Organisations as complex systems can be manipulated by using the ‘Management Systems Model’ or MSM (Cavaleri and Obloj, 1993). The MSM has five systemic tools or factors, which are available for managers to manage or manipulate organisations in a desired way, namely:

This model implies that each systemic tool should be applied in a harmonised and thoughtful manner to yield the best possible result as each particular tool or factor, when applied, would yield a different systemic result. While leadership and strategy are generally tools for inflicting changes or destabilisation on organisations, culture, procedures or technology and structure are systemic tools that are typically used to impose stability and regulation in the organisation. Moreover, the dynamic behaviour of the organisation is a result of the interplay between these endogenous factors and the environment and the interaction among these endogenous factors themselves (e.g. the interaction among strategy, leadership, structure, procedures and culture).

Rather than being considered as one of the manipulating tools, each factor can also be treated as an organisational property that can be changed to suit both external and internal contingencies. However, the effort required to change each property varies from one to another. For example, in adaptation, or shallow change, it is common for an organisation to realign itself with the changing environment by adjusting one or more of its properties (e.g. procedures/ technology, strategy, structure), which requires energy and effort, although relatively little compared to transformational change. Transformation (or deep change), however, requires a tremendous amount of energy, in terms of resources and effort, to change organisational culture and the political network as well (Svyantek and DeShon, 1993), as illustrated in Figure 11.8, “System interface and hierarchy of efforts required for change in an organisation.”.

In order for an organisation to operate successfully in a specific environment, it needs an interface between its subsystems and the environment. Organisational strategy is such an interface (Cavaleri and Obloj, 1993). The next layer (α layer) is the zone in which the interplay between technology, process and structure to carry out the organisation’s operations exists and is active. Variables and factors in this zone are more sensitive to the disturbance from both internal and external sources and less difficult to manage and change than those from the inner core (or β zone). This ensemble of variables can be changed, with a certain effort, to achieve a proper alignment with the environment – a process called adaptation. Figure 11.8, “System interface and hierarchy of efforts required for change in an organisation.” also shows that all elements in both the α and β zones are exposed to the environment although the degree of exposure may vary (e.g. the production line is shielded from fluctuations in demand and supply to a certain extent). Lastly, the core of this diagram (or β zone) represents organisational culture, an element that is very influential for the survival and performance of the organisation (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Handy, 1995, 1999; Hofstede, 1997). The impact of culture on organisations is pervasive because it controls people’s beliefs and shared values, and it is also transferable from one generation to the next. It is thus unlikely that culture can easily be changed or adjusted to conform to the changing environment. It requires a great deal of energy, effort and time to change the existing culture, and this is beyond the adaptive mechanism (Svyantek and DeShon, 1993). That is why we call a change at a cultural level a ‘deep change.’ As a consequence, it is proposed in this model that only transformation as a means of systemic change can have a profound effect on the organisation’s culture.

As far as change is concerned, leadership is an essential factor in influencing change in other variables or factors. In Figure 11.8, “System interface and hierarchy of efforts required for change in an organisation.”, leadership provides a linkage between the external environment, strategy and internal factors in both the α and β zones, and is also a source of power and authority required to effect change at various levels. Tushman and Romaneli (1985) assert that strong leadership is essential, especially for the reorientation or transformational phase of change, because not only must a clear vision be declared and communicated to organisational members, but also adequate power and authority is required to alter dysfunctional political networks and overcome resistance to change. Without strong leadership, it is unlikely that change can be implemented successfully in the organisation.

Organisational politics, power and control are related to self-awareness in systems. In this regard, organisations are treated as open-natural systems whose collective behaviour is characterised by political relationships and their interaction (Scott, 1998). This can make the system behave in an apparently irrational manner as groups or political networks work to protect and maintain control over their domains rather than pursue the organisation’s mission and goal (Pfeffer, 1981). If the domain of interest to the organisation is under control, it is unlikely that the status quo will be changed and this contributes to a resistance to change. Organisational culture that incorporates this feature is thus potentially dysfunctional, and requires a transformational approach to change. However, the psychological aspect of self-awareness in systems is beyond the scope of the proposed model.