Thinking in Networks to Avoid Pitfalls of Managerial Thinking

  • Gilbert J. B. Probst
  • Peter Gomez


Managerial problem situations have become more complex recently and human thinking often appears no longer to keep pace with the complexity. Psychologists, biologists, communication researchers, and ecologists have meanwhile proved that the human mind produces forms of mental models of our world that often are simplified and reductionist pictures of the “real” situations. All we receive are small windows through which we comprehend our world.


Problem Situation Logical Fallacy Managerial Thinking Paper Computer Inherent Dynamic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ben-Eli, M., & Probst, G. (1987). The way you look determines what you see. Cybernetics and Systems, 18 (4), 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dörner, D. (1981, July). Ueber die Schwierigkeiten menschlichen Umgangs mit Komplexität. Psychologische Rundschau, 163–179.Google Scholar
  3. Dörner, D. (1984). Lohausen—Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  4. Drucker, P. (1974). Management. New York: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Gomez, P. (1984) Early warning in business: A system approach. Journal of Applied System Analysis, 2, 65–78.Google Scholar
  6. Gomez, P., & Probst G. (1987). Vernetztes Denken in Management. Die Orientierung Nr. 89. Bern: Volksbank.Google Scholar
  7. Greiner, L. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, (7/8), 37–46.Google Scholar
  8. Hayek, F. A. von. (1967) Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. London: Routledge & Keegan.Google Scholar
  9. Lorange, P., & Probst G. (1990). Effective strategic planning processes in the multinational corporation. In C. Bartlett, Y. Doz, & G. Hedlund (Eds.), Managing the global firm. 144–163. London: Routledge & Keegan.Google Scholar
  10. Lorange, P., & Probst, G. (1988). Joint-ventures as self-organizing systems. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22 (2), 71–77.Google Scholar
  11. Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal process. American Scientist, 51, 164–179.Google Scholar
  12. Probst, G. (1981). Kybernetische Gesetzeshypothesen als Basis für Gestaltungsund Lenkungsregeln. Bern/Stuttgart: Haupt.Google Scholar
  13. Probst, G. (1985). Regeln des systemischen Denkens. In G. Probst & H. Siegwart (Eds.), Integriertes Management pp. 181–204. Bern/Stuttgart: Haupt.Google Scholar
  14. Probst, G. (1987). Selbst-Organisation. Berlin and Hamburg: Parey.Google Scholar
  15. Ulrich, H., & Probst, G. (1988). Anleitung zum ganzheitlichen Denken und Handeln. Bern/Stuttgart: Haupt.Google Scholar
  16. Vester, F. (1976). Urban systems in crisis. München: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
  17. Vester, F., & von Hester, A. (1980) Sensitivity model. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  18. Watzlawick, P. (1981). Invented reality; here in the original German version, Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. München: Piper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilbert J. B. Probst
  • Peter Gomez

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations