem changes: The more human beings in a team or organization proceed according to plan, the more significant change will fail. Organizations continually adjust to changing conditions in their environment, but unfortunately, not as their executives intend.⁸ An analysis of the long-term financial performance of profit-orientated organizations shows terrible results.⁹ Some publications have even identified “the end of management.”¹⁰ In the context of these concerns, it is essential to understand why management fails.

1.1 Why Management Fails

At first, despite all innovation in management science and the increasing popularity of management education, it seems to hold that management is facing a performance crisis. From the perspective of business performance, asset profitability and return on assets have shown a downward trend over the past 50 years, illustrating a steady decline in firm performance (Figure 1).¹¹ As early as 1983, a study found that one-third of initial Fortune 500 firms in the 1970s had vanished.¹² Employees had a 50% chance of seeing their present firm disappear during their working career.¹³

In 1987, 61 of the original Forbes Top 100 companies (as first published in 1917) no longer existed. Of the other 39, only 18 remained in the Top 100. However, they did not perform well: Long­term returns from 1917 to 1987 were 20% below the overall market return. In the S&P 500, a comparison of the years 1957 and 1998 shows that only 74 remained, with 12 of those 74 outperforming the S&P index itself.¹⁴ Forster and Kaplan summarize: “[I]f today's S&P 500 were made up of only those companies that were on the list when it was formed in 1957, the overall performance of the S&P 500 would have been about 20% less per year than it actually has been.”¹⁵ The 1982 book In Search of Excellence, which is generally considered one of the most influential business books of all time, identified 16 “best-run companies.”¹⁶ Thirty-three years later, of those 16, five no longer existed, and five were greatly diminished.¹⁷ Deloitte's research on 20,000 US firms has confirmed that this phenomenon has not changed, concluding that declining performance in asset
profitability is mostly due to an organization's failure to adapt to new market challenges.¹⁸

Figure 1 - U.S. Economy-wide Return on Invested Capital (ROIC; 1965-2009) ^[19]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

There is cognitive dissonance around this point:²⁰ Managers are experiencing increased stress as performance pressures mount but are unwilling to accept that innovating management concepts continue to produce deteriorating results.²¹ “Something has gone terribly wrong with the U.S. private sector—the supposed engine of the economic growth and the supposed creators of jobs. When the best firms have rates of return on assets or on invested capital, of on average, just over one percent, we have a management catastrophe on our hands.”²²

Business performance is only one aspect of looking at organizational performance. All organizations have a connection with the common good, if only at the level of doing no harm. Even the most profit-oriented commercial organizations that seek to provide something useful and beneficial to a specific group of people support healthy commons, even if it is only for their long­term interests.²³ However, “several interconnecting factors underlie the state of organizations failing
people, including ideology, corruption, technology, and how organizations are led or managed.” ^[24] Many well-known examples of successful organizations that lost perspective of their customers' needs, became idle and non-competitive, and finally disappeared exist. A cursory examination of the daily news reveals many such cases.²⁵ Organizations fail from both business performance and stakeholder perspectives, despite all innovation in management science and practice.

1.1.1 Increasing Pace of Change

This problem is resulting from a rapidly changing environment that affects all organizations. Although change has always occurred, its speed and impact are accelerating in today's society.²⁶ Organizations face an “age of discontinuity.”²⁷ From 1917 into the 1930s, even during the Great Depression, companies' turnover rate in the S&P 500 rankings averaged 1.5% annually. A new company in the S&P could expect to remain on the list for about 65 years as change was not a concern, and continuity was the goal. Nevertheless, as early as 1998, the turnover rate in the S&P 500 was close to 10%, implying an average listing lifetime of 10 years.²⁸ This increasing pace of change can also be seen via the time it takes new technologies to establish themselves.

In today's world, gale-like market forces—rapid globalization, accelerating innovation, relentless competition—have intensified what economist Joseph Schumpeter called the forces of ‘creative destruction.' Decades-old institutions like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns now can disappear overnight, while new ones like Google and Twitter can spring up from nowhere. [...] It took radio 38 years and television 13 years to reach audiences of 50 million people, while it took the internet only four years, the iPod three years, and Facebook two years to do the same.²⁹

Uncountable macro-economic factors contribute to this phenomenon, including digitalized organizations, increased connectivity,³⁰ new education methods,³¹ artificial intelligence,³² the internet of things,³³ increasing diversity,³⁴ and many others.³⁵ The question is no longer whether organizations want to change, but how quickly they can implement significant changes.³⁶ Regarding financial markets, capital markets outpace corporations. The rate of change is considerably different, and there are opposing basic assumptions for long-term survival.

Capital markets, and the indices that reflect them, encourage the creation of corporations, permit their efficient operations (as long as they remain competitive) and then rapidly, and remorselessly remove them when they lose their ability to perform. Corporations, which operate with management philosophies based on the assumption of continuity, are not able to change at the pace and scale of the markets. As a result, in the long term, they do not create value at the pace and scale of the markets. ³⁷

In short, new entrants deliver superior performance resulting in economic growth. The capital markets' structure enables these companies to produce results superior to those of established corporations. Moreover, corporations that have lost their ability to meet investor expectations (no matter how unreasonable they may be) consume the economy's wealth.³⁸

1.1.2 Management Dysfunction

Market-leading companies have missed game-changing transformations in industry after industry [...] not because of ‘bad' management, but because they followed the dictates of ‘good' management. They listened closely to their customers. They carefully studied market trends. They allocated capital to the innovations that promised the largest returns. And in the process, they missed disruptive innovations that opened up new customers and markets for lower-margin, blockbuster products. ^[39]

Management research, practitioners, and consultants have developed various images of organizations that include core assumptions regarding how they operate.⁴⁰ For example, one perspective views organizations as “black boxes” designed to achieve goals.⁴¹ This machine-like understanding assumes that organizations can be rationally planned.⁴² Deviations are explained by changed market conditions or attributed to individuals' behavior.⁴³ Kuhn has described the implications of these dominant models of theory and practice and labeled them as paradigms.⁴⁴ These paradigms evolve over several decades and are rooted in a core set of assumptions within the context of business, business organizations, and schools.⁴⁵ Such paradigms have become the “right belief” in management practice.

The dominant management paradigm is an expression of a linkage between theory and practice. In the social sciences, which includes the study of management, this link is described as a double hermeneutic because of such theories' self-fulfilling nature. For example , “a theory of subatomic particles or the universe—right or wrong—does not change the behavior of those particles or of the universe.”⁴⁶ If the theory is wrong, the truth is to be discovered by someone else. In contrast, a management theory that gains sufficient currency, whether robust and reflective of reality or flawed, changes managers' and employees' behaviors as they act according to that theory. While certain management paradigms have become less dominant over time, and some changes have been accommodated, they remain strikingly resilient. Their influence continues despite the appearance of new theories and approaches to enhance or supplant the established paradigms. While there is an audience for alternative views, at the current level of dominance in practice, these mechanistic views of management remain largely in place.⁴⁷

Companies and managers must abandon the assumption of continuity for corporate survival and success. Companies must understand and mitigate a so-called cultural lock-in, the inability to change the corporate culture even when facing explicit threats.⁴⁸ There seems to be a strong disconnect between what managers think about effective management behavior and how organizations function, which drives the attention to organizational knowledge as a success factor for organizational change.⁴⁹ Therefore, it can be concluded that a majority of organizations fail to adapt due to management dysfunction, which results from obsolete management paradigms that reflect an inadequate understanding of organizations and lead to insufficient management initiatives.⁵⁰

1.2 A Comprehensive Understanding of Organizations and Groups

The purpose of this work is to close this knowledge gap by providing an extensive insight into modern organizational research. Whether one seeks ways to enable their company to adapt more efficiently to market changes or to increase shareholder value, managers must have extensive insight into organizations' functioning. Thus, the key question is: What dynamics evolve in organizations and in groups (or teams) that increase or decrease the influence of management and the organizations or groups' ability to induce change? This work pursues the following sub-goals : (1) examining why a systemic view is required to face business challenges; (2) comparing systemic and individual approaches to explain human behavior; (3) examining a comprehensive systemic view of organizations and (4) groups; and (5) outlining practical approaches to managing groups and organizations.

The motivation derives from the author's experience in professional practice and academics. Having spent his career in the creative industry, he faced doubts about a “Tayloristic” or rational understanding of management. Creative industries tend to be skeptical of classic management approaches as managers are perceived as focusing solely on profits and from “rationality” that does not provide a solid foundation for creativity. Nevertheless, regardless of the industry, this work is designed to provide leaders, practitioners, consultants, and other interested parties a general overview of the latest view on group dynamics and organizational research.⁵¹

1.3 Approach

A sophisticated theory is required to describe how the dimensions and forms of modern societies influence organizations and members of social groups can exert significant influence. A comprehensive understanding of organizations cannot be reduced to social structures, personality theories, or group dynamic theories. Developing a comprehensive perspective on organizations means not dissolving the multi-dimensional dynamic, but rather using it as a foundation. A precondition is a clear differentiation among the individual, group, organization, and society.⁵² Therefore, chapter 2 starts by defining these three relevant terms. It would be far beyond the scope of this work to describe all relevant theories in detail. Nevertheless, chapter 3 provides a general overview of theories that aim to explain human behavior, and the chapter differentiates between systemic and causal or behavioristic approaches. Next, the paper outlines different system theories, summarizes their key assumptions about systems' behavior, and examines the problem of intervention. Chapter 4 and chapter 5 provide frameworks for managers to analyze dynamics in organizations and groups, respectively, based on a system-theoretical foundation. Finally, chapter 6 examines systemic approaches to managing organizations or groups. This examination includes an approach to strategic management and to the design of organizational structures, leadership approaches for groups or teams, and an approach called latent leading, which seeks mechanisms of influence beyond hierarchical power. This work closes with a summary and a critical reflection (chapter 7) and discusses the outlook for potential future research (chapter 8).

