Complexity and Sustainability in Management: Insights from a Systems Perspective

Chapter
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)

Abstract

The growing inadequacy of traditional ‘management toolkits’ for dealing with ever more complex phenomena highlights the need for a rethinking of consolidated management approaches: it is necessary a paradigmatic change for setting a pathway of knowledge and taking into account awareness of the limits and, at the same time, capability of overcoming and updating past schema. Acknowledging the unquestionable value of the long tradition of systems thinking contributions to social sciences and business management, the purpose of this work is to highlight the reasons why a systems approach is really needed to better understand business and social dynamics in condition of complexity, how the Viable Systems Approach can support decision making in condition of complexity, and how the discussion of complexity and the survival of viable systems in a complex scenario, implies inevitably, discussion about sustainability.

Keywords

Complexity Decision making Systems thinking Viable systems approach Sustainability 

References

  1. Ashby, R. W. (1968). Principles of self-organizing system. In W. Buckley (Ed.), Systems research for behavioral science (pp. 116–117). New York: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  2. Barile, S. (Ed.). (2000). Contributi sul pensiero sistemico in economia d’impresa. Salerno: Arnia.Google Scholar
  3. Barile, S. (Ed.). (2005). L’impresa come sistema. Contributo sull’Approccio Sistemico Vitale (ASV). Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  4. Barile, S. (2009a). Management Sistemico Vitale. Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  5. Barile, S. (2009b). The dynamic of information varieties in the processes of decision making. In Proceedings of the 13th World Multi – Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, WMSCI, Florida.Google Scholar
  6. Barile, S. (Ed.). (2013). Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A viable systems approach ( v S a ). Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
  7. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2011a). Foundations of systems thinking: The structure-system paradigm. In Various authors, Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A viable systems approach ( v S a ) (pp. 1–25). Avellino: International Printing. www.asvsa.org
  8. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2011b). Qualifying the concept of systems complexity. In Various authors, Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A Viable Systems Approach ( v S a ) (pp. 27–63). Avellino: International Printing. www.asvsa.org
  9. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and T-shaped knowledge. A Viable Systems Approach. In S. Barile (Ed.), Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A viable systems approach (VSA) (Vol. II, pp. 39–59). Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
  10. Barile, S., Pels, J., Polese, F., & Saviano, M. (2012). An introduction to the viable systems approach and its contribution to marketing. Journal of Business Market Management, 5(2), 54–78.Google Scholar
  11. Barile, S., Carrubbo, L., Iandolo, F., & Caputo, F. (2013). From ‘EGO’ to ‘ECO’ in B2B relationships. Journal of Business Market Management, 6(4), 228–253.Google Scholar
  12. Barile, S., Saviano, M., & Simone, C. (2014). Service economy, knowledge and the need for T-shaped Innovators. World Wide Web, 18(4), 1177–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barile, S., Sancetta, G., & Saviano, M. (2015a). Management. Il modello sistemico e le decisioni manageriali (Vol. 1). Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  14. Barile, S., Saviano, M., Polese, F., & Caputo, F. (2015b). T-shaped people for addressing the global challenge of sustainability. In E. Gummesson, C. Mele, & F. Polese (Eds.), Service dominant logic, network and systems theory and service science: Integrating three perspectives for a new service agenda. Napoli: Giannini.Google Scholar
  15. Barile, S., Lusch, R., Reynoso, J., Saviano, M., & Spohrer, J. (2016a). Systems, networks, and eco-systems in service research. Journal of Service Management 27(4), 652–674.Google Scholar
  16. Barile, S., Saviano, M., Iandolo, F., & Caputo, F. (2016b). La dinamica della sostenibilità tra vortici e correnti: un modello a Triple Elica. In Various authors, Atti del Convegno Nazionale dell’Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale 2015 (ed). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  17. Barile, S., Saviano, M., Calabrese, M., & La Sala, A. (2017). In search of a possible evolutionary principle of management theory and practice. In Science with and for Society – Contributions from Cybernetics and Systems. WOSC 2017 Book of Proceedings (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the firm. London: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  19. Beer, S. (1974). Decision and control. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Beer, S. (1975). Fanfare for effective freedom, in platform for change. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organisations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Bogdanov, A. (1912). Tektology: The universal organizational science (Vol. I). St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
  23. Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Buckley, W. (1968). Systems research for behavioral science. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Buckley, W. (2008). Society as a complex adaptive system. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(3), 86–112.Google Scholar
  26. Ceruti, M. (1986). Il vincolo e la possibilità. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  27. Clark, M. C. (1993). Transformational learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), An update on adult learning theory, new directions for adult and continuing education (Vol. 57, pp. 47–56).Google Scholar
