Comparing military units and symphonies as living systems

Systems

Roelofs (n.d.) defines an open system as "any distinct entity that takes in resources from its environment, processes them in some way, and produces output." By this definition, both a symphony and a military unit are open systems. Both of these systems are living systems in that the way they process resources is in part defined by the resources and in part by the established processes of the system. Those processes, however, are subject to evolution over time as well, which is analogous to a living creature. Both the military unit and the symphony deal have such processes, and are defined in part by these processes.

For a system to be considered, military, for example, it should have the structure and objectives of other systems that are also identified as military. Fedorov (2001) argues that the military system is defined in part by a specific element of its outputs (military service). The other outputs, such as employment for a part of the population and increasing economic activity, are not strictly defined as military. The internal responses to external resources also help to define a system as military. For example, military systems rely on both hierarchical authority paths and on intense levels of cooperation between different units. This unique combination of control patterns helps to characterize a system as being military, because it defines the specific patterns of the division and cooperation of labor.

Like the military unit, the symphony also has a specific set of patterns regarding the division and cooperation of labor. The outputs are different and the methods of achieving those outputs also differ, but fundamentally, symphonies are also open systems in the same way that the military is. The conductor or even the symphony director is in charge of leading the system, but in doing so must follow the patterns that are established for the behavior of the system and the interaction of its parts. When challenges arise, these established patterns provide a framework for dealing with those challenges. The problem-solving frameworks have evolved over time to the specific structure of the symphony and the specific nature of the challenges that must be met. The same occurs in the military unit -- the frameworks have evolved specifically to meet the types of challenges that this type of system with which this type of system will be dealing.

A systems approach can also help to understand the differences between these two frameworks. The first key to understanding these differences are in the nature of the desired outcomes and the nature of the work that must be conducted to achieve those outcomes. The differences between the way each of these two systems functions is directly related to these two critical factors, and the systems approach can help the outside observer to understand the linkages between actors and actions within each of these systems when the desired outcome is understood.

Systems theory can be used to understand any entity that fits Roelofs' (n.d.) definition of a system. The university, for example, has its own specific set of desirable outcomes and has evolved in a manner that allows it to gather the necessary resources and utilize them in such a manner as to achieve those outcomes. The tools are different in each system, and the roles of the individual components of the system will differ, but the fundamental role of the system does not change. Thus, the systems approach can help to understand organizations as disparate as universities, a military unit and a symphony orchestra.

If somebody does not understand an organization, the systems theory will help them to gain an understanding. For example, somebody with no knowledge of military jargon and technology may struggle with understanding how the military works. Systems theory allows that person to examine the linkages and structures within the military, and then to understand how those linkages and structures work towards the desired outcomes. This understanding comes on a broad level, and does not require the observer to understand the nuances of military jargon and technology.

Systems thinking also allows the observer to understand similarities and differences between systems. Understanding the similarities between systems that on the surface level are entirely unrelated is difficult when the observer is focused on the superficialities, but an examination of the underlying systems allows for this understanding to take place. The university, for example, is more similar to a military unit than it is to a symphony. While within the university there is a clear structure of command, there is a fairly high degree of autonomy between different functional units -- the history department is analogous to a specific Army unit in that they both function with a high degree of autonomy in order to contribute a specific objective that in turn is a component of the broader, overarching strategic objective. With the symphony, that autonomy is more limited as an individual musician is subject to tighter organizational controls with respect to behaviors. Universities and military units both operate on outcomes-oriented control structures, with freedom to achieve that outcome in any number of different ways.

The analogy of an organization as an organism builds upon the understanding of the organization as a machine. The machine analogy focuses on specific tasks and the structure of those tasks as a means to an end, which at any given point in time is approximately how an organization functions. The organism analogy introduces the concept of evolution to the model. Systems evolve in response to their stimuli, and this is true of organizations as well. The mechanical processes that underlying an organization's function form the basis for its actions and outcomes, but a machine is a closed system, unable to evolve on its own. The organism analogy, therefore, helps the observer to understand the changes within a system over time.