2 Key Terms and Definitions

2.1 Society, Institutions, and Organizations

Society describes the structured collectivity and interdependencies of institutions, organizations, and groups.⁵³ The term institution refers to a culturally determined and usually legally legitimated entity that serves people's basic needs and therefore relates to specific expectations, attitudes, and behaviors. There can be small or large relationships, such as marriage as an institution of the family and law or the economy as an institution of society. Institutions build forms of organizations to reach their goals.⁵⁴ The terms organizing or organization is used when various initially independent acts are put into a purposeful sequence, thereby achieving “rational results.”⁵⁵ This functional or instrumental perspective portrays organizations as a resource to achieve specific goals. In this broad understanding, an organization underlies almost all forms of organizing.⁵⁶

In contrast, the institutional view perceives the organization as an independent entity and claims that any organization's social aspects are as important as the economic dimensions.⁵⁷ Therefore, as a starting point, organizations are defined as independent entities that follow specific goals, have members and rules of membership, and establish a hierarchy to coordinate their members. Organizations are always formed if possible for a decision to be made about joining and leaving them.⁵⁸ An organization has the autonomy to decide freely about any of these attributes. This broad definition allows for the construction of a comprehensive, systemic view of organizations.⁵⁹

2.2 Groups and Teams

A major part of organizations are groups or teams. Groups, unlike organizations, consist of a particular circle of members who all know each other.⁶⁰ In small- research, groups are defined as:⁶¹ (1) having three to 20 members; (2) involving structured relations that control people's interactions; (3) having members that perceive their membership; (4) being a common task or goal; (5) existing for longer than three hours.⁶² In contrast to a group, a population or a crowd describes a high number of individuals in one place simultaneously without any intensified communication or interaction. Such a population becomes a mass when the people band together for a common goal (e.g., a protest).

In contrast to groups, members in organizations have only partial direct contact with each other. A network describes the plurality of (usually casual or informal) social relationships in which a person or a group is involved; a network forms above the group but below the organizational level.⁶³ Team is a collective name for all task- and work-related groups in which members must cooperate to reach a common goal. Some theorists consider teams to be simply groups in work settings, while others focus on how the behavior of teams differs from that of groups. Teams are defined herein as structured groups of people working on specific goals that require coordinated interactions to accomplish certain tasks.⁶⁴ Other definitions focus on the performance⁶⁵ or power of teams.⁶⁶ As this work aims to analyze general dynamics in groups independent of their context, the terms group and team are used interchangeably.⁶⁷

2.3 Management and Leadership

M anagement and leadership can be found in any hierarchically structured organization or group.⁶⁸ Management education distinguishes three perspectives:⁶⁹ (1) the institutional perspective considers personnel who hold the authority to lead other people in the organization or group; (2) The functional perspective directly examines the tasks required for the efficient control of the organization's value-creation process; (3) The process-perspective acknowledges that management results from processes that emerge from communication and action between individuals and groups over time. Business leadership (general management) aims to streamline several functions' efforts toward a common goal (cross-functional).⁷⁰ In this work, management is defined as behaving to influence and enable others to act alone and collaboratively to achieve results consistent with a purpose. Thus, one central idea of management is leverage, which refers to actions that multiply effects in other people's work: “Such action may be directed and formal as in the case of the exercise of authority, or persuasion, or indirect and informal as in the application of expertise or personal example or a combination of both.”⁷¹ The term leadership refers to a “visionary inspiration,” while management designates something more functional.⁷² For this work, these terms are used interchangeably.⁷³

3 Explanatory Models of Human Behavior

One of the most significant social science findings is people use specific models to explain human behavior.⁷⁴ These, combined with social trends, form the foundation of how people think about what determines behavior, and they significantly impact management paradigms and the public's perception of managers.⁷⁵ These theories are important for managers as they can reflect upon which core assumptions their initiatives are based on or to classify others' explanations or publications, including management research. The explanation of “causal models,” including personality trait theories, behaviorism, and action theory, demonstrates why a systemic theoretical view is required to explain behavior in groups or organizations.

3.1 Personality Trait Theories

One of the first approaches to explaining human behavior originated in psychology and is known as personality trait theory. The primary assumption is human behavior can be determined by relatively stable traits that are generalizable and constant.⁷⁶ The initial models were mostly intuitive, with recent research trying to make personality traits more quantifiable and measurable.⁷⁷ While the resulting methodologies are criticized for their theoretical foundation,⁷⁸ trait models remain immensely popular.⁷⁹ They are used, for example, in career development, recruiting, and team selection.⁸⁰ Some aspects of these models may be useful in practice. For example, when people experience an individual's specific behavioral characteristic as stable (e.g., when they are extroverted). However, it also possible that this person acts differently in different situations.⁸¹ Meanwhile, i. It has been proven that behavior remains stable in some situations but change in others; a finding that has led to behavioral theories.⁸²

3.2 Behavioral Theories

Behaviorism or behavioral psychology represent the counterpart to trait theories. The central assumption is humans function upon conditioning and behavior is controllable and changeable.⁸³ Using a technological machine metaphor, behaviorism uses behavioral models as its core foundation for social research. Watson claims that humans and their behavior are assembled much like parts and are thus as changeable as machines' technical parts.⁸⁴ Skinner proposes the extent to which an organism's behavior can be changed has almost no limit.⁸⁵ Different external stimuli can erase behavior or lead individuals to learn and maintain new behaviors.⁸⁶ Behavioristic models are used in organizational practice, such as in sales trainings. However, the constraints of such models lie in the unpredictability and complexity of social situations. Behavioral theories consider only observable behavior while defining cognitions, emotions, and moods as too subjective.⁸⁷

3.3 Action Theory and Constructivism

The central hypothesis of action theory is that humans show behaviors and perform actions in social settings.⁸⁸ Thus, action refers to human behavior to which the acting individual connects some purpose or considers meaningful.⁸⁹ Humans do not merely react to external stimuli; they act purposefully on their thoughts, goals, attitudes, and perceptions. Three critical assumptions describe action theory:⁹⁰ (1) Humans develop their perceptions of reality; (2) humans act based on the meaning they give an individual situation; and (3) problems can be solved by changing the meaning of the situation. Like other theories, action theory has a long tradition in which different approaches have emerged.⁹¹ According to the rational choice theory (the concept of Homo economicus), humans act based on rational decisions that aim to maximize value and minimize costs:⁹² “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from the regard of their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities, but of their advantage.”⁹³ Action theory in the tradition of humanistic psychology assumes people's ability to lead, regulate, control themselves, and self-actualize. Therefore, it represents an alternative to models that assume external influences determine human behavior.⁹⁴ Behavioristic action theory emphasizes the importance of cognition for practical actions.⁹⁵

In organizational research, one derivative of action theory is especially relevant: constructivism. Here, human behavior is seen as the result of interpretations of reality. Those interpretations are individual constructions; humans construct their understanding of reality which then influences their behavior. Research in constructivism focuses on three approaches:⁹⁶ (1) The psychology of personal constructs states that constructions are fundamental (conceptual) determinations and personal or individual concepts of thought. On their basis, individuals make predictions and develop potential strategies to act.⁹⁷ (2) Radical constructivism opposes the correspondence theory of truth, according to which truth is the consensus of an absolute, independently constructed, and objective reality. It argues that every perception and finding is dependent on the individual observer. Thus, constructs do not result from objective reality, only from the individual observer's construction.⁹⁸ (3) Social constructivism stresses the importance of social action for the construction of reality. Thinking is not private but rather based on differentiations that have been collaboratively developed in social interactions.⁹⁹

The main weakness of action theory is its focus on the individual. Human behavior, especially in organizational or group settings, is influenced by dynamic, interdependent factors. These are some of the ideas that led to the development of systemic models.¹⁰⁰

3.4 System Theories

While many of these causal theories are widely known and used in public, they remain insufficient to explain organizations' complex dynamics. In practice, failure is often connected to specific individuals or events. When the next initiative fails, it should become clear the problem requires more sophisticated models for explanation. In organizational practice, we increasingly face the problem of “organized complexity.”¹⁰¹ In contrast to linear, causal relationships, we face interdependencies in systems, a problem that leads to systems theory.¹⁰² The focus shifts from “Who has the problem, since when, and why?” to “Who can be seen as a member of the respective social context?” and “Who describes the problem and the linked interactions in what way?”¹⁰³ The terms “system ” or “systemic ” are used over-extensively and are more ambiguous than descriptive.¹⁰⁴ This ambiguity occurs because various manifestations of systems theory aim to analyze different systems.¹⁰⁵ Nevertheless, the various theories give access to different intellectual approaches, which mutually stimulate each other to develop a new understanding of reality in its entirety.¹⁰⁶ The following chapters explain the most popular derivatives of system theory.¹⁰⁷

3.4.1 General Systems Theory, Cybernetics, and System Dynamics

Initially, systems theory was closely linked to finding a general description model for different system types.¹⁰⁸ Bertalanffy's general systems theory established systems thinking as a significant scientific movement.¹⁰⁹ General systems theory is a science of “wholeness.” It would be a mathematical discipline in its most detailed form, but it applies to various empirical sciences. Its central concept is homeostasis, which means systems have a self-regulating tendency to move toward a state of order and stability (adapted equilibrium).¹¹⁰ Cybernetics was introduced with the example of a heater and thermostat: between the systems' elements (heater/thermostat), relations in the form of a feedback loop are established. The thermostat influences the heater (by switching it on or off), and the heater affects the thermostat (by producing heat). Ultimately, the system is confined to its environment, which is outside of the room. It is a closed system when the room is adequately isolated; it is open when its windows or doors are open.¹¹¹ This example led to the classic definition of the term system : “A system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes.”¹¹² In other words, a system is a certain number of interdependent elements.¹¹³ General systems theory and its first derivatives made it possible to describe realities not yet seen. However, proponents overstated its potential as the goal of providing a universal theory insufficiently reflected significant differences between several types of systems. It can be assumed that the relevant factors when solving social conflicts differ from those relevant to solving interruptions in technical systems. These insights led to the development of more sophisticated theories.¹¹⁴

