Systems Theory and Elementary Classroom Management Strategies

Systems Theory by the Three B's: Bales, Bailey, and Bertalanffy

Philosophers and theorists are risk takers. They are willing to delve fearlessly into new concepts and ways of thinking, to break the bounds of tradition, and to challenge norms. Once their concept or thought is complete, they take the next step by testing their theory and eventually presenting it to the world — despite the inevitable criticism they will face. Some theories never make it into mainstream society, but others change the world forever. Regardless, all theorists share an intense willingness to know more, to push the boundaries of what is accepted, and to break the rules.

Three such theorists — Robert Freed Bales, Kenneth D. Bailey, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy — have had a dramatic influence on the study of systems and social science. Highly respected and well-recognized for their work, they have provided much of the foundation that theorists and philosophers use to study and understand how systems work in today's ever-evolving society. This paper provides a detailed description of each theorist and his work, as well as a comparison of their similarities and differences. Given the breadth of each theorist's output, the goal here is to provide the basic structure of each theory and, where possible, to focus on how each relates to social systems or society in general.

Originally from Ellington, Missouri, Robert Freed Bales received a BA and MS in Sociology from the University of Oregon and a PhD in Sociology from Harvard in 1945. After graduating, Bales was invited to join Harvard's Department of Social Relations as an Instructor. In 1957, after serving in various sociology positions — Assistant Professor, Lecturer, and Associate Professor — he was appointed Professor of Social Relations. From 1960 to 1967, Bales served as Director of the Laboratory of Social Relations and retired as Emeritus Professor in 1986. After his death in 2004, an article in the Harvard Gazette noted: "He was trusted and admired by colleagues in each discipline. They and his students regarded him with deep affection. Freed was one of few faculty members in Social Relations who had moral authority derived from his colleagues' recognition that he placed the welfare of the department above personal motives" (Kagan et al., 2006).

As a theorist, Bales's main work focused on interpersonal interaction in small groups, a central topic in social psychology. His first book, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups (1950), included a series of early studies on interactions in alcohol addiction therapeutic group settings. "By studying many such groups, Bales hoped to discover recurring patterns that might be used predictively in the composition and functioning of groups formed for problem solving or other managerial purposes. This work reflected his conception of social psychology as the scientific study of social interaction, in which the group and its activity, rather than the individual, are the primary units of analysis. At the same time, he paid close attention to the role of individual personality in social interaction and was a lifelong student of personality theory. In all of his efforts, he sought to integrate the psychological and sociological sources of social psychology" (Kagan et al., 2006).

Furthermore, Bales was considered a pioneer "in the development of systematic methods of group observation and measurement of interaction processes, including several technological innovations designed to facilitate observation itself and the rating of observed behavior in progress" (Kagan et al., 2006). In his last book, Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement (1999), his goal was to develop "a theory of personality and group dynamics integrated with a set of practical methods for measuring and changing behavior and values in a democratic way."

In that work, Bales describes his felt need to achieve a "new theoretical integration" — to actually apply methods to theory and move from research into data. He claimed that because many social psychologists complained about the lack of integration, he focused on integration throughout most of his research career: "I have felt that we must make a transition from an individually centered frame of reference (still the mainstream approach) to a larger framework centered on multiple-person systems of social interaction and their dynamics. Almost all of my work has been an attempt to give substance to that aspiration" (Bales, 1999).

Bales defined "social-interaction systems" as groups of all sizes and types, and used methods based on his social-interaction systems theory to gain a broader understanding of these groups and their influence on behavioral dynamics. He affirmed: "I believe that wherever actual social interaction continues over substantial time, certain behavioral, mental, and social processes tend to emerge and need to be studied together. These processes have regularities and patterns of interdependence (mutual shaping of each other) which almost require them to be treated as parts of a 'system.' These 'systemic' characteristics are recognizably similar over a large range of group sizes" (Bales, 1999).

The concept of values also plays a key role in social interaction. C. Kluckhohn (1954) stated: "Very central to groups of all sizes and kinds, as I see it, is that their internal processes and dynamics are represented, propelled, and regulated by concepts and urgencies in the minds of their members that behavioral scientists call 'values.'"

In a group setting, a value can be based on an individual's assumptions and expectations — that he or she will have some kind of role, that there will be some development and maintenance of status differences, some division of labor, some kind of leadership, and some differentiation of social roles, as well as some non-compliance from other individuals and deviation from others' values. Above all, it is expected that there will be both conflict and cooperation between leaders and their subgroups. Therefore, the "evaluation" process comes from the individual group member's interior mental picture of the external "drama" of social interaction (Bales, 1999). Bales affirmed: "Thus, all social-interaction systems, irrespective of their size, include 'values' as major organizational foci for cooperation and conflict and as sources of dynamic processes and change. Essentially the same may be said of values as they interact with each other in the mental processes of individual personalities."

Bales (1999) also stated that "the most efficient way of representing the most important features of a group of almost any kind, and probably of most personalities, is by measurement of the degree and extent of acceptance or rejection of certain very general mental attitudes, called 'values.' The measurement of values can be an efficient approach because many, if not most, of the more important concrete kinds of social behavior as remembered in the mind and projected in expectations are represented cognitively in more brief and condensed form as 'values.'"

Bales's aspiration to apply his theories was realized with the creation of SYMLOG (SYstematic MultiLevel Observation of Groups). Described by Bales as a new field theory, SYMLOG represents a comprehensive integration of findings and theories from sociology, psychology, and social psychology, and is unique in its high degree of integration, breadth, and practical implementation (Bales, 1985). According to Bales (1999), the concept behind SYMLOG is that "every act of behavior takes place in a larger context, that it is a part of an interactive field of influences." Further, "the approach assumes that one needs to understand the larger context — person, interpersonal, group, and external situation — in order to understand the patterns of behavior and to influence them successfully." With SYMLOG, measurement procedures are used to assess individual behavior patterns and values, as well as to observe these patterns and values in their larger context (Bales, 1999).

The theory is based on findings that are the result of systematic observation of real groups, and performing research to observe the ways in which individuals with different kinds of personalities affect each other in task-oriented groups. This research was conducted over a long period of time with business teams and organizations in the United States and other countries. The methods used have been shown to be valid, reliable, and relevant to a wide range of conditions and are intended to improve productivity and performance, increase satisfaction, and reduce stress by building greater understanding of the group (Bales, 1999).

According to Bales (1999), SYMLOG application may include "assessment of the teamwork and leadership potential of individuals for selection and training, leadership training, and the training of educators in a broad sense, including teachers, coaches, therapists, and other professionals who work primarily with people. The method also provides information and facilities for many kinds of fundamental and applied research in social psychology and sociology."

Due to Bales's groundbreaking theory and extensive research, SYMLOG became the foundation for the SYMLOG Consulting Group (SCG). The organization is dedicated to the ongoing development and practical use of SYMLOG in applied and academic settings. Located in San Diego, California, SCG is still active, with offices and representatives in thirty countries (SYMLOG Consulting Group Website, 2010).

An American sociologist and systems scientist, Kenneth Bailey was born in 1943. He completed his BS in mathematics in 1963, earned an MA in sociology in 1966, and a PhD in sociology in 1968. Bailey became a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles and is currently a professor emeritus (Wikipedia Website, 2009). He is also a member of the American Sociological Association, the Society for the Study of Social Problems, and the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), where he served as president in 2003 (ISSS website, 2007). He has written several books; for the purposes of this paper, the focus is on Sociology and the New Systems Theory: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis (Bailey, 1994). In that book, Bailey's goal was to present a more integrated perspective on social systems theory and, for the first time, to attempt to synthesize the interrelated approaches of living systems theory, social entropy theory, and autopoiesis. To Bailey, there had been a serious lack of integration in the systems movement: "One of the guiding principles of the systems movement is the need for integration" (Bailey, 1994, p. xiii).

According to Bailey, the integration of these three approaches is what he refers to as the "new systems theory" or the "new social systems theory," as it applies only to systems approaches that directly contribute to social science (Bailey, 1994, p. xiii).

The culmination of some thirty years of effort, living systems theory was developed by James Grier Miller and a number of collaborating scholars. Living systems theory is considered a concrete systems approach, defined as being "anchored in physical space-time, and is an interrelated (nonrandom) set of objects such as persons or other organisms." An abstracted system, by contrast, "has relationships or roles as the basic units of analysis rather than objects."

To Miller, concrete systems are preferred because they are easier to understand, operationalize, and provide clear links from the social sciences to other disciplines — including the natural sciences (Bailey, 1994, p. 169). Miller identifies a living system as a system that maintains a state of negentropy, taking in energy and information. As stated by Miller, "The living systems are a special subset of the set of all possible concrete systems… They all have the following characteristics: They are open systems, with significant inputs, throughputs, and outputs of various sorts of matter-energy and information. They maintain a steady state of negentropy even though entropic changes occur in them as they do everywhere else. This they do by taking in inputs of foods or fuels, matter-energy higher in complexity or organization or negentropy, i.e., lower in entropy, than their outputs" (Bailey, 1994, p. 169).

The theory also states that all living systems are composed of subsystems, each processing information or matter-energy, with two subsystems — the reproducer and the boundary — processing both matter-energy and information (Bailey, 1994, p. 171). Miller's book Living Systems (1978) originally presented nineteen basic subsystems at seven levels; however, Miller and his wife and co-author, Jessie Miller, subsequently added a twentieth subsystem — the timer — as well as an eighth level — the community (Miller and Miller, 1992; Bailey, 1994, pp. 171–172). According to Bailey, "These twenty subsystems are responsible for the ongoing day-to-day operation of the living system" (Bailey, 1994, p. 172).

In modern society, Bailey claims that "energy and information are symmetrically interrelated in a complex fashion," and that "efficacious usage of energy depends upon information, while transmission of information in turn is only possible through the use of matter to carry the message, and the expenditure of energy to move the message from its origin to its destination" (Bailey, 1994, p. 176). Specifically, "the relationship between matter-energy and information is one of the most crucial issues in systems science, and is in a sense the key to understanding how societies operate," Bailey stated.

A few cross-level applications of living systems theory have been performed, as well as numerous theoretical extensions and applications that have appeared since 1978. Miller and his co-workers performed the largest application of the theory in a study of 41 United States Army battalions — one of the largest known studies of organizations (Miller, 1985). The conclusions from this study indicated that "living systems concepts are understandable to Army personnel, that Army units can be described as living systems, and that LST can help not only in describing phenomena, but also in identifying sources of problems. Besides the Army, LST has been applied to a number of different areas, including the family (Miller and Miller, 1980), and small groups" (Miller and Miller, 1983; Bailey, 1994, pp. 207–208).

The second focus of Bailey's book was social entropy theory (SET). According to Bailey, "Social entropy theory uses the society (in its entirety) as the basic unit. It is not viewed as a 'set of individuals' but as a concrete system or population of individuals interacting over physical space-time within boundaries" (Bailey, 1994, p. 229). Social entropy has also been defined as a "macrosociological systems theory" and "a measure of the natural decay within a social system," referring to the decomposition of social structure or the disappearance of social distinctions.

Due to the intense study of functionalism and the need to escape some of the challenges that functionalists encountered, social entropy theory was developed. Functionalism, broadly defined, is a school of thought that emphasized the total organism in its endeavors to adjust to the environment, stressing the importance of empirical, rational thought and the practical applications of research. SET is based on a number of its own principles as well as the following two critiques of classical functionalism: functionalism suffered from overreliance on outmoded concepts such as equilibrium, and functionalism was not sufficiently broad to achieve an adequate analysis of complex society (Bailey, 1994, p. 219).

Bailey felt that both critiques were consistent, with the first exemplifying the second. He felt that functionalism was overly narrow and over-dependent on equilibrium, and therefore found it necessary to expand the model to include both nonequilibrium and equilibrium analysis. As a result, he stated: "We are less likely to preclude important phenomena that we must study in order to truly understand the social world. Specifically, broadening the model to incorporate both equilibrium and nonequilibrium analysis means not only that we have removed the basic classical complaint about functionalism (that it does not facilitate study of social change) but also that we have updated the model, and allowed it to incorporate modern physical approaches to systems theory" (Bailey, 1994, pp. 219–220).

