Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 26

CHAPTER TWO
THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY AND THE
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SYSTEMS THEORY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In Chapter One the research and the research problems was stated against the
broader background and complexities that influence the problem.

In this chapter the fundamentals of the systems theory and the relationship with
environmental scanning will be investigated.

The importance of strategic planning as a major activity of organisational

management is increasingly being accepted by both academics and professional
managers. Many who have considered the future needs of organisations have
argued that a lack of adequate long range and strategic planning would be
disastrous for organisations and for the society.

One of the predominant theoretical lines of thinking underpinning much of public

relations practice is the systems theory. The theory states that mechanical,
organic and social systems (including organisations) can be defined by their
interactions with their environment (Gregory 1999: 266).

As strategic planning moves towards maturity, the viewpoint that is increasingly

being applied is that of the organisation as an “open system”. Simplistically this
notion holds that an organisation’s growth and survival is dependent on the
nature of the environment it faces and those which it may face in the future
(Fahey, King & Narayanan 1981: 32).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 27

The systems theory entails the interdependent relationship of the parts of an

organisation. The systems theory and the information theory contribute to
investigate the various characteristics of the physical, biological, social and
behavioural phenomena. It is not only communication theories, but also have
important implications on communication and other socio-cultural happenings
(Littlejohn 1983: 34).

According to the originators of the information theory, Donohue, Olien &

Tichenor, it is defined as follows: “As the infusion of mass media information into
a social system increases, segments of the population with higher socioeconomic
status tend to aquire this information at a faster rate than the lower status
segments, so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to
increase rather than decrease” (Tichenor et al. 1977: 159-160).

The roots of the information theory are intermingled with the basic transmission
model, which conceives communication as essentially the intentional transfer of
information from sender to receiver, by way of (physical) channels, which are
subject to noise and interference. According to this model, communication is
judged by the efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the planned “transfer”
(McQuail 1994: 248).

The concept of information has proved difficult to define, because it can be

viewed in different ways, but the central element is probably the capacity to
“reduce uncertainty”. Information is thus defined by its opposite (randomness or
chaos).

The insight which led to the development of information theory was the
realisation that all the processes which might be said to convey information are
basically selection processes. The mathematical theory of communication
provided an objective approach to the analysis of communication texts. The
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 28

basis for objectivity (quantification) is the binary (yes/no) coding system, which
forms the basis for digital computing (McQuail 1994: 248).

The information theory is general enough that it can be applied to written

languages, musical notes, spoken words, music, pictures and many other
communication signals.

The systems approach is an abstract perceptual framework that is an

exceptionally good aid to understanding and practising public relations. The
approach identifies the principles common to all systems, the most important of
which are wholeness, hierarchy, self-regulation, openness, and adaptability
(Lubbe & Puth 1994:41)

The systems theory and the relationship with environmental scanning will now be
investigated.

2.2 THE ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEMS THEORY

The development of the general systems theory is one manifestation of the

fundamental changes in the nature of scientific analysis. Rather than
investigating the universe in a cause and reaction frame of mind, researchers
realised that any cause and reaction relationship take place in a more complex
system of relationships. Nothing is analysed in isolation, but in terms of their
relationship with a larger system (Turner 1991: 118).

These systems of inter influential happenings distinguish that the whole is larger
than the sum of its parts. Amongst the modern scientists, Ludwig von Bertalanffy
was the first to advocate a General Systems Approach. Various other scientists
joined in and the groundwork was established for the General Systems Theory
(Turner 1991: 118).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 29

The systems theory grew exponentially in the 1960’s. This th eory originated as
alternative to structural functionalism. It has its origin in the physical sciences,
where both the organic and mechanical entities are viewed from the systems
terminology. The systems theory regards the society as a big system, compos ed
of a number of interdependent parts (Ritzer 1992: 220).

According to Bertalanffy (1968) a system comprises a complex interaction of

elements. This description implies that knowledge of parts or elements of a
system is not sufficient to understand the whole. It is exactly the interaction
between elements that forms each system unique. The sum can be said to be
equal to the characteristics of the independent elements as well as the
interaction between the elements (Marais 1979: 156).