3.4.2 Evolutionary Systems: The Model of Living Systems

Researchers in biology and ecology noted the difference between biological systems compared to technical systems.¹¹⁵ While both have common characteristics, an additional attribute of living systems is evolution. Such systems are autopoietic as they emerge for biological reasons, organize themselves, adjust to a changing environment, and eventually fall apart. Because feedback loops determine those processes, they cannot be controlled in a linear-causal way. Instead, they require a systemic control, whereby interventions or decisions in one part of the system anticipate their impact on all other parts.¹¹⁶ This approach became famous with the bio-cybergenetic school of thought, which provides a foundation to explain ecological and economic relationships.¹¹⁷ Biological systems theory became the basis of “evolutionary management.”¹¹⁸ Today, “evolutionary leadership” is proclaimed as a necessary paradigm shift,¹¹⁹ “evolutionary project-management”¹²⁰ or “change­management” are promoted,¹²¹ and biological systems are used as role models for organizations.¹²²

3.4.3 Sociological Systems Theory: The Theory of Social Systems

Another derivative of general systems theory occurred in sociology, first through Parsons¹²³ and then through Luhmann's “Theory of Social Systems.”¹²⁴ Luhmann, who is regarded as one of the most prolific writers in twentieth-century sociology, took concepts from several former approaches and modified them to conceptualize organizations as social systems. The following attributes characterize social systems:¹²⁵

- Differentiation of system and environment : “There is an agreement within the discipline today that the point of departure for any system-theoretical analysis must be the differentiation between system and environment.”¹²⁶ Social systems establish and sustain themselves by generating and maintaining a differentiation from their environment.
- Differentiation : “System Differentiation is nothing more than the repetition of system formation within systems. Further system/environment differences can be differentiated within systems.”¹²⁷ The system functions as an internal environment for any sub-system in a specific way. A system is characterized according to an individual observer's definition of a system.
- Autopoiesis : An autopoietic system is one that “reproduces the elements out of which it consists by means of the elements out of which it consists.”¹²⁸ Everything those systems use as entities (elements, processes, structure, and the systems themselves) is produced by those entities.¹²⁹
- Sensemaking : The preservation of a social (or psychological) system requires the reduction of complexity. By “sensemaking,” a social system reduces the incredibly high environmental complexity: Every sense qualifies itself by suggesting specific connectivity to the system, thereby making other information unlikely, difficult, or temporarily excluded.
- Communication is the smallest element of a social system. A social system consists of communication and not individual people, relationships, buildings, infrastructure, or similar aspects.
- Operational Closeness : An external event does not result in pre-determined communication events; instead, the system determines the communication (in a self-referential way). This does not mean the environment cannot influence the social system, but it “breaks” its influence.
- Complexity : “We will call an interconnected collection of elements ‘complex' when, because of immanent constraints in the elements' connective capacity, it is no longer possible at any moment to connect every element with every other element.”¹³⁰

Appendix 1 includes a sketched comparison between Luhmann's definition of a social system and a classic definition of a system.

3.4.3.1 Communication and Sense

In social systems, the definition of communication goes far beyond its common definition. Its public usage refers to a transmission of information in the sense of a specific action made toward an individual protagonist. That definition does not apply to systemic communication as it connects two or more protagonists and their respective actions. It includes all processes that lead to the coordinated action of two or more complex systems.¹³¹ Luhmann has characterized communication as an event in which a triple selection occurs (Figure 2). This selection process makes communication highly unlikely, as every protagonist could interpret the communication differently (the communication becomes contingent). However, there is a contingency on both sides. Every protagonist must expect that a counterpart could always act differently; consequently, the protagonists must overcome the freedom of choice of that counterpart (double contingency).¹³²

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2 – Conceptualization of Communication¹³³

This three-step selection places a behavior in a “sensemaking horizon” and interprets it as an action. Sense describes the criteria that a social system uses to distinguish between what it perceives and what it does not; thus, its selective relationship with the environment. Senseless describes events that are not distinct for the system's perception schemes and, accordingly, to which it cannot react. In this way, a social system reduces its environment's complexity, which would be impossible to process as a whole.¹³⁴ Three dimensions of sense can be distinguished (Figure 3), which cannot appear independently.¹³⁵ Depending on each participant's perspective, different combinations and weightings of these aspects appear and shape, encourage, or block communication.¹³⁶ In social systems, sense is generated when an observer reflects on its current situation with potential possibilities. Therefore, it is irrelevant if something is rated as meaningful or meaningless. Whoever addresses sense in management works to construct or expand the current situation or question. Similarly, potential possibilities can be constructed, questioned, or expanded. Applying the three dimensions of sense reflects the difference between actuality and potentiality in a multi-dimensional way.¹³⁷

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3 - The Dimension of “Sense” and its Underlying Differences¹³⁸

3.4.3.2 Decisions: Essential Elements of Organizations

Luhmann conceives organizations as a particular type of social system. Like any social system, their smallest element is communication. In a psychological system, these elements (or thoughts) build on former thoughts and lead to specific actions. For Luhmann, these communication elements are decisions in organizations. An organization ensures decidability, which is the transformation of uncertainty into situational certainty.¹³⁹ Uncertainty results from the simultaneous occurrence of knowing and unknowing. Knowledge and lack thereof are constructions that the system itself creates.¹⁴⁰ Organizations solve this uncertainty by making decisions. It decides in the present for an (expected) future, thereby replacing uncertainty with the risk of having decided for the wrong future, while an organization's members gain temporary certainty.¹⁴¹ Any organization's premise is the unknown future, and its success lies in the treatment of that uncertainty.¹⁴² As long as there are future requirements for decisions, organizations will continue to exist.¹⁴³

Luhmann and the newer sociological systems theory have provided a conceptional framework that embeds organizational theory in a theory of society and its differentiation into sub-systems. As a result, the logic of the development of organizations in society's development became comprehensible.¹⁴⁴ Using Luhmann's theory to undertake practical actions leads to two problems: (1) the theory provides an instrument to analyze social systems, not to direct behavior, (2) the problem results from the characterization of individuals as being seen as a systems environment, which, in some researchers' opinion, disregards the individual's perceptions and goals.¹⁴⁵

3.4.4 Combinations of System Theories and Causal Approaches

Determining human behavior is challenging using the strict definition of an individual as a systems environment. That difficulty has led to attempts to combine system theories with the three causal approaches to explain human behavior.¹⁴⁶ For example, Simon defines social system theory and constructivism as the foundation of practical systemic thinking.¹⁴⁷ He distinguishes three types of operationally closed and autopoietic systems: organism, psych, and social systems. All three are inaccessible to each other but can strongly influence each other.¹⁴⁸ Other approaches conceptualize interventions without committing to specific theoretical positions¹⁴⁹ or combine Luhmann with behavioral concepts to define persons as social systems' elements.¹⁵⁰

3.4.5 Personal Systems Theory

The goal of personal systems theory in Bateson's tradition draws on general systems theory¹⁵¹ and connects social systems and individuals as elements.¹⁵² Individuals as elements do not merely react; they create their version of reality by punctuating, giving reality a specific meaning.¹⁵³ There is a transformation (coding) between the report and the thing reported in every thought, perception, or communication about perceptions.¹⁵⁴ Further, social rules determine the behavior of social systems. Feedback loops emerge from reciprocal punctuations and based on social rules. In brief, personal systems theory characterizes six attributes of social systems:¹⁵⁵ (1) individuals as elements; (2) their subjective perceptions (i.e., their thoughts and feelings); (3) explicit or implicit social rules, which lead the behavior in the social system; (4) feedback loops; (5) the tangible and social environment; and (6) systems development.¹⁵⁶ Personal systems theory became generally known through Watzlawick's “Five Axioms of Communication.”¹⁵⁷

3.4.6 Group Dynamics

Group dynamics is another research discipline that has made valuable contributions to explain human behavior, especially in group settings. Group dynamics is not necessarily a systemic perspective as it has been combined with system-theoretical approaches in recent decades. The scientific study of groups began in the early twentieth century when Triplett's research showed the effects of working alone versus in a group.¹⁵⁸ Earlier studies in psychology aimed to show how groups affect individual performance and attitudes. Although this was group research, the focus was the group's effects on individuals. This perspective changed in the 1940s with Lewin's work when he shaped the term “group dynamics” to analyze the group as a research unit.¹⁵⁹ He argued if an individual whose behavior has changed returns to their everyday life, the influences of the people around them tend to reverse the behavioral change.

In contrast, if a group's behavior is changed, the group reinforces or stabilizes individuals' changes. It is easier to change a group's behavior than an individual's behavior.¹⁶⁰ During the 1950s and 1960s, social psychologists returned to theory-oriented laboratory studies, examining topics such as conformity, helping behavior, and focussing on the effects of groups on individuals. Research on group dynamics shifted to sociologists, who used small groups to understand social systems. Organizational and humanistic psychologists began studying a particular type of laboratory group called “T-Groups.” These were small, unstructured groups that were encouraged to engage in open, personal discussions. Participation was meant to increase self-awareness, interpersonal communication skills, and group processing skills.¹⁶¹ At the beginning of the 1990s, research shifted to other disciplines.¹⁶² Instead of considering group behavior as the sum of individual variables, the focus shifted to a team's emergent properties.¹⁶³ Further, system-theoretical concepts expanded group dynamic concepts and provided new frameworks to better plan and understand interventions.¹⁶⁴ As groups significantly influence organizations, group dynamics becomes essential to anticipate group behavior.