For many managers, they may not be aware of what social entropy is or how it applies to their organization. But Bailey claimed that regardless of this knowledge, managers are in fact engaging in entropy management: "Although such managers generally do not describe themselves as managing entropy levels, this is in fact what they are doing. They are continually balancing the constant increase of internal entropy through decay of physical plant ('depreciation' in tax terms), use of materials, obsolescence of information, etc. This internal entropy increase is offset through inputs of new raw materials (matter-energy), new information, new technology, etc." (Bailey, 1994, p. 243).

Therefore, entropy management consists of effectively managing all of the necessary pieces of an organization and the function and relationship of those pieces to the greater whole — specifically, regulating inflows, outflows, and throughflows, ensuring the order of proper raw materials and personnel, and regulating security to protect technology or information from theft (Bailey, 1994, p. 243).

One limitation of social entropy theory is that it does not test hypotheses, and therefore Bailey's book contained no examples of applied use. It does, however, present a set of hypotheses that could be tested. Bailey also stated that "SET has the limitation of not being a true general systems theory. Rather, it is an application of some system principles to the study of society" (Bailey, 1994, p. 249).

The third theory Bailey covers is autopoietic theory. Considered an exciting and new viewpoint, autopoiesis relates specifically to systems theory and generally to social and behavioral science. In spite of its appeal, however, the concept's application to social groups is somewhat controversial and seen as inaccessible to sociologists (Bailey, 1994, p. 285).

Simply put, autopoiesis means self-creation. A more advanced definition, provided by Varela, Maturana, and Uribe (1974), describes the autopoietic organization as "a unity by a network of productions of components which participate recursively in the same network of productions of components which produced these components, and realize the network of productions as a unity in the space in which the components exist" (Bailey, 1994, p. 288).

A second definition by Maturana (1980b) was also provided, and Bailey felt that it overlaps and expands on the previous: "A dynamic system that is defined as a composite unity as a network of productions of components that (a) through their interactions recursively regenerate the network of productions that produced them, and (b) realize this network as a unity in the space in which they exist by constituting and specifying its boundaries as surfaces of cleavages from the background, through their preferential networks within the network, is an autopoietic system" (Bailey, 1994, p. 290).

Using Maturana and Varela's definitions, Bailey feels that the concept is very clear. In his own words, an autopoietic system "is a living system which can be distinguished from its nonliving counterpart (such as a machine) of equal complexity by at least two features of the former that are not shared by the latter: the autopoietic living system reproduces itself (produces the processes which produce it) and produces and maintains its boundaries" (Bailey, 1994, p. 291).

There is uncertainty, however, around the concept of autopoiesis and its applicability to social systems. At the time of Bailey's book, there was no consensus on the matter. Luhmann (1986) believes that social systems are autopoietic, with communication as the social system's basic unit: "Social systems use communication as their particular mode of autopoietic reproduction. Their elements are communications which are recursively produced and reproduced by a network of communications and which cannot exist outside of such a network. Communications are not 'living' units, they are not 'conscious' units, they are not 'actions.' Their unity requires a synthesis of three selections: namely, information, utterance, and understanding (including misunderstanding)" (p. 174). Beer (1975) agrees that human societies are autopoietic, listing "firms and industries, schools and universities, clinics and hospitals, professional bodies, departments of state and whole countries" as examples (p. 70). Facheux and Markidakis (1979) and Zeleny (1989) concur that social systems are autopoietic.

Despite some consensus, conflicting viewpoints remain. Mingers, Maturana, and Varela — the originators of autopoietic theory — do not feel that autopoiesis applies to social systems. Bailey agrees with Varela (1979, p. 55) that a more generalized version, such as his concept of organizational closure, can be applied to social systems, "but without the particular specification of physical processes of component production" (Mingers, 1989, p. 176). Bailey stated: "Thus, it would seem a crime not to attempt to generalize and expand the basic concepts of autopoietic theory in such a way as to explicate these factors, while avoiding a narrow, technical transport of emphasis on physical production. Thus, it is agreed to this point that physical, biological autopoiesis will not be applied to social systems, but that we will continue the effort to develop a theory of social autopoiesis which parallels the theory as developed for cells and physical living systems" (Bailey, 1994, p. 313).

In his conclusion, Bailey recognizes that much more work remains. There is no consistent common language or definition of terms, which makes it difficult for theorists to reach consensus. Bailey (1994) commented: "It is frustrating from a systems standpoint that there is still so much difference in the meaning of terms, particularly in the autopoietic jargon. It would be nice if at least everyone shared the same definition of structure. Thus, there is still no common language, and translating between 'structuration' and 'structural coupling' remains a formidable task." Despite this, Bailey recognizes that theory is an evolutionary process and hopes that readers will use the information he provided to build on it going forward (Bailey, 1994, p. 348).

A Comparison of the Three Theorists

A reputable systems theorist and one of the founders of General Systems Theory (GST), Ludwig von Bertalanffy was born in 1901 in Vienna, Austria. He completed his PhD thesis in 1926 and went on to teach at a number of institutions, including the University of Vienna, the University of London, the Université de Montréal, the University of Ottawa, the University of Southern California, the Menninger Foundation, the University of Alberta, and the State University of New York at Buffalo (Search.com Website, 2010). Although Bertalanffy died in 1972, his contributions to the study of systems are still recognized and well-respected today. According to the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Bertalanffy "was one of the most important theoretical biologists of the first half of this century [the 20th]." Ervin Laszlo honored the theorist in the posthumous compilation Perspectives on General System Theory, writing: "In this volume of papers, spanning some forty years of penetrating thinking and pioneering struggles — often uphill — the reader encounters a rare phenomenon which he should prize all the more for being so much in need today: a breadth of vision coupled with penetrating logic, founded on solid technical and experimental knowledge" (Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 10).

For this paper, we focus on two of Bertalanffy's books: General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (1968) and Perspectives on General System Theory (1975).

In Perspectives (p. 149), Bertalanffy addresses the concept of the whole and its enduring relevance: "Aristotle's statement, 'The whole is more than the sum of its parts,' is a definition of the basic system problem which is still valid. Aristotelian teleology was eliminated in the later development of western science, but the problems contained in it, such as the order and goal-directedness of living systems, were negated and bypassed rather than solved, and the problem is still not obsolete." In General System Theory (p. 8), he also reviews how "systems" or the "whole" of society have influenced major events: "Events seem to involve more than just individual decisions and actions and to be determined more by socio-cultural 'systems,' be these prejudices, ideologies, pressure groups, social trends, growth and decay of civilizations, or what not."

According to Bertalanffy, the basic definition of general system theory (GST) is the general science, or scientific exploration, of "wholes" and "wholeness" (1968, p. 37; p. 157). Prior to this understanding, the term was considered a "vague, hazy, and semi-metaphysical concept" (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 37). Based on Bertalanffy's considerable scientific background, however, he sees the concept of a whole or system as going beyond the metaphysical: "We must strongly emphasize that order or organization of a whole or system, transcending its parts when these are considered in isolation, is nothing metaphysical, not an anthropomorphic superstition or philosophical speculation; it is a fact of observation encountered whenever we look at a living organism, a social group, or even an atom" (Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 150).

He also sees this as a new evolution of scientific theory: "Classical science in its various disciplines, be it chemistry, biology, psychology, or the social sciences, tried to isolate the elements of the observed universes… expecting that by putting them together again, conceptually or experimentally, the whole or system — cell, mind, society — would result and be intelligible. Now we have learned that, for an understanding, not only the elements but their interrelations as well are required… this requires, first, the exploration of the many systems in our observed universe in their own right and specificities. Secondly, it turns out that there are general aspects, correspondences, and isomorphisms common to 'systems.' This is the domain of 'general systems theory'" (Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 157).

Bertalanffy also saw this as an opportunity to create an interdisciplinary theory with the potential to provide "a possible approach toward unification of science" (Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 157). Interestingly, the concept of general systems theory can also be applied to integrative education. A professor (1951) stated during a symposium on "Integrative Studies for General Education": "One of the criticisms of general education is based upon the fact that it may easily degenerate into the mere presentation of information picked up in as many fields of inquiry as there is time to survey during a semester or a year… More important is the search for basic concepts and underlying principles that may be valid throughout the entire body of knowledge" (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 50).

Bertalanffy also warns against the dangers of defining society solely on science. He states: "If, therefore, we would have a well-developed science of human society and a corresponding technology, it would be the way out of the chaos and impending destruction of our present world" (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 52). He goes further: "It is an empirical fact that scientific achievements are put just as much, or even more, to destructive as constructive use. The sciences of human behavior and society are no exception. In fact, it is perhaps the greatest danger of the systems of modern totalitarianism that they are so alarmingly up-to-date not only in physical and biological, but also in psychological technology. The methods of mass suggestion, of the release of the instincts of the human beast, of conditioning and thought control are developed to highest efficacy; just because modern totalitarianism is so terrifically scientific, it makes the absolutism of former periods appear dilettantish and comparatively harmless makeshift. Scientific control of society is no highway to Utopia" (Bertalanffy, 1968, pp. 51–52).

In response to this somewhat dark perspective, Bertalanffy feels that we can gain an understanding of human society using a more gentle approach — by defining it based on the influence and uniqueness of the individual. In what might be considered his most important statement, Bertalanffy (1968) writes: "Such knowledge can teach us not only what human behavior and society have in common with other organizations, but also what is their uniqueness. Here the main tenet will be: Man is not only a political animal; he is, before and above all, an individual. The real values of humanity are not those which it shares with biological entities, the function of an organism or a community of animals, but those which stem from the individual mind. Human society is not a community of ants or termites, governed by inherited instinct and controlled by laws of the subordinate whole; it is based upon the achievements of the individual and is doomed if the individual is made a cog in the social machine. This, I believe, is the ultimate precept a theory of organization can give: not a manual for dictators of any denomination more efficiently to subjugate human beings by the scientific application of Iron Laws, but a warning that the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the individual without sealing its own inevitable doom" (pp. 52–53).

In Bertalanffy's books, there is little reference to how these principles can be actively measured or applied to a real-life organization. His theories are vast and profound, but many uncertainties remain unresolved. In Sheila Guberman's "Reflections on Ludwig von Bertalanffy's 'General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications,'" she states: "Bertalanffy's intention was to create a mathematical science of 'wholeness,' which does not depend on our mind, since a 'solid science' should not. Unfortunately, he didn't succeed in resolving these problems. His fate is similar to Einstein's: he formulated the Unified Field Theory but didn't succeed in resolving it."

After performing an extensive review of the theories and literature created by Bales, Bailey, and Bertalanffy, one thing is clear: systems theory is complicated, with a capital "C." There are almost as many differing viewpoints as there are definitions, and as many contradictions as there are similarities. What is compelling, however, is the genuine desire to know the truth — to figure out the mystery known as "systems" and to determine how it relates to social science. To understand the inner workings of society as well as the inner workings of each individual, and how those interactions, personalities, values, and boundaries influence the whole. Unfortunately, both Bales and Bertalanffy have passed and are therefore no longer able to contribute. Yet their theories continue to have an impact and are continually being used to move toward greater synthesis, greater clarity, and a deeper understanding.

As stated earlier, Bales was the pioneer of social interaction systems and interpersonal interaction in small groups. His work is the most recent of the three theorists' and appears to be the most tangible. Compared to Bailey and Bertalanffy, his theories are significantly more proven and established. Bales's goal was to develop theories that could be tested through research and therefore applied to real life: "I have always felt a compulsion to ground my thinking in empirical data" (Bales, 1999, p. xvi).

Classroom Management: Definitions, Challenges, and Context

Also unique among the three theorists, Bales took his theories to another level with the creation of the SYMLOG consulting agency. He put his theories into practice by creating tangible assessments that could be used for training in organization development, teamwork, and leadership. Through SYMLOG, Bales's theories are continually being tested and studied, and the agency also studies social interaction through direct observation. He referenced its applicability to the educational environment but did not go into detail about how it applies in practice. In Social Interaction Systems: Theory and Measurement (1999), Bales discussed the negative influence of dictatorial leadership methods and included a reference to educators: "Boot-camp authoritarianism on the part of the leader, a teacher, or a 'brain washer' in the dominant role can extract obedience from recruits, but this kind of process tends to begin and end with hazing and abuse, in order to weaken the self-picture and self-confidence of the victim" (p. 150).

Another important educational reference from Bales relates to what he calls "critical moments of choice": "The implications for leaders, teachers, trainers, educators and therapists are also daunting. If real change is to be brought about, the choices made by the individual at these critical moments must be brought into a clearer focus for the individual and for the group, and must result in the emergence of overt behavior that is different from before. All attempts to elicit change are preliminary and subsidiary to those critical moments of choice" (p. 243).

