This paper aims to provide introductory conceptual tools for studying political power in a complex multi-level environment. In particular, it is intended to answer the question of…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to provide introductory conceptual tools for studying political power in a complex multi-level environment. In particular, it is intended to answer the question of how concepts provided by cybernetics and general systems theory (GST) could serve to foster the study of political power.
Design/methodology/approach
The objective is realized through a reconsideration of a set of the basic concepts of cybernetics, GST and political science. Two system identification models – black box and white box – along with Marian Mazur’s concept of steering are used to deconstruct the classic definition of power formulated by Max Weber. Next, a two-phase procedure for empirical power analysis is proposed. Rudimentary in its scope, the article shows a path of more comprehensive and transformative analyses of key notions.
Findings
It seems that system identification models help uncover structural and functional aspects of political power, which aids the process of analysis of different mechanisms of political power.
Originality/value
The article supports the argument for a conceptual isomorphism between cybernetics and political science. The value of the proposed approach is derived from the combination of two features. First, two aspects of system operation – functional and structural – help to focus research attention on different problems of political power analysis. Second, the interrelation and interdependence of both aspects of systems operation serve as a practical means in the analysis of communication and behavior of actors in the political power processes.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to present two system identification models – “white box” and “black box” – as useful tools that help understand self-organization processes within…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present two system identification models – “white box” and “black box” – as useful tools that help understand self-organization processes within and outside the organizations facilitated by leaders. Every leader is presented as a “systems designer” who plays a fundamental role in the process of self-organization, both within and outside the organization under study.
Design/methodology/approach
First, “white box” and “black box” system identification models are presented as a basis for an integrated model of the “system” and its “environment.” Next, the ideas of “closed” and “open” systems as the prerequisites of self-organization processes are described. Finally, two basic leadership tactics as well as their combination are characterized and discussed.
Findings
Two system identification models give a complementary view to the reality, as they combine both reductionist and holistic perspectives. The argument presented in the paper shows that there is a far reaching complementarity of the two system identification models.
Practical implications
Since leaders need to comprehend complex adaptive processes taking place in the organizations and in their environment, they search for the best strategy to approach this task. The tactics presented in the paper could serve as a cognitive tools that help approach the reality leaders are immersed in.
Originality/value
The paper utilizes two categories that are well recognized in systems theory and cybernetics, combines them with the idea of self-organization and puts it all in the context of leadership. It provides an integrated, yet relatively simple cognitive scheme that may be of theoretical and practical use.