3.5 Observing Systems

In light of the theoretical foundations discussed above, it is possible to examine the practical concern of how those theories translate into questions of observation. This discussion plays an important role in this study's consideration of how best to overcome management failures. Examining different theories shows how a specific approach or core assumption can define what is seen as a system. In cybernetics, it is assumed that a system's regulator can objectively or rationally select a system's variables and derive transformations based on trial and error. In contrast, von Foerster (second-order cybernetics) has claimed for most systems, selecting variables and determining a transformation is impossible without referencing prior knowledge. An observer could describe a system (e.g., an organization) with an indefinitely large number of variables and parameter transformations. It is impossible to choose the relevant ones by trial and error.¹⁶⁵

It is a fundamental mistake of so-called “objective approaches” to maintain that “no observer characteristics” should enter the description of the phenomena observed.¹⁶⁶ Instead, it is important to examine how an observer defines systems and their behavior.¹⁶⁷ One of van Foerster's books, “Observing Systems,” harbors this ambiguity. It concerns observing the systems that observe. Instead of “looking at things out there,” it turns to “looking at looking itself.”¹⁶⁸ It must be concluded that the world outside is not simply “objectively as it is.” An observer can only see the world through the instruments of observation they use. Any observer of a system (in our case, managers observing a team or organization) must be aware of (1) their observations are their observations which may not align with the self-understanding of the observed system,(2) the observed unit and the observer themselves are “non-trivial”—that is, they are complex, dynamic psychological or social systems, and (3) every system can and will observe its observation, which can happen in randomly deep tiering.¹⁶⁹

The problem of observation is resulting from a social or psychological system's self- referentiality. As explained, social systems produce their elements (communications), structures, and entity based on emerging operations that reproduce themselves and are determined by the system's inner logic. These operations are circularly connected; they lead back to themselves by reproducing the system's elements to support the system's elements. Thoughts refer to thoughts, and the elements of consciousness (thoughts) result from modifications of former elements of consciousness (thoughts).¹⁷⁰ This self-referentiality means the interaction between two systems (such as a manager and an organization) is mutually non-transparent. No manager knows how the decisions and the resulting structures of the organization change or reproduce.

The consciousness of a psychological or social system is inaccessible not just for others but for itself:¹⁷¹ “No consciousness can fully re-introduce the totality of its system conditions as premises or elements of observation in its operations. Therefore, Alter/Ego means: he is as non-transparent for me, as I am for myself.”¹⁷² In a situation of uncertainty, there are two possibilities of processing this problem, which is in principle unsolvable: observation and communication.¹⁷³ Understanding is the ability to determine the particular context of an individual's behavior or communication.¹⁷⁴

3.6 The Problem of Intervention in Organizations or Groups

Managers face the challenge of intervening in organizations or teams, as social systems, to lead them in a specific direction (e.g., to adapt to market changes). These interventions must overcome the problem of observation and formulate themselves in the terms of the system. The observer (manager) must reconstruct the operational mode and the systems dynamic as accurately as possible.¹⁷⁵ An observer of a system cannot fully describe a system's functionality, implying that organizational change cannot be planned rationally. Therefore, intervention in social systems leads to an un-trivialization of change's essential ideas. It becomes clear that the relationships between the interdependent elements of an organized wholeness and that precise cause-effect changes (which constitute the contemporary natural sciences) do not exist in most social systems.¹⁷⁶ This fact permits a simple imagination of excellence and pathology or a simple understanding of strategy and implementation. The conditions of intervention in such systems are largely unknown and have only begun to emerge. There is no widely accepted theory of intervention or of managing complex systems. Because there is still much uncertainty, it is important to use experiences from different fields and disciplines, methodologically and theoretically.¹⁷⁷ Based on these explanations, the following chapters' goal is to enable managers to gain an insight into which dynamics can potentially block or support changes in organizations or groups and anticipate them.¹⁷⁸

4 A Systemic View of Organizations

The former chapter has shown how a specific theory can determine what an observer defines as a system. If an observer tends to simplify a system's characteristics, it will lead to insufficient management initiatives. This chapter will construct a comprehensive system theoretical based perspective on organizations. It will first exert the dynamics beyond the organization's attributes and describe three different perspectives on looking at organizations.

4.1 Organizations as Goal-Oriented Structures

4.1.1 Membership

Seeing an organization as a goal-orientated structure suggests that organization members are “means” utilized to conduct specific tasks to reach a goal. This represents a limited perspective of reality. Memberships and the resulting dynamics allow organizations to produce congruity in their members and react to environmental changes and therefore becomes a critical attribute in organizational analysis.

Organizations establish simple mechanisms to make people behave a certain way. They impose the condition that their members must fulfill behavioral expectations: “To begin with, only those who acknowledge the rules of the organization can join. Moreover, those who no longer wish to adhere to them must leave.”¹⁷⁹ Members' submission to the expressed terms of membership are described as an adaptation to the organization's formal expectations. The uniqueness of this conformity effect becomes apparent when comparing organizations to other social constructs. For example, in families, it is impossible to produce similar levels of congruity.¹⁸⁰ Another unique aspect of membership expectations is that they are violated when a member violates a single demand.¹⁸¹ This allows organizations to establish formal, uniform behavioral expectations that are not found elsewhere in modern society. A member's everyday communication is accompanied by the awareness of compliance with the organization's expectations and that their rejection will put membership at risk.¹⁸² Naturally, there are deviations from an organization's expectations as many have a hidden informal structure. ¹⁸³ Nevertheless, behavior in organizations orients itself around the formal expectations.¹⁸⁴

Many conditions of membership cannot be precisely determined before joining the organization.¹⁸⁵ Even when the hierarchy, members, and goals are explicitly described on an employment contract, members cannot be entirely sure of what they can expect after joining.¹⁸⁶ These areas are referred to as zones of indifference. Even though they are not defined in advance, members are expected to comply and “must be indifferent about these zones of indifference.”¹⁸⁷ Thus, a willingness to adjust to changes in the organization becomes a condition of membership itself.¹⁸⁸ Zones of indifference ensure the organization's existence by giving organizations the freedom to act according to their own judgment, allowing continual adaptation to a constantly changing environment.¹⁸⁹ Organizations strive for large zones of indifference as it allows them to adjust their expectations toward their members without laborious negotiations. Generally, members tolerate a high degree of change, disappointment, and stress within zones of indifference before deciding to leave.¹⁹⁰ Organizations can motivate their members to accept zones of indifference by utilizing five mechanisms:¹⁹¹ (1) money, (2) force, (3) attractive goals, (4) engaging activities, and (5) collegiality. Management and organizational research deliver broad insights on different advantages and disadvantages of the specific forms of membership motivation.¹⁹² Further, the forms of membership motivation can be used to distinguish different types of employees based on their predominant motivation or to classify organizations.¹⁹³ Identifying personnel and organizational types according to the five forms of motivation classifies people into categories while overlooking the mixtures of membership motivations are of interest. Forms of motivation can be helpful when defining the combinations, shifts, and conflicts among motivational situations. In their day-to-day operations, organizations can abstract from their individual members' motives to a considerable extent.¹⁹⁴ Regardless of what convinced a person to join an organization, it can expect its members to abide by the rules for as long as they wish to remain affiliated with it.¹⁹⁵ All the discrepancies notwithstanding, an organization can account for homogenous membership motivation. The necessity of examining why individuals became members arises only under exceptional circumstances, such as organizational changes or conflicts.¹⁹⁶

Modern organizations seem to have a “fuzziness of membership.” Especially as classic employee contracts become less relevant and as flexible employment arrangements more popular, it is increasingly difficult to define an organization's circle of members. Further, the speed at which organizations change employees or alternate between outsourcing and insourcing appears new.¹⁹⁷ It is even more difficult in organizational networks to define boundaries on factual (“Who is responsible for what?”) and time dimensions (“When does collaboration start and end?”).¹⁹⁸ Thus, there is a tendency in organizational research to relativize the concept of membership and even to abandon it. Organizations are understood merely as “loose networks.” There are prognostications of “borderless organizations”¹⁹⁹ and “virtual organizations,”²⁰⁰ raising the question of whether organizations are disintegrating.²⁰¹ The opposite seems to hold: The more the definition of membership is questioned, the more intensely everyone involved examines what constitutes an organization and what does not. Members and non-members consider more deeply if people act as representatives for an organization. Thus, organizations cannot dispense with monitoring people's activity from the membership perspective, even when they continually refine the concepts of “internal” and “external” and if individuals may be ambivalently positioned. Managing memberships and deciding where to draw membership limits becomes an essential task when trying to influence organizations.²⁰²

4.1.2 Goals

There is sufficient literature available about the function of goals. In principle, an organization has free choice in deciding how many goals it wants. Even if resources and motivation to achieve those goals exist, when facing conflicting goals or resource allocation, an organization must narrow the range of its choices and concentrate on one or two.²⁰³ Setting goals implies a drastic narrowing of the organization's horizon. It emphasizes the predominance of one aspect but at the cost of others. In that sense, one can refer to goals as an organization's blinders.²⁰⁴ This restriction mobilizes creative thinking about the means.²⁰⁵ Therefore some organizational scientists view goals as “essential” in that they claim organizations are nothing other than the means to achieve an end. Adorno characterizes organizations as deliberately established and managed purposive associations.²⁰⁶ Blau and Scott stated that organizations' essential characteristic is that they are explicitly created to achieve specific goals.²⁰⁷ Etzioni defined organizations as social units created to “pursue specific goals.”²⁰⁸

While it is true that organizations may pursue a single, clearly defined goal, in practice, organizations typically strive to achieve many, often contradictory, preventing them from becoming rationally plannable.²⁰⁹

[...]

---

¹ Cf. Alan Murray, “The End of Management: Corporate bureaucracy is becoming obsolete. Why managers should act like venture capitalists,” 2010, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664, accessed October 2020; Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform’ (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), pp. 4-6; John Hagel, J. Brown, and Lang Davison, “Measuring the forces of long-term change: The 2009 shift index,” Deloitte Center for the Edge ( 2009); Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 13.

² Cf. Rudolf Wimmer, Organisation und Beratung, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2004), p. 188.

³ Cf. Ewald E. Krainz, “Leiden an der Organisation,” in Burnout und Prävention: Ein Lesebuch für Ärzte, Pfleger und Therapeuten, eds. Klaus Michael Ratheiser et al. (Wien: Springer, 2011), p. 120.

⁴ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), 1-3.

⁵ E.g. Yves Delamotte and Kenneth F. Walker, “Humanization of Work and the Quality of Working Life: Trends and Issues,” International Journal of Sociology 6, no. 1 (1976).

⁶ Cf. Steve Denning, “Don't Diss The Paradigm Shift In Management: It's Happening!,” 19/31/2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/10/31/dont-diss-the-paradigm-shift-in-management/, accessed August 2020.

⁷ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Organisation und Entscheidung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011), p. 338.

⁸ Cf. ibid., p. 346ff.

⁹ Cf. Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), Cf; Donald L. Anderson, Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010), pp. 209-213.

¹⁰ Cf. Alan Murray, “The End of Management: Corporate bureaucracy is becoming obsolete. Why managers should act like venture capitalists,” 2010, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664, accessed October 2020; Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), pp. 4-6; John Hagel, J. Brown, and Lang Davison, “Measuring the forces of long-term change: The 2009 shift index,” Deloitte Center for the Edge ( 2009); Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 13.

¹¹ Cf. Sam Wilkin, “Even for Companies, the U.S. Is Split Between Haves and Have-Nots,” 2015, https://hbr.org/2015/08/even-for-companies-the-u-s-is-split-between-haves-and-have-nots, accessed October 2020.

¹² Cf. Stuart McLeay, “Value added: A comparative study,” Accounting, Organizations and Society 8, no. 1 (1983).

¹³ Cf. Arie P. de Geus, “Planning as learning,” Harvard Business Review, 3-4 (1988); Peter M. Senge, The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization / Peter M. Senge (New York, N.Y., London: Currency Doubleday, 2006), p. 17.

¹⁴ Cf. Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), 6-8; W. W. Burke, Organization change: Theory and practice (Thousand Oaks, Calif., London: Sage, 2002), pp. 4-6.

¹⁵ Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), p. 8.

¹⁶ Cf. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies (New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1984).

¹⁷ Cf. Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 9.

¹⁸ Cf. John Hagel, J. Brown, and Lang Davison, “Measuring the forces of long-term change: The 2009 shift index,” Deloitte Center for the Edge ( 2009).

¹⁹ Source: Steve Denning, “Don't Diss The Paradigm Shift In Management: It's Happening!,” 19/31/2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/10/31/dont-diss-the-paradigm-shift-in-management/, accessed August 2020.

²⁰ Cf. Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhead, Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations, 11th ed. (Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 73.

²¹ Cf. Stuart McLeay, “Value added: A comparative study,” Accounting, Organizations and Society 8, no. 1 (1983).

²² Steve Denning, “Don't Diss The Paradigm Shift In Management: It's Happening!,” 19/31/2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/10/31/dont-diss-the-paradigm-shift-in-management/, accessed August 2020.

²³ Cf. Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), pp. 1-4.

²⁴ Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 4.

²⁵ E.g. ibid; Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001); Ulrich Krainz and Ewald E. Krainz, “Demokratische Organisationen - Organisierte Demokratie,” Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) 50, no. 3 (2019); Ewald E. Krainz, “Leiden an der Organisation,” in Burnout und Prävention: Ein Lesebuch für Ärzte, Pfleger und Therapeuten, eds. Klaus Michael Ratheiser et al. (Wien: Springer, 2011); Alan Murray, “The End of Management: Corporate bureaucracy is becoming obsolete. Why managers should act like venture capitalists,” 2010, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664, accessed October 2020.

²⁶ Cf. Thomas E. Harris and Mark D. Nelson, Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), p. 1; Don Tapscott, “Review: The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business,” 2013, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/review-the-new- digital-ag_b_3178215, accessed September 2020.

²⁷ Cf. Peter F. Drucker, The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society (London: Pan Books, 1969).

²⁸ Cf. Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), p. 11; Peter F. Drucker, The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society (London: Pan Books, 1969).

²⁹ Alan Murray, “The End of Management: Corporate bureaucracy is becoming obsolete. Why managers should act like venture capitalists,” 2010, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664, accessed October 2020.

³⁰ Cf. Lorraine Mirabella, “Do smartphones hurt productivity?,” Baltimore Sun, 2016, https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-mobile-phones-workplace-20160708-story.html, accessed September 2020.

³¹ Cf. Yuan Liu, “10 Important Reasons to Keep Learning After College,” 2020, https://thecollegeinvestor.com/8565/10-reasons-learning-college/, accessed September 2020; Maurizio Zollo and Sidney G. Winter, “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities,” Organization science 13, no. 3 (2002).

³² Cf. Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, “The Business of Artificial Intelligence: What it can - and cannot - do for your organization,” Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial- intelligence, accessed September 2020.

³³ Cf. Andrew Meola, “What is the Internet of Things?: What IoT means and how it works,” Business Insider, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/internet-of-things-definition, accessed September 2020.

³⁴ Cf. Sodexo, “Global Workplace Trends Report,” 2017, https://vn.sodexo.com/files/live/sites/sdxcom- global/files/PDF/Media/Sodexo-2017-workplace-trends-report.pdf, accessed September 2020; Crosby Burns, Kimberly Barton, and Sophia Kerby, “The State of Diversity in Today's Workforce,” Center for American Progress, 2012, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/07/12/11938/the-state-of-diversity-in-todays- workforce/, accessed September 2020; Morgan Roberts and Anthony J. Mayo, “Toward a Racially Just Workplace: Diversity efforts are failing black employees. Here is a better approach.,” Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/cover-story/2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace, accessed September 2020; Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret A. Neale, “The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations,” Psychological science in the public interest 6, no. 2 (2005); Mark DeWolf, “12 Stats about Working Women,” 2017, https://blog.dol.gov/2017/03/01/12- stats-about-working-women, accessed September 2020; Alexis Krivkovich et al., “Women in the Workplace 2017,” McKinsey Global Institute, 2019, https://www.agec.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/McKinsey-Women-in-the- workplace-2019.pdf, accessed September 2020; Ankita Saxena, “Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity,” Procedia Economics and Finance 11 (2014), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114001786.

³⁵ Cf. Thomas E. Harris and Mark D. Nelson, Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), pp. 1-9; Wayne F. Cascio and Ramiro Montealegre, “How technology is changing work and organizations,” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3 (2016); David Roe, “10 Digital Workplace Trends Shaping the Future of Work,” 2017, https://www.cmswire.com/digital-workplace/10-digital-workplace-trends-shaping-the-future-of-work/, accessed September 2020.

³⁶ Cf. Judith Heerwagen, Kevin Kelly, and Kevin Kampschroer, “The Changing Nature Of Organizations, Work, And Workplace,” 2016, https://www.wbdg.org/resources/changing-nature-organizations-work-and-workplace, accessed September 2020.

³⁷ Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), p. 9.

³⁸ Cf. Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From ’built to last’to ’built to perform’ (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), pp. 9-10.

³⁹ Alan Murray, “The End of Management: Corporate bureaucracy is becoming obsolete. Why managers should act like venture capitalists,” 2010, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664, accessed October 2020; Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1997).

⁴⁰ Cf. Gareth Morgan, Images of organization (London: Sage Publications, 2006).

⁴¹ Cf. Jan Achterbergh and Dirk Vriens, Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009), p. 31ff.

⁴² Cf. Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 8.

⁴³ Cf. Ewald E. Krainz, “Leiden an der Organisation,” in Burnout und Prävention: Ein Lesebuch für Ärzte, Pfleger und Therapeuten, eds. Klaus Michael Ratheiser et al. (Wien: Springer, 2011), p. 125.

⁴⁴ Cf. Thomas S. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 2012).

⁴⁵ Cf. Thomas E. Harris and Mark D. Nelson, Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), p. 33ff.

⁴⁶ Sumantra Ghoshal, “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices,” Academy of Management learning & education 4, no. 1 (2005).

⁴⁷ Cf. Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 13; Thomas E. Harris and Mark D. Nelson, Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), p. 30ff.. For different sectors or individual firms the author recommends Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), pp. 13-21.

⁴⁸ Cf. Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative destruction: From 'built to last'to 'built to perform' (London: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001), p. 16.

⁴⁹ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Organisation und Entscheidung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011).

⁵⁰ Cf. Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 23.

⁵¹ Cf. Ralph D. Stacey, Strategic management & organisational dynamics, 4th ed. (Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2002), p. 1.

⁵² Cf. Helmut Willke, Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Intervention in komplexe Systeme, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2005), pp. 141-142.

⁵³ Cf. Oliver König and Karl Schattenhofer, Einführung in die Gruppendynamik, 9th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2018), pp. 16-18.

⁵⁴ Cf. ibid., pp. 16-17.

⁵⁵ Cf. Karl E. Weick, Der Prozess des Organisierens (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1985), p. 11.

⁵⁶ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), p. 6 The consequences of this perspective in the beginning of Chapter - 4.

⁵⁷ Cf. Klaus Macharzina, Unternehmensführung: Das internationale Managementwissen: Konzepte - Methoden - Praxis (Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2017), pp. 475-477; Georg Schreyögg and Daniel Geiger, Organisation: Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung : mit Fallstudien, 6th ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2016), pp. 5-11; Reinhard Vossbein, Organisation, 3rd ed. (München: Oldenbourg, 1989), pp. 3-11; Gareth R. Jones, Organizational theory, design, and change, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2013), pp. 23-25.

⁵⁸ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power: Two Works (New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 1979), p. 205; Niklas Luhmann, “Interaction, Organization, and Society.,” in Differentiation of Society, ed. Luhmann Niklas (New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1984), p. 75; Stefan Kühl, “Groups, organizations, families and movements: The sociology of social systems between interaction and society,” System Research and Behavioral Science 37, no. 3 (2020): 500.

⁵⁹ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 6-10.

⁶⁰ Cf. Stefan Kühl, “Groups, organizations, families and movements: The sociology of social systems between interaction and society,” System Research and Behavioral Science 37, no. 3 (2020): 502.

⁶¹ Cf. Oliver König and Karl Schattenhofer, Einführung in die Gruppendynamik, 9th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2018), p. 15; Daniel Levi, Group dynamics for teams, 5th ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2017), pp. 4-5; Cf. Nancy Borkowski, Organizational Behavior: Theory and Design in Health Care (Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2009), p. 294.

⁶² Three hours ist he regular lifetime of a labroratory group experiment.

⁶³ Cf. Oliver König and Karl Schattenhofer, Einführung in die Gruppendynamik, 9th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2018), pp. 16-18.

⁶⁴ Cf. Donelson R. Forsyth, Group dynamics, 7th ed. (Boston: Cengage, op.2019).

⁶⁵ Cf. Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith, The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organisation (London: McGraw-Hill, 1998).

⁶⁶ Cf. Nicky Hayes, Successful Team Management: Essential Business Psychology (London: Routledge, 1997).

⁶⁷ Cf. Daniel Levi, Group dynamics for teams, 5th ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2017), pp. 5-6.

⁶⁸ Cf. Klaus Macharzina, Unternehmensführung: Das internationale Managementwissen: Konzepte - Methoden - Praxis (Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2017), p. 35.

⁶⁹ Cf. Horst Steinmann, Jochen Koch, and Georg Schreyögg, Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung Konzepte - Funktionen - Fallstudien, 7th ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 2013), p. 6; Klaus Macharzina, Unternehmensführung: Das internationale Managementwissen: Konzepte - Methoden - Praxis (Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2017), p. 37.

⁷⁰ Cf. Horst Steinmann, Jochen Koch, and Georg Schreyögg, Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung Konzepte - Funktionen - Fallstudien, 7th ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 2013), p. 8; Günter Wöhe and Ulrich Döring, Einführung in die allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 25th ed. (München: Vahlen, 2013), p. 49; Ralf Dillerup and Roman Stoi, Unternehmensführung: Management & Leadership. Strategien - Werkzeuge - Praxis., 5th ed. (München: Franz Vahlen, 2016), p. 11.

⁷¹ Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), p. 23.

⁷² Cf. Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhead, Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations, 11th ed. (Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 324ff.

⁷³ Cf. Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, Rethinking Management (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017), pp. 22-23; Cf. Thomas E. Harris and Mark D. Nelson, Applied organizational communication: Theory and practice in a global environment, 4th ed. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), pp. 239-240; Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 4th ed. (San Francisco, CA: Joey Bass, 2008), pp. 344­345.

⁷⁴ E.g. Franz J. Neyer and Jens Asendorpf, Psychologie der Persönlichkeit, 6th ed. (Berlin: Springer, 2018), pp. 23-30; Eckard König and Peter Zedler, Theorien der Erziehungswissenschaft: Einführung in Grundlagen, Methoden und praktische Konsequenzen, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2007); Thomas Rammsayer and Hannelore Weber, Differentielle Psychologie: Persönlichkeitstheorien, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2016).

⁷⁵ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), p. 14; Sumantra Ghoshal, “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices,” Academy of Management learning & education 4, no. 1 (2005).

⁷⁶ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 15-16; Steven L. MacShane and Mary A. Y. von Glinow, Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge, global reality, 7th ed. (Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015), p. 30ff; Daniel Cervone and Lawrence A. Pervin, Personality: Theory and research, 14th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2019), p. 181ff.

⁷⁷ Cf. Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa Jr, “A five-factor theory of personality,” Handbook of personality: Theory and research 2 (1999); Isabel B. Myers and Peter B. Myers, Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type, 2nd ed. (London: CPP, 1995); Robert F. Krueger and Kristian E. Markon, “The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology,” Annual review of clinical psychology 10 (2014); Howard S. Friedman and Miriam W. Schustack, Personality: Classic theories and modern research, 4th ed. (Boston, Mass.: Pearson, 2009); Richard Bents and Reiner Blank, Typisch Mensch: Einführung in die Typentheorie, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2004); Jens Asendorpf, “Persönlichkeit: Stabilität und Veränderung,” in Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Differentiellen Psychologie, 1st ed., ed. Hannelore Weber (Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag, 2005).

⁷⁸ Cf. Lothar Laux, Persönlichkeitspsychologie, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008).

⁷⁹ E.g. Murray R. Barrick and Michael K. Mount, “The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta­analysis,” Personnel psychology 44, no. 1 (1991); Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhead, Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations, 11th ed. (Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014), pp. 66-70.

⁸⁰ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 17-19; Cf. Rüdiger Hossiep and Oliver Mühlhaus, Personalauswahl und - entwicklung (Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2005); Gabriele Stöger and Mona Vogl, Mit Menschenkenntnis zum Seminarerfolg: Persönlichkeitsprofile erkennen und nutzen, 1st ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2004).

⁸¹ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 18-19; Cf. Jens Asendorpf, “Persönlichkeit: Stabilität und Veränderung,” in Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Differentiellen Psychologie, 1st ed., ed. Hannelore Weber (Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag, 2005); Walter Mischel, Personality and Assessment (Hoboken: Wiley, 1968).

⁸² Cf. Walter Mischel, Personality and Assessment (Hoboken: Wiley, 1968).

⁸³ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), p. 20; Walter Herzog, Modell und Theorie in der Psychologie, 1st ed. (Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie, 1984), p. 98; Daniel Cervone and Lawrence A. Pervin, Personality: Theory and research, 14th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2019), p. 273ff.

⁸⁴ Cf. John B. Watson, Behaviorism, 1st ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998).

⁸⁵ Cf. Burrhus F. Skinner, Beyond freedom and dignity (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1971).

⁸⁶ Cf. Guy Bodenmann et al., Klassische Lerntheorien: Grundlagen und Anwendungen in Erziehung und Psychotherapie, 1st ed. (Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, 2004), 42ff; Bruno Peyer and Meinrad Perrez, Einführung in die Verhaltenstherapie für visuelle Typen, 1st ed. (Salzburg: Müller, 1978), p. 47.

⁸⁷ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 22-23; Charles I. Abramson, “Problems of Teaching the Behaviorist Perspective in the Cognitive Revolution,” Behavioral Sciences 3, no. 1 (2013).

⁸⁸ Cf. Albert Martin, Handlungstheorie: Grundelemente des menschlichen Handels, 1st ed. (Darmstadt: Wbg Academic, 2011), p. 9; Talcott Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action,” in Psychology: A Study of a Science. Study 1, Volume 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context, ed. Siegmund Koch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959).

⁸⁹ Cf. Max Weber and Johannes Winckelmann, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, 5th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976), p. 1.

⁹⁰ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 24-26.

⁹¹ Cf. ibid., pp. 24-29; C. Etzrodt, Sozialwissenschaftliche Handlungstheorien: Eine Einführung, 1st ed. (Konstanz: UVK-Verlag, 2003); Bernhard Miebach, Soziologische Handlungstheorie: Eine Einführung, 4th ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2013).

⁹² Cf. Adam Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Dublin, 1776); Peter M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life, 2nd ed. (New York: Transaction Publishers, 1986); John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney, and Howard Raiffa, “The Hidden Traps in Decision Making,” (1998), https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps- in-decision-making-2, accessed September 2020.

⁹³ Adam Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Dublin, 1776), p. 17.

⁹⁴ Cf. Carl R. Rogers, Client-centred therapy (London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2003); Carl R. Rogers, “A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships, as Developed in the Client-Centered Framework,” in Psychology: A Study of a Science. Study 1, Volume 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context, ed. Siegmund Koch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959); Neil Douglas and Terry Wykowski, From belief to knowledge: Achieving and sustaining an adaptive culture in organizations (Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, 2011).

⁹⁵ Cf. Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1977); Albert Ellis and John M. Whiteley, Theoretical and empirical foundations of rational-emotive therapy (Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1979); Jürgen Kriz, Systemtheorie für Coaches: Einführung und kritische Diskussion (Essentials), 1st ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2016); Thomas Rammsayer and Hannelore Weber, Differentielle Psychologie: Persönlichkeitstheorien, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2016).

⁹⁶ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 29-31; Catherine T. Fosnot, Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2nd ed. (New York, London: Teachers College Press, 2005); Falko von Ameln, Konstruktivismus: Die Grundlagen systemischer Therapie, Beratung und Bildungsarbeit, 1st ed. (Tübingen: UTB GmbH, 2004); Bernhard Poerksen, The certainty of uncertainty: Dialogues introducing constructivism (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004); Bernhard Pörksen, ed., Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2015).

⁹⁷ Cf. George A. Kelly, A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs, 1st ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1963); Fay Fransella and Don Bannister, Inquiring Man: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, 3rd ed. (New York, N.Y.: Routledge, 2019).

⁹⁸ Cf. Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela, The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding (Boston: Shambhala, 1992); Humberto R. Maturana, Biologie der Realität, 1st ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2000); Humberto R. Maturana, Erkennen: Die Organisation und Verkörperung von Wirklichkeit: Ausgewählte Arbeiten zur biologischen Epistemologie, 2nd ed. (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1985); Ernst v. Glasersfeld, Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning, 6th ed. (New York: Routedge/Falmer, 2002). The problems of observation will be examined in Chapter 0.

⁹⁹ Cf. Kenneth Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2015).

¹⁰⁰ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 30-31.

¹⁰¹ The term “Organized Complexity” will be examined in Chapter 3.5 - Observing Systems.

¹⁰² Cf. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, . aber vom Menschen wissen wir nichts: Robots, men and minds, 1st ed. (Düsseldorf: Econ, 1970), p. 20.

¹⁰³ Cf. Arist von Schlippe and Jochen Schweitzer, Systemische Interventionen, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: UTB, 2017), p. 7.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Rudolf Wimmer, “Was kann Beratung leisten?,” in Organisationsberatung: Neue Wege und Konzepte, 1994th ed., ed. Rudolf Wimmer (Gabler Verlag, 1994), p. 62.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), p. 32.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Reinhart Nagel and Rudolf Wimmer, Einführung in die systemische Strategieentwicklung, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2015), p. 52; Rudolf Wimmer, “Die Steuerung komplexer Organisationen: Ein Reformulierungsversuch der Führungsproblematik aus systemischer Sicht,” in Politische Prozesse in Unternehmen, 2nd ed., ed. Karl Sandner (Berlin: Physica, 1992); Niklas Luhmann, Organisation und Entscheidung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011); Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015); Ralph Grossmann, Klaus Scala, and Günther Bauer, Systemic organization development (Charlotte, NC: IAP - Information Age Publishing, inc, 2018), pp. 15-16.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Roswita Königswieser and Martin Hillebrand, Einführung in die systemische Organisationsberatung, 9th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag GmbH, 2017), pp. 20-28; Eckard König and Peter Zedler, Theorien der Erziehungswissenschaft: Einführung in Grundlagen, Methoden und praktische Konsequenzen, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2007), p. 171ff; Martin Lehner and Falko E. P. Wilms, Systemisch denken - klipp und klar, 1st ed. (Zürich: Verlag Industrielle Organisation, 2002).

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, ... aber vom Menschen wissen wir nichts: Robots, men and minds, 1st ed. (Düsseldorf: Econ, 1970), p. 126; Cf. Donald L. Anderson, Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010), p. 62ff.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Fritjof Capra and Pier L. Luisi, The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 85-86.

¹¹⁰ Cf. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (George Braziller Inc, 2015); Kenneth E. Boulding, The image: Knowledge in life and society (University of Michigan press, 1956).

¹¹¹ Cf. William Ashby, Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behaviour (New York: John Wiley, 1952); W. R. Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, 1st ed. (London: Chapman & Hall Ltd, 1961); W. R. Ashby, “Effect of Controls on Stability,” Nature 155, no. 3930 (1945); Stafford Beer, Brain of the Firm: The Managerial Cybernetics of Organization (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1972); Stafford Beer, The Heart of Enterprise (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Stafford Beer, Decision and Control: Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cybernetics (Chichester: John Wiley, 1994); Stafford Beer and Ilse Grubrich, Kybernetik und Management (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1967); Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1948).

¹¹² Arthur D. Hall and Robert E. Fagen, “Definition of System,” General systems 1, no. 1 (1956): 18-19.

¹¹³ Cf. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, “The History and Status of General Systems Theory,” Academy of Management Journal 15, no. 4 (1972): 115.

¹¹⁴ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 35-36; Kurt Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, 1st ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1948); Ralph D. Stacey, Strategic management & organisational dynamics, 4th ed. (Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2002), pp. 24-25.

¹¹⁵ Cf. F. Capra and E. Schuhmacher, Wendezeit: Bausteine für ein neues Weltbild, 1st ed. (Bern: Fischer Verlag, 1988), pp. 293-333; Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), p. 36; Fritjof Capra and Pier L. Luisi, The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).

¹¹⁶ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 36-38; Frederic Vester, Unsere Welt - ein vernetztes System, 11th ed. (München: dtv, 2002), pp. 111-140.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Frederic Vester, Neuland des Denkens: Vom technokratischen zum kybernetischen Zeitalter, 5th ed. (München: dtv, 1988); Frederic Vester, Die Kunst vernetzt zu denken: Ideen und Werkzeuge für einen neuen Umgang mit Komplexität, 1st ed. (Stuttgart, 1999); Frederic Vester, Unsere Welt - ein vernetztes System, 11th ed. (München: dtv, 2002).

¹¹⁸ E.g. Stafford Beer, Decision and Control: Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cybernetics (Chichester: John Wiley, 1994); Werner Kirsch, Strategisches Management: Die geplante Evolution von Unternehmen, 1st ed. (Herrsching: Kirsch, 1997); Knut Bleicher, ed., Organisation als System, 1st ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer, 1972); Fredmund Malik, Systemisches Management, Evolution, Selbstorganisation: Grundprobleme, Funktionsmechanismen und Lösungsansätze für komplexe Systeme, 5th ed. (Bern: Haupt Verlag, 2009); Fredmund F. Malik, Managing performing living: Effective management for a new world, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt: Campus, 2016).

¹¹⁹ E.g. Hans-Gerd Servatius, Vom strategischen Management zur evolutionären Führung: Auf dem Wege zu einem ganzheitlichen Denken und Handeln (Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, 1991); Michael Alznauer, Natürlich Führen: Der evolutionäre Quellcode der Führung, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2013).

¹²⁰ Cf. Hans-Dieter Litke, Projektmanagement: Methoden Techniken Verhaltensweisen, 5th ed. (München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2007).

¹²¹ Cf. Rolf Bronner and Wolfgang Appel, eds., Evolution steuern - Revolution planen: Über die Beherrschbarkeit von Veränderungsprozessen (Zürich: InnoVatio-Verlag, 1999).

¹²² Cf. Klaus-Stephan Otto and Thomas Speck, eds., Darwin meets Business: Evolutionäre und bionische Lösungen für die Wirtschaft (Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2011), p. 19; Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), p. 39; Gareth Morgan, Images of organization (London: Sage Publications, 2006).

¹²³ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), p. 39; Stephan Fuchs, “Handlung ist System: Stephan Fuchs über Talcott Parsons' "The Social System" (1951),” in Schlüsselwerke der Systemtheorie, 1st ed., ed. Dirk Baecker (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2005).

¹²⁴ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015).

¹²⁵ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 39-43; Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), 30-90; Jan Achterbergh and Dirk Vriens, Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009), pp. 113-163.

¹²⁶ Niklas Luhmann and John Bednarz, Social systems (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), p. 16.

¹²⁷ Ibid., p. 18.

¹²⁸ Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), p. 283 (own translation).

¹²⁹ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, “Die Autopoiesis des Bewußtseins,” soziale Welt, no. 4 (1985): 403.

¹³⁰ Niklas Luhmann and John Bednarz, Social systems (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), p. 24.

¹³¹ Cf. Andreas Tiffert, “Everything changes: Systemische Ansätze für das Change Management,” in Führung von Vertriebsorganisationen: Strategie - Koordination - Umsetzung, 1st ed., ed. Lars Binckebanck (Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 2013), p. 388; Dirk Baecker, “Kommunikation,” in Lexikon des systemischen Arbeitens: Grundbegriffe der systemischen Praxis, Methodik und Theorie, eds. Jan Volker Wirth, Heiko Kleve and Heinz Abels (Heidelberg: Carl­Auer-Verl., 2012).

¹³² Cf. Fritz B. Simon, Einführung in Systemtheorie und Konstruktivismus, 8th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2017), pp. 92-95; Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), pp. 151-152; Niklas Luhmann, “Was ist Kommunikation?,” in Lebende Systeme: Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen in der systemischen Therapie, 1st ed., ed. Fritz B. Simon (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2002), pp. 21-22.

¹³³ Source: On the basis of consenser.org, “Einführung Systemtheorie,” 2010, accessed June 2018; Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), pp. 51-152.

¹³⁴ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), pp. 93-152; Fritz B. Simon, Ulrich Clement, and Helm Stierlin, Die Sprache der Familientherapie: Ein Vokabular. Kritischer Überblick und Integration systemtherapeutischer Begriffe, Konzepte und Methoden, 6th ed. (Stuttgart: Klett- Cotta, 2004), pp. 302-303; Fritz B. Simon, Einführung in Systemtheorie und Konstruktivismus, 8th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2017), pp. 96-97; Tom Levold, “Die Systemtheorie Niklas Luhmanns,” in Systemische Therapie und Beratung - das große Lehrbuch, 2nd ed., eds. Tom Levold and Michael Wirsching (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2016), p. 65.

¹³⁵ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), pp. 92-147; Reinhart Nagel and Rudolf Wimmer, Einführung in die systemische Strategieentwicklung, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2015), p. 110.

¹³⁶ Cf. Reinhart Nagel and Rudolf Wimmer, Einführung in die systemische Strategieentwicklung, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2015), p. 111.

¹³⁷ Cf. Torsten Groth, 66 Gebote systemischen Denkens und Handelns in Management und Beratung, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag, 2017), p. 108.

¹³⁸ Source: On the basis of Katrin Glatzel, “Über die Kunst, Komplexität zu nutzen,” OSB Group, 2014, https://pages.osb-i.com/de/blog/ueber-die-kunst-komplexitaet-zu-nutzen-im-maerz-erscheint-das-buch-der-osb, accessed June 2018.

¹³⁹ Cf. Reinhart Nagel, Organisationsdesign: Modelle und Methoden für Berater und Entscheider, 1st ed. (Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, 2017), p. 10; Niklas Luhmann, Organisation und Entscheidung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011), pp. 183-221.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Organisation und Entscheidung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011), p. 184.

¹⁴¹ Cf. Fritz B. Simon, Einführung in die systemische Organisationstheorie, 5th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2015), pp. 66-67.

¹⁴² Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Organisation und Entscheidung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011), p. 71

¹⁴³ Cf. Dirk Baecker, Organisation und Management, 1st ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2003), p. 34.

¹⁴⁴ Cf. Fritz B. Simon, Einführung in die systemische Organisationstheorie, 5th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2015), p. 9; Reinhart Nagel and Rudolf Wimmer, Einführung in die systemische Strategieentwicklung, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag, 2015), p. 52.

¹⁴⁵ Cf. Max Haller, Soziologische Theorie im systematisch-kritischen Vergleich, 1st ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2003), pp. 437­438; Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 39-42.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden (Weinheim: Beltz, 1993), p. 43.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Fritz B. Simon, Einführung in Systemtheorie und Konstruktivismus, 8th ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2017), p. 12.

¹⁴⁸ Cf. ibid., p. 90.

¹⁴⁹ Cf. Rainer Schwing and Andreas Fryszer, Systemisches Handwerk: Werkzeug für die Praxis, 6th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); Arist von Schlippe and Jochen Schweitzer, Systemische Interventionen, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: UTB, 2017); Jan Bleckwedel, Systemische Therapie in Aktion: Kreative Methoden in der Arbeit mit Familien und Paaren, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011); Donald L. Anderson, Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010); Julie Hodges, Organizational Development: How organizations change and develop effectively (London: Red Globe Press, 2020).