Of all three theorists, Bailey was possibly the most complex and multi-layered, making it difficult to cover all of his concepts fully. He established the new systems theory and was intent on synthesizing interrelated approaches such as living systems theory, social entropy theory, and autopoiesis. In contrast to Bales, Bailey's theory is quite underdeveloped as far as real application goes. One significant study was performed on social entropy management, but beyond that, very little has been done to put Bailey's work to the test. Much of Bailey's difficulty was due to a real lack of consistency in definitions — and it was clear that this lack of consistency created many obstacles to achieving a true synthesis. Bailey recognized that his theories were incomplete when he stated, "much remains to be done" (Bailey, 1994, p. 348).

To determine how Bailey's theory applies to education or classroom management, virtually no information was provided. Similar to Bales, one could make inferences to the general idea of systems and its applicability to the classroom. However, it seems that his work was geared more toward achieving a synthesized perspective and gaining a greater understanding of how the different theories can be integrated, rather than on defining the new systems theory as it applies to the real world.

Developed by Bertalanffy, general system theory focuses on studying the concept of wholeness. He had a slightly different approach than the other theorists in that he was intent on merging scientific principles with sociology. Many earlier theories had been either more metaphysical in nature or too grounded in science; Bertalanffy felt that the two could be merged. His concepts appear to make practical sense and could be applied to reality; however, like Bailey, he appeared to still be in the definition stage of what general system theory is and what it means, rather than at the point of putting his theories into practice.

It was important to all three theorists to integrate past theories and approaches in order to gain a greater understanding of prior work. Bales described his desire for a "new theoretical integration" and Bertalanffy hoped to achieve a "unification of science." Bailey's entire theory was built on a theoretical synthesis of three approaches. Despite different focal points, many of the viewpoints appear to be moving in the same direction. Bertalanffy stated: "Surveying the evolution of modern science, we encounter a surprising phenomenon. Independently of each other, similar problems and conceptions have evolved in widely different fields" (1968, p. 30).

Another crucial area of similarity exists between Bailey and Bertalanffy regarding the concept of boundary. According to Bailey, "The boundary has special significance in systems theory as it, by definition, separates the system from its environment. In so doing, it effectively defines and operationalizes the system" (Bailey, 1990). Bertalanffy also affirms the importance of the boundary: "Any system as an entity which can be investigated on its own right must have boundaries, either spatial or dynamic" (1968, p. 215). In addition, both Bailey and Bertalanffy agree on the concept of open systems. Bailey states: "An open system in the modern sense possesses boundaries which allow not only matter-energy but also information to cross. In addition to transfers of information or 'negentropy,' open systems allow transfers of entropy. All living systems, and thus all social systems, are open systems." Bertalanffy's definition is very similar: "We express this by saying that living systems are basically open systems. An open system is defined as a system in exchange of matter with its environment, presenting import and export, building-up and breaking-down of its material components" (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 141).

Unfortunately, a key similarity is that none of the three theories apply directly to education or the educational environment. There are some inferences, and readers could assume the classroom constitutes a system, but this is not clearly defined by any of the theorists. Furthermore, there is no real way to apply the theories to the classroom environment — no specific methods of implementation are provided to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The most likely of all methods come from Bales, but it is not clear exactly how his assessments are used by educators.

Conclusion: From Theory into Practice

Like any great achievement, the process takes time. This is especially true for complex concepts. Systems theory has undergone its own evolution, and it continues to evolve today. Earlier theories are being refined and tested as new visions and mindsets surface and as new questions arise. Robert Freed Bales, Kenneth Bailey, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy were three pioneers of systems theory, all coming from different backgrounds and points of view but with the same goal in mind: to know the truth. Bales focused on empirical data and on applying his social interaction systems theory to practice. Bailey strived to achieve a theoretical synthesis of living systems, social entropy, and autopoiesis. And Bertalanffy created general systems theory in an attempt to integrate systems theory concepts. While not all of the theories are being actively applied, they were groundbreaking. These men helped to build the foundation of systems theory that many scientists and sociologists use today.