The properties of the General Systems Theory underwent development and

mutual reinforcement with adjacent disciplines such as cybernetics and
mathematical information theory. The theory found application in many
disciplines. The eclectic nature of General Systems Theory has led to a wide
disparity in the constructs that attribute to the theory. Further, General Systems
Theory enjoys little empirical verification outside those disciplines that share their
origins with the theory. The term “theory” is thus misleading when applied to
General Systems Theory, as it is widely accepted as a perspective or approach,
and not as a theory (Lubbe & Puth 1994: 42).

It is necessary to investigate the relationship between the parts as well as the

relationship of the system with other systems. It is also necessary to look at the
inputs in the social system, the way in which these inputs are processed by the
society and the outputs that are produced (Ritzer 1992: 220).

A system is a set of objects or entities that work with each other to form a whole.
From the most simplistic viewpoint, it can be said that a system consists of four
things, the first being objects. The objects are parts, elements or members of the
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 30

system. In the second place, the system consists of attributes, or the qualities or
characteristics of the system and its objects. In the third place, there are internal
relationships between its objects. This characteristic is a fundamental quality of
systems. In the fourth place, a system always has an environm ent. Systems do
not exist in a vacuum, but are influenced by the environment (Littlejohn 1983:
35).

The systems theory is a product of a variety of scientific ideas, amongst other the
information theory, operational research and the economic systems theory that
moved from other fields into the sociological arena. These ideas were then
adapted to be applicable to social life.

2.3 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SYSTEMS THEORY

Bearing in mind that the systems theory has its origin in the sciences and can be
applied on all behavioural and social sciences, it provides, in the first place a
common way to form a unit. Secondly, the systems theory is multi dimensional
and can, therefore, be applied on a large as well as small scale.

In the third place, the systems theory is interested in the variety of relationships
between the various aspects of the social world and operates against the
analysis of the social world. The argument of the systems theory is that the
intrinsic relationship of the parts can not be dealt with outside of the context of
the whole (Ritzer 1992: 518).

In the fourth place, the systems theory regards all aspects of the socio-cultural
system in process terms, to be precise, as networks of information and
communication.

In the fifth place, and maybe most important, it is inherently integrative. It entails
the integration of big structures, symbolic systems, action and interaction and
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 31

consciousness. The idea of the integration of the various levels was also
accepted. In the final instance, the systems theory regards the social world in
dynamic terms, with consciousness of socio-cultural existence and dynamics in
general (Ritzer 1992: 519).

The systems theory focuses upon the principles of all systems’ organisations,
regardless of type. All systems are seen to possess six qualities: wholeness,
hierarchy, self-regulation, openness, adaptability and stability and flexibility.

2.3.1 Wholeness

Systems have properties that are different from those of their individual parts
because of the relationship and interdependence that exist between the parts.
The mutual effects of the parts upon each other result in a whole system that is
more than the sum of its parts (Lubbe & Puth 1994: 43).

2.3.2 Hierarchy

Each system is seen as a part of some hierarchy. Systems are all seen as
subsystems of greater systems, and in turn as systems which comprise
subsystems. Lower-level systems are comparatively simple and mechanistic,
while increasing complexity is displayed by systems at the upper levels of the
hierarchy (Lubbe & Puth 1994: 43).

2.3.3 Self-regulation

Each system is believed to display a measure of self-regulation. This self-

regulation guides the operations of the system towards a goal state by “steering”
towards it. The “goals” or final states of systems can be extremely limited,
predictable and simple at lower hierarchical levels, and extremely complex at
higher levels (Lubbe & Puth 1994: 44).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 32

2.3.4 Openness

The systems theory distinguishes between open and closed systems. A closed
system is separated from its environment. It is, therefore, subject to the second
law of thermodynamics, thus entropic, tending towards maximum disorder. An
open system has permeable boundaries that permit the exchange of information,
material, or energy with its environment. It therefore has the potential to evolve
into greater complexity (Lubbe & Puth 1994: 44)

2.3.5 Adaptability

The systems theory emphasises the dynamic nature of systems, concentrating

upon emerging processes rather than static structures. Open systems change
and adapt because of their interaction with their environments. These systems
respond to environmental conditions, but they also engage actively with the
environment (Lubbe & Puth 1994: 44).

