UNDERSTANDING SYSTEMS AND CONTEXT
Systems theory was first conceptualized by the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy starting in the 1930s. A system may be conceptualized as a whole that is in turn composed of multiple dynamically interacting components or subunits. Systems theory consists of several basic tenets as follows:

• All systems are composed of subsystems or parts that are in dynamic interaction with the rest of the system.
• Every system functions as a whole with properties not evident in the isolated functioning of its parts.
• The parts or subsystems are also systems in themselves, so there is actually a nested system of interacting structures.
• Systems obtain information and respond to feedback from the environment. All systems therefore exist in a fluctuating adaptive equilibrium with the surrounding world that envelopes it.
• Systems respond to or interact with the environment in varying degrees. Therefore systems vary in their capacity to be relatively “closed” or “open” in nature.
• Systems theory may be applied to both living as well as non-living structures and organizations.

Deceptively simple in its conception, systems theory has had wide ranging implications in our understanding of the natural world. Since systems theory is applicable to all systems of organization, both living and non-living,  one can discuss systems perspectives in computer science, mathematics, physics, biology, sociology, psychology, business among many others. This makes the theory both comprehensive and generalizable and provides us with an intellectual framework to study phenomena across disciplines and from multiple intellectual and theoretical frameworks. Systems theory stands in direct contrast to “reductionistic” theories that attempt to break down an organization to smaller, simplified, parts and studies those parts apart from the whole. Systems theory is, in contrast, is an integrationist, synthetic and holistic conceptual discipline.

Importance & the Nature of Systems
Context refers to the surrounding matrix that systems and subdivisions of systems are embedded. These enveloping contexts are multiple, ever changing and ubiquitous. Therefore conceptually isolating a part from the surrounding milieu can only serve to compromise our view of reality and the success of an intervention. It is for this reason that a systems approach may succeed or be far more extensive in outcome as compared to a focused approach. That is not to say that individuals or parts are not targeted for change in systems interventions. One must be ever mindful, however, of the contextual issues that either maintains the behavior or will be affected positively or negatively by individual change.

Systems Theory in Psychology
The application of systems theory to understanding and working with individuals and organizations has proven to a very fruitful endeavor. The family therapy movement was the first to incorporate systems theory into psychological theory and practice. Early therapists such as Freud and other psychodynamic clinicians focused on the psyche of the individual as primary. Behavioral therapists such as B.F. Skinner also saw the individual’s behavioral patterns as the unit of study and change. The individual therapeutic intervention was the primary mode of intervention in these therapies. Although these techniques and theories are often very helpful in understanding the individual and bring about personal change, they nevertheless in theory and practice neglect the wide-ranging effect and impact of the dynamic social environment.

The family therapy movement began to take form in the 1950s and 60s. Spearheaded by theoretician’s and clinicians such as Gregory Bateson, Jay Haley, Paul Watzlawick, Salvador Minuchin, and Carl Whitaker, family therapy steadily grew in substance and stature in the ensuing decades. When confronted with a therapeutic problem family therapists did something that was quite remarkable for the time, they invited the entirely family into the session examine and work on the issue.  Systems theory provided the framework and vehicle for understanding and working with the complex interpersonal interactions that were observed. The individual with the presenting problem was termed the “identified patient.” The job of the family therapist was to widen the scope of investigation and determine how the family system related to this identified problem behavior. In this way the family, not the individual, became the unit of study as well as the vehicle for change.

As an example, let us say that a child is brought in for acting out behavior. When the family system is examined it is found that the parents are arguing frequently due to an affair by the husband. It is observed during the session that the child’s behavior escalates when the parents start to argue. Well then we might ask where is the problem? Is the problem the child who is acting out or the couple who are unable to resolve their differences? Family systems conceptualized the problem as a dysfunction of the overall interacting system and not just a problem in one particular member.

Organizations, Business and Systems Theory
Application of systems theory to larger more complex structures such as businesses and organizations was a natural conceptual evolution. Businesses are made up of a large variety of subsections including management, labor, materials etc. Understanding how these subdivisions interact and interconnect to produce a product or service could be more effectively and comprehensively comprehended with a systems analysis. Furthermore, since business is in constant interaction with the outside environment in the form of distributors, suppliers or purchasing public, systems theory helped us to understand this dynamic interaction with the external world. The systems view of organizations promoted the importance of an integrative view of the business and applying these principles could result in increased efficiency and profit. Rather than focusing entirely on the individual goals of the subsections (e.g., production, sales, marketing etc.), a systems perspective looked to integrate these parts. Departments were asked to become more aware of the other divisions and carry out their role in the context of the wider over-all goals and functioning of the company.

As an example, it may be easier and more cost effective for the manufacturing division to make a limited number of colors of a product. However the sales division may desire a much wider range of colors in order to increase consumer interest. An effective systems intervention would try to determine what is the optimum variety of color that should produced with input from both sales as well as manufacturing. In this way cooperation and profit can be maximized. In addition, systems practices can be instrumental in sorting out the ever-present interpersonal dynamic issues that so have such a profound impact on business functioning.