System


 * Etymology and Definition **

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the concept "system" originated in the 16th and 17th centuries, derived from the Late Latin systemat-, systema, from Greek systēmat-, systēma, from synistanai signifying “to combine”, and from syn- + histanai meaning “to cause to stand” (2012, n.p.). The primary definition refers to “an organized or connected group of objects” (2012, n.p.). Based on this meaning, the most common understanding of system was as “a set or assemblage of things connected, associated, or interdependent, so as to form a complex unity; a whole composed of parts in orderly arrangement according to some scheme or plan; rarely applied to a simple or small assemblage of things” (2012, n.p.). In a humanistic sense, a system is also considered, “a set of persons working together as parts of an interconnecting network” (2015, n.p.). Specific definitions of this term for fields such as physics, biology, and computer science are also included (2015). In sum, the definition for "system" references the organization and connection of parts to form a cohesive whole (2015).

Associated Terms: //Network, network analysis, organization//

 **The growth of the system perspective**

Many organizational scholars (see Miller, 2001) refer to Taylor’s //The Principles of Scientific Management// (1911) to the history of the system’s perspective. Taylor’s book references the word “system” 28 times, generally referring to a system as a process and structure of human work flow. Taylor’s work reduced humans and labor to a mechanical logic and was later shadowed by human relations and human resources approaches to understanding human systems (see Miller, 2001).

Social scientific interest in systems did not build strong traction until the late 1960’s (Miller, 1995, 2009). One of the key founders of the systems movement was Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968), a biologist interested in theoretical biological systems, who wrote about his concerns regarding the degree to which academic disciplines were isolated from one another. He argued that a systems perspective (system as a concept as well as other related concepts) could be applied to several intellectual disciplines in both the social and the natural sciences (also see Miller, 2009, p. 58). Based on this, von Bertalanffy published //General Systems Theory//, a book introducing a systems theory that he believed was as appropriate for both the social and natural sciences (von Bertalanffy, 1968; see also Miller, 2009, p. 58).

The study of systems was quickly and eagerly adopted by communication theorists and other social scientists. During the 1970s several communication and social science scholars (e.g. Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Monge, 1977, 1982) advocated a systems perspective to the study of communication and other social phenomena (Contractor, 1994; Miller, 2009). Farace, Monge, and Russell’s (1977) //Communicating and Organizing,// an application of structural functional systems theory to communication processes, represents one of the first comprehensive application of systems theory in the field of communication studies (Miller, 2009, p. 58). Miller (2009) describes the 1960s and 1970s as a time when the systems metaphor served as a popular way to understand communication processes.

However, the systems perspective was also met with criticism from critical and cultural scholars as well as scholars whom employed interpretative methods from the mid 1970’s to the early 1990’s (Mumby, 2013). For example, inspired by Foucault’s //Discipline and Punish// (1975), Barker noted that human systems may perpetuate what is known as //concertive control//, a form of self-maintaining inter-systemic hegemony.

Miller (2001, p. 152) attributes the push for system's thinking in the mid 1990's to Scott Poole’s call for a return to systems based research, citing it’s methodological importance in quantitative and social science research (1996). Said importance was evident in research conducted by Monge (1982), Barnett & Rice (1985) and Rice & Richards (1985). Phillips (2001) ultimately argues that the systems approach allows for the quantitative investigation of social reality, a move from the theoretical to the practical.

 **System characteristics, processes, and properties**

According to Miller (2009), at its most basic level, a system is “an assemblage of parts, or components” (p. 59). This view of system is coherent with the colloquial perception that a system is made up of parts that form a whole. For example, in an organizational system, these components are the people, groups/teams, and departments that make up the organization. Miller (2009) describes three main characteristics of systems: hierarchical ordering, interdependence, and permeability (p. 59). Hierarchical ordering means that in observing a system, one can observe that system as containing both smaller subsystems and be part of larger supersystems. Interdependence signifies that the functioning of one component of the system relies on other components of the system (Miller, 2009, p. 59). Permeability means system have boundaries through which information can flow both in and out (p. 60).

On a simplistic level, a system is characterized by input-throughput-output processes (Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977; Miller, 2009). This means that a system inputs information from its environment and/or another system through its permeable boundaries, transforms the received inputs (throughput) that may consequently lead to a transformation within the system itself, and finally returns the transformed output to it's environment and/or  (Miller, 2009). These processes exemplify interdependence between systems; systems' ability to change environments, and environments' ability to change systems. (Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977; Miller, 2009).