  28. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century. London: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Emery, F. E. (Ed.). (1969). Systems thinking: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  31. Espejo, R. (1989). A method to study organizations. In R. Espejo & R. Harnden (Eds.), The viable system model: Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Espejo, R. (1993). Management of complexity in problem solving. In R. Espejo & M. Schwaninger (Eds.), Organizational fitness. Corporate effectiveness through management cybernetics. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2002). Synthesis: Building resilience for and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 352–383). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Golinelli, G. M. (2000, 2005). L’approccio sistemico al governo dell’impresa (Vol. I, I and II ed.). Padova: CEDAM.Google Scholar
  35. Golinelli, G. M. (2005). L’approccio Sistemico Vitale (ASV) al governo dell’impresa. CEDAM.Google Scholar
  36. Golinelli, G. M. (2010). Viable systems approach (VSA). Governing business dynamics. Padova: CEDAM/Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Golinelli, G. M., & Volpe, L. (2012). Consonanza valore, sostenibilità. Verso l’impresa sostenibile. Padova: Cedam.Google Scholar
  38. Golinelli, G. M., Barile, S., Saviano, M., Farioli, F., & Yarime, M. (2015). Towards a common framework for knowledge co-creation: Opportunities of collaboration between service science and sustainability science. In E. Gummesson, C. Mele, & F. Polese (Eds.), Service dominant logic, network and systems theory and service science: Integrating three perspectives for a new service agenda. Napoli: Giannini.Google Scholar
  39. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hansen, M. T., & Von Oetinger, B. (2001). Introducing T-shaped managers. Knowledge management’s next generation. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 106–116.Google Scholar
  41. Hinterhuber, H. H., Friedrich, S. A., Handlbauer, G., & Stuhec, U. (1996). The company as a cognitive system of core competences and strategic business units. Strategic Change, 5, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lorsch, J. W., & Lawrence, P. R. (Eds.). (1970). Studies in organization design. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  47. Luhmann, N. (1990a). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  48. Luhmann, N. (1990b). The cognitive program of constructivism and a reality that remains unknown. In W. Krohn, G. Küppers, & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Selforganization. Portrait of a scientific revolution (pp. 64–85). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  49. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition (Biological Computer Laboratory Research Report BCL 9.0). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  52. Maturana, H. R. (1975). The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7(3), 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Boston Studies in Philosophical Science, 42.Google Scholar
  54. Minati, G., Pessa, E., & Abhram, M. (2006). Systemics of emergence: Research and development. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morin, E. (2007). Le vie della complessità. In G. Bocchi & M. Ceruti (Eds.), La sfida della complessità. Milano: Bruno Paravia Editori.Google Scholar
  56. Ostrom, E. (2009). A General framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  58. Pels, J., Barile, S., Saviano, M., Polese, F., & Carrubbo, L. (2014). The contribution of vSa and SDL perspectives to strategic thinking in emerging economies. Managing service quality. An International Journal, 24(6), 565–591.Google Scholar
  59. Philips, D. C. (1971). Systems theory – A discredited philosophy. In P. P. Schoderbek (Ed.), Management systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  60. Rammel, C., Stagl, S., & Wilfing, H. (2007). Managing complex adaptive systems—A co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rapoport, A., & Horvath, W. J. (1968). Thoughts on organization theory. In W. Buckley (Ed.), Modern systems research for the behavioural scientist. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  62. Rullani, E. (2008). L’economia della conoscenza nel capitalismo delle reti. Sinergie, Italian. Journal of Management, 76, 67–90.Google Scholar
  63. Saviano, M. (2016). Il valore culturale del patrimonio naturale nella promozione dello sviluppo sostenibile. Sinergie. Italian Journal of Management, 34(99), 167–194.Google Scholar
  64. Saviano, M., Barile, S., Spohrer, J., & Caputo, F. (2016). A service research contribution to the global challenge of sustainability. Journal of Service Theory and Practice (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  65. Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 74(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simon, P., & De Laplace, M. (1995). A philosophical essay on probabilities. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
  68. Taylor, F. W. (1914). Scientific management. The Sociological Review, 7, 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional Paper, 2, 1981.Google Scholar
  71. Various Authors. (2011). Contributions to theoretical and practical advances in management. A viable systems approach ( v S a ). Avellino: International Printing.Google Scholar
  72. Vico, G. B. (2008). La scienza nuova. In P. Rossi (a cura di). Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  73. von Bertallanfy, L. (1967). General theory of systems: Application to psychology. Social Science Information, 6, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Bertallanfy, L. (1968). General system theory. Foundations, development, applications. New York: Penguin University Books.Google Scholar
  75. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  76. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Linguaggio e Comunicazione nel costruttivismo radicale. Milano: Metope Clup.Google Scholar
  77. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Studies in mathematics education series: 6. Bristol: Falmer Press/Taylor & Francis Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wolfram, S. (2008). Complexity: 5 Questions. 12 November 2008, Automatic Press/VIP, ch. 24, Carlos Gershenson (pp. 131–134). http://www.stephenwolfram.com/media/five-questions-about-complexity/, download October 2016.

Websites

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.University of SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations