The Fallacy of Systems Thinking

Having established the purpose and process of systems thinking — whether one knows it as total quality management, the high performance work organization, outcome-based education, performance-based education, planning programming budgeting systems, or by any of the plethora of other names by which it is known — one need analyze whether the fallacies of the system are greater than the benefit.

In discussing the fallacies of systems thinking, it is necessary to digress, for a moment, to the definition of systems thinking ... theory ... philosophy ... world view: the world is a system of subsystems, all interconnected and interdependent to form a wholistic or holistic system; that within any one system is an infrastructure that is analogous across systems, irrespective of physical appearance.

This means that whether a human system, plant system, animal system, eco system ... the infrastructure is the same.

But are they really? That depends on one's worldview. If one is a humanist, one sees man as no different than animal or plant. But if one believes in a higher authority — ie, God — one is reminded that God commanded man to take dominion over all of earth and its creatures, large and small. Such sets man apart from and superior to other systems. Not only does systems theory not recognize a higher authority but it also denies the superiority of mankind.

Systems theory presupposes that man has no individuality that sets one being apart from all other beings; that individual man is but part of the collective mind of man. People who have been raised under the tenets of Christianity know differently; that each being is created and revered in the eyes of God as an individual.

Systems theory sees everything as wholistic or holistic. The system, by its very construct and nature, must include everyone — all. This is where the mantra's "all children can learn" and "no child left behind" come from. In the same venue, people participating in the process of systems governance (facilitation to a preset outcome) must either agree, agree to disagree (tactic approval), or disagree but agree not to sabotage (tactic approval). To openly oppose or disagree with the system, its goals or objectives, is to violate the "all" mandate of the system.

So what happens when someone, or a group, openly opposes or disagrees with the system. Remember that systems theory is a system of subsystems, all interconnected and interdependent. This means that if the system is to function properly, all systems must be kept in balance. (Remember Al Gore's Earth in Balance?)

What happens if a system gets out of balance? Many will have heard the term leveraging. The out-of-balance system must be leveraged back into balance. Now, if the out-of-balance system can be leveraged back into balance with the other systems, all is well. But what happens if the out-of-balance system cannot be leveraged back into balance with the other systems? The obvious answer is that the other systems then move to compensate. One can readily see how, over time, a radical element could cause the system to continue to compensate until it can no longer compensate, causing the system to fail. This is what happened in the USSR.

But systems theorists believe they have found the cure for this problem: the collection and analysis of data by high-performance computers running high-tech systems, under the mantra of "accountability". There is only one problem — computers may be able to calculate with great accuracy, but they cannot think as the human mind thinks.

And just as mankind has not been able to accurately map how the human brain functions, neither has mankind been able to build computers capable of extracting that information which is pertinent from the milieu of information presented, and process that information devoid of bias. And until they do (which will never happen), no computer is intelligent enough to analyze data to the degree necessary to successfully leverage systems into balance and keep them in balance.

Because systems theory runs counter to the nature of most human beings, the failure rate of leveraging systems back into balance is high. And because balance is not only necessary but crucial, systems theory, by its very construct and nature, becomes more and more oppressive as measures are implemented to control "radical elements" that can cause the system to be thrown out of balance.

The greatest threat to systems governance is dissension, either by opening opposing the systems process or by refusing to supply the personally identifiable data — such as is collected via the WASL, or medical records (see SPEEDE/ExPRESS for all the personally identifiable data sought) — needed to analyze and leverage systems. This is why dissension cannot be allowed; why people can disagree but must give their tactic approval via their silence. As a note of interest, those who refuse to supply the needed data are labeled oppositional defiant — a term parents who have refused to allow their children to take the WASL have run into.

The need to include all is also why proponents of systems governance claim they represent the majority, defined as anyone who does not openly oppose the system, whether because they truly agree or because they are ignorant or apathetic.

Systems theory is the very essence of pure democracy, abhorred and avoided by our Founding Fathers. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #10 ...

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.

Does systems governance work? No, it doesn't. The fallacies of the system far outweigh any benefit (of which none is known) derived therefrom.

Systems government, while proffered as the cure for the ills of mankind, is the product of self-indulgent minds striving for power and position ... governance by the few over the many for the benefit of the few ... the old feudal system. It didn't work in the Dark Ages, it most certainly won't work now even though the trappings have changed.

© February 2002 Lynn M Stuter

╪