A system can be further characterized by four basic properties: holism, equifinality, requisite variety, and negative entropy (Miller, 2009, p. 62). Holism signifies that a system is “more than the sum of its parts” (Miller, 2009, p. 62). Equifinality refers to the idea that there are a number of paths that a system can take in order to reach the same final state (Katz & Kahn, 1978; see also Miller, 2009). Negative entropy refers to the capacity of systems to sustain themselves or grow while avoiding chaos (Miller, 2009). Finally, the system property of requisite variety states that the internal workings of a system must be “as diverse and complicated as the environment in which it is embedded” (Miller, 2009, p. 63; see also Miller, 1995; Morgan, 1997). Taken as a whole, these properties indicate that systems are able to maintain order and reach a final state through their diverse and holistic parts (Miller, 2009).

**System and communication studies**

The multiple sub-disciplines of communication use the systems perspective in diverse ways. In organizational and small group communication, organizations and groups are often considered systems (Leveque & Poole, 1999; Miller, 2009; Monge, 1977). For these scholars, organizations are collections of components that are interdependent, hierarchically arranged, and permeable to each other and the environment. In interpersonal and family <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">communication, systems theory is consulted to investigate interactional changes within dyadic pairs and between family members. (Bowen, 1978; Gilbert, 1992). Additionally, in interpersonal communication, the systems perspective takes an interactional view of relationship maintenance by focusing on repeated and interdependent behaviors (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). The systems perspective has also been adopted by mass communication theorists and media researchers interested in the investigation of media systems (Baran & Davis, 2009).

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Minor revisions made by Amy L. Delaney (August 2012)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Minor revisions made by Kristopher Weeks (August 2015)

include component="comments" page="page:System" limit="10"


 * References**

Baran, S. J., & Davis, D. K. (2009). //Mass communication theory: foundations, ferment, and future//. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. //Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3),// 408-437. []

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">Barnett, G., & Rice, R.E. (1985). Longitudinal non-Euclidean networks: Applying Galileo. //Social Networks, 7//(4), 287-322. []

Bowen, M. (1978). //Family Therapy in Clinical Practice//. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.

Contractor, N. S. (1994). Self-organizing systems perspective in the study of organizational communication. In B. Kovacic (Ed.), //New approaches to organizational communication// (39-66). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2005). //Applying communication theory for professional life: A practical introduction.// Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gilbert, R. M. (1992). //Extraordinary relationships: A new way of thinking about human interactions//. Minneapolis, MN: Chronimed Publishing.

Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). //Communicating and organizing.// Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Foucault, M. (1975). //Discipline and punish: The Birth of the Prison.// New York: Random House.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). // The social psychology of organizations // (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Leveque, C. B., & Poole, M. S. (1999). Systems thinking in organizational communication inquiry. In P. Salem (Ed.), //Organizational communication and change// (pp. 79-97). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.

Miller, K. (1995). //Organizational communication: Approaches and processes.// Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Miller, K. (2001). Quantitative research methods. In Jablin, F. M. & Putnam L. L. (Eds.), //The new handbook of organizational communication.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. []

Miller, K. (2009). //Organizational communication: Approaches and processes// (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Monge, P. R. (1977). The systems perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of human communication. //Communication Quarterly, 25//(1), 19-29. [|http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463377709369244]

Monge, P. R. (1982). Systems theory and research in the study of organizational communication: the correspondence problem. //Human Communication Research//, 8(3), 245-261. []

Morgan, G. (1997). //Images of organization// (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Phillips, B. S. (2001). //Beyond sociology's tower of Babel: Reconstructing the scientific method.// New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Poole, M. S. (1996, February). //Another turn of the wheel: A return to systems theory in organizational communication.// Paper presented at the Conference on Organizational Communication and Change, Austin, TX.

Rice, R. E., & Richards, W. D. (1985). An overview of network analysis methods and programs. In B. Dervin, & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), //Progress in communication sciences// (Vol. 6, pp. 105–165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

System (2012). In //Oxford English Dictionary online.// Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com.

System (2015). In //Oxford English Dictionary online.// Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). //The Principles of scientific management.// New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). //General systems theory//. New York: Braziller.