¹⁵⁰ Cf. Joseph O'Connor and Ian McDermott, Die Lösung lauert überall: Systemisches Denken verstehen und nutzen, 4th ed. (Kirchzarten: VAK Verlags GmbH, 2006); Paul Watzlawick, Janet B. Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson, Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen Störungen Paradoxien, 1st ed. (Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, 1969); Edmond Marc, Dominique Picard, and Hans G. Holl, Bateson, Watzlawick und die Schule von Palo Alto (Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1991); Jürgen Kriz, Systemtheorie für Coaches: Einführung und kritische Diskussion (Essentials), 1st ed. (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2016).

¹⁵¹ Cf. Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson, Kommunikation: Die soziale Matrix der Psychiatrie, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 1995), pp. 10-30;

¹⁵² Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 43-47; Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson, Kommunikation: Die soziale Matrix der Psychiatrie, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 1995); Gregory Bateson, Ökologie des Geistes: Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983); Wolfram Lutterer, Gregory Bateson: Eine Einführung in sein Denken, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg: Auer, 2009).

¹⁵³ Cf. Gregory Bateson, Ökologie des Geistes: Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983), p. 386.

¹⁵⁴ Cf. Gregory Bateson, Geist und Natur: Eine notwendige Einheit, 4th ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1995), pp. 40-41.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 48-51; Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson, Kommunikation: Die soziale Matrix der Psychiatrie, 1st ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 1995), pp. 158-305.

¹⁵⁶ Cf. Katja Luchte, Implementierung pädagogischer Konzepte in sozialen Systemen: Ein systemtheoretischer Beratungsansatz (System und Organisation), 1st ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2005), pp. 85-86.

¹⁵⁷ Cf. Paul Watzlawick, Janet B. Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson, Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen Störungen Paradoxien, 1st ed. (Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, 1969), pp. 58-75; Eckard König and Gerda Volmer, Handbuch systemische Organisationsberatung: Grundlagen und Methoden, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Beltz, 2014), pp. 50-51.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Norman Triplett, “The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition,” The American Journal of Psychology 9, no. 4 (1898).

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Kurt Lewin, “Problems of Research in Social Psychology,” in Field Theory in Social Sciences: Selected Papers by Kurt Lewin, ed. Dorwin Cartwright (New York: Harper & Row, 1951), p. 169.

¹⁶⁰ Cf. Daniel Levi, Group dynamics for teams, 5th ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2017), pp. 13-14; Kurt Lewin, “Problems of Research in Social Psychology,” in Field Theory in Social Sciences: Selected Papers by Kurt Lewin, ed. Dorwin Cartwright (New York: Harper & Row, 1951).

¹⁶¹ Cf. Daniel Levi, Group dynamics for teams, 5th ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2017), p. 14.

¹⁶² Cf. Greg L. Stewart, “The Past Twenty Years: Teams Research Is Alive and Well at the Journal of Management,” Journal of Management 36, no. 4 (2010).

¹⁶³ Cf. Daniel Levi, Group dynamics for teams, 5th ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2017), pp. 14-15.

¹⁶⁴ E.g. Traugott Lindner, “Gruppendynamik und systemische Reflexion,” Zeitschrift für angewandte Sozialpsychologie 21, no. 1 (1990); Rudolf Wimmer, “Erlebt die Gruppendynamik eine Renaissance?: Eine systemtheoretische Reflexion gruppendynamischer Arbeit am Beispiel der Trainingsgruppe,” in Gruppendynamik: Geschichte - Theorien - Methoden - Anwendungen - Ausbildung, 5th ed., eds. Oliver König and Klaus Antons (München: Profil, 2006); Karl Schattenhofer and Wolfgang Weigand, Die Dynamik der Selbststeuerung: Beiträge zur angewandten Gruppendynamik (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998).

¹⁶⁵ Cf. Jan Achterbergh and Dirk Vriens, Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009), p. 71.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. H. v. Foerster, Entdecken oder Erfinden. Wie lässt sich Verstehen verstehen? (Piper: Munich, Berlin, Zurich, 2015).

¹⁶⁷ Cf. Jan Achterbergh and Dirk Vriens, Organizations: Social Systems Conducting Experiments (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009), p. 72; Ralph Grossmann, Klaus Scala, and Günther Bauer, Systemic organization development (Charlotte, NC: IAP - Information Age Publishing, inc, 2018), pp. 17-18.

¹⁶⁸ Cf. Heinz von Foerster, Observing systems, 2nd ed. (Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications, 1984).

¹⁶⁹ Cf.Helmut Willke, Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Intervention in komplexe Systeme, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2005), pp. 22-26.

¹⁷⁰ Cf. Helmut Willke, Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Intervention in komplexe Systeme, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2005), p. 26; Niklas Luhmann, “Die Autopoiesis des Bewußtseins,” soziale Welt, no. 4 (1985): 403.

¹⁷¹ Cf. Helmut Willke, Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Intervention in komplexe Systeme, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2005), p. 27.

¹⁷² Niklas Luhmann, “Die Autopoiesis des Bewußtseins,” soziale Welt, no. 4 (1985): 405.

¹⁷³ Cf. Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Toronto, New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 149ff; Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), p. 14ff.

¹⁷⁴ Cf. Karl E. Weick, Der Prozess des Organisierens (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1985), p. 130f.

¹⁷⁵ Cf. Helmut Willke, Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Intervention in komplexe Systeme, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2005), pp. 84-86.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. ibid., pp. 28-29.

¹⁷⁷ Cf.Humberto R. Maturana, Erkennen: Die Organisation und Verkörperung von Wirklichkeit: Ausgewählte Arbeiten zur biologischen Epistemologie, 2nd ed. (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1985), p. 261ff.

¹⁷⁸ Cf. Helmut Willke, Systemtheorie II: Interventionstheorie: Grundzüge einer Theorie der Intervention in komplexe Systeme, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: UTB, 2005), pp. 86-87.

¹⁷⁹ Niklas Luhmann, “Allgemeine Theorie organisierter Sozialsysteme,” in Soziologische Aufklärung, 6th ed., ed. Niklas Luhmann (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2009), p. 50; see also Niklas Luhmann, “Interaction, Organization, and Society.,” in Differentiation of Society, ed. Luhmann Niklas (New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1984), p. 75; Niklas Luhmann, “Membership and motives in social systems,” Systems Research 13, no. 3 (1996): 345; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), p. 25.

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 25-27.

¹⁸¹ Cf.Niklas Luhmann, Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation (Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1964), 63.

¹⁸² Cf. ibid., p. 40; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 27-28.

¹⁸³ “Informality” will be examined in Chapter 4.2.2 - The Informal Aspect.

¹⁸⁴ Niklas Luhmann, “Allgemeine Theorie organisierter Sozialsysteme,” in Soziologische Aufklärung, 6th ed., ed. Niklas Luhmann (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2009), p. 50; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 27-28.

¹⁸⁵ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 28-29.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. John R. Commons, Legal foundations of capitalism (Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2012), p. 284.

¹⁸⁷ Cf. Chester I. Barnard, The functions of the executive (Harvard Business Press, 1968), p. 168ff; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 29-30.

¹⁸⁸ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Soziologie des Risikos (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), p. 202.

¹⁸⁹ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation (Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1964), p. 94; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 29-30.

¹⁹⁰ For a detailed explanation see Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 29-30.

¹⁹¹ Cf. ibid., pp. 31-39; Cf. Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhead, Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations, 11th ed. (Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 87ff.

¹⁹² Cf. Edward A. Shils and Morris Janowitz, “Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1948): 280.ff; ff.John W. Newstrom, Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work, 13th ed. (Boston, [Mass.], London: McGraw-Hill, 2011), p. 143; Renate Mayntz, Soziologie der Organisation, 1st ed. (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1963), p. 130; 93Niklas Luhmann, Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation (Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1964).ff.

¹⁹³ Cf. Amitai Etzioni, Modern organizations (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 2007), p. 23ff.

¹⁹⁴ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation (Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1964), p. 42.

¹⁹⁵ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Politische Soziologie, 1st ed. (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2015), p. 210.

¹⁹⁶ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 39-42; Niklas Luhmann, “Interaction, Organization, and Society.,” in Differentiation of Society, ed. Luhmann Niklas (New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1984), p. 41; Niklas Luhmann, Politische Soziologie, 1st ed. (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2015), p. 200ff.

¹⁹⁷ Cf. Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhead, Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations, 11th ed. (Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 50ff.

¹⁹⁸ Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 41-46.

¹⁹⁹ Ron Ashkenas, The Boundaryless Organization: New Testament (San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass, 2002).

²⁰⁰ William H. Davidow and Michael S. Malone, The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century, 8th ed. (New York: HarperBusiness, 1995).

²⁰¹ Arnold Picot and Ralf Reichwald, “Auflösung der Unternehmung?,” Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, no. 5 (1994).

²⁰² Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 41-49.

²⁰³ Cf. ibid., pp. 49-50.

²⁰⁴ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität: Über die Funktion von Zwecken in sozialen Systemen, 1st ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973), p. 46ff; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 50-51.

²⁰⁵ Cf. Niklas Luhmann, Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität: Über die Funktion von Zwecken in sozialen Systemen, 1st ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973), p. 46; Max Weber and Johannes Winckelmann, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, 5th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976), p. 13; Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), pp. 51-54.

²⁰⁶ Cf. Theodor W. Adorno, “Individuum und Organisation,” Gesammelte Schriften 8 (1953): 441.

²⁰⁷ Cf. Peter M. Blau and Richard W. Scott, Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 5.

²⁰⁸ Cf. Amitai Etzioni, Modern organizations (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 2007), p. 3.

²⁰⁹ Cf. Stefan Kühl, Organizations: A Systems Approach (Farnham, Surrey: Routledge, 2013), p. 54.

• Université: Otto Beisheim School of Management Vallendar (Kellogg-WHU Executive MBA)
• Note: 1
• Année de publication: 2020
• Pages: 122
• N° de catalogue: V1152743
• ISBN (ebook): 9783346543295
• ISBN (Livre): 9783346543301
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: Organizations, Teams, Luhmann, Social Systems, System Theory, Business Management, General Management, Change Management, Leadership, Organizational Change, Organizational Analysis, Group Dynamics, Niklas Luhmann, Sociology, Business Strategy, Transformation, Organizational Development, Management Frameworks, Systemic Management, Taylorism