2.3.6 Stability and Flexibility

Koestler (1978) believes that the most important properties of systems stem from
their hierarchic nature, by being a whole and a part at once. He states that every
system possesses two tendencies: an integrative tendency to function as part of
the larger whole, and a self-assertive tendency to preserve its individual
autonomy.

2.4 OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS

The systems theory distinguishes between open and closed systems. A closed
system is isolated and can only react on change within the system. There is no
possible influence on the environment. In contrast, the open system is receptive
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 33

of inputs of the environment and as a result, conditions within the system are
also influenced by influences from outside (Marais 1979: 156).

2.4.1 Open systems

2.4.1.1 Open systems: the organismic model

In open systems, units within an organisation affect and are affected by other
units and the organisation as a whole is responsive to environmental change.
According to Katz and Khan (1978: 32), organisations are open social systems
with emphasis on two aspects (a) system character where movement in one part
leads to movement in other parts in predictable fashion and (b) openness to
environmental inputs, so that they are constantly in a state of flux.

Organisations are open systems that are formed by the relatively stable
interaction patterns of their members. The interaction patterns are the products
of communication, which is an essential component of organisational functioning
and not an independent variable.

An open system is one that receives content and energy from its environment
and also send content and energy to its environment. The open system is
focussed on life and growth. Biological, psychological and social systems follow
an open model (Littlejohn 1983: 35).

The key elements of open systems according to Katz and Khan (1978: 32) are:
- Input: without which a system runs down (entropy). These inputs can be the
system’s own output (for example money) or from the wider environment
outside the system.
- Throughput (or transformation): the process of transforming inputs into
outputs (for example making a product).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 34

- Output: whatever the system eventually produces (for example the end
product).
- Interrelationship or interdependence: “the interlocking relationship between
the parts of a system and the whole system”.
- Transactional relationship with the environment: the environment is not
constant and must be under continual investigation.
- Boundaries: both connect and separate the organisation from it’s environment
(Gregory 1999 (a): 267).

An open system receives input from the environment that impacts on its ideal or
desired goal states (or objectives). In response feedback from within the system
causes adjustments in the system’s structure (what it is) and its processes (what
it does). Externally, outputs may maintain or change the environment. In
organismic systems the objective is survival, but to achieve this they have to
adjust to maintain balance within themselves and with their environments
(Gregory 1999 (a): 268).

Homeostasis is the term that refers to relatively stable goal states that
nevertheless can change as a result of system input. Organismic systems exert
some impact on their environment by monitoring it to predict and influence
change. This theory has its origins in biological advances and reflects aspects of
Darwinian thinking (Gregory 1999 (a): 268).

2.4.1.2 Open systems: the adaptive model

This system drew heavily on the field of cybernetic research and lay particular
emphasis on the role of adaptive feedback being actively sought in order to
initiate purposeful change. The focus is on exploring how the system itself
changes. An adaptive organisation is not static but “emerges from a network of
interactions among individuals in which information is selectively perceived and
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 35

interpreted in accordance with the meaning it holds for the actors involved”
(Gregory 1999: 268).

2.4.2 Mechanistic or closed systems

Early in the development of management theory mechanistic or closed systems

concepts were used to understand effective management. These theories
focused on how to manage a unit in an organisation itself without considering
relationships with other units or with organisations’ environment (Gregory 1999:
267).

These systems were concerned more with the internal workings of the
organisation and paid little attention to external environmental matters. In a
closed system there are no interaction. It moves to progressive internal chaos.
The clos ed system -model is often applicable to a physical system.

Angelopulo (in Lubbe & Puth 1994) uses the terms “introverted” and
“extroverted”. Introversion is the perception of a system as one which is
predisposed to operate as a static whole which remains unchanged through time,
as a fixed structure, and with an emphasis upon the importance of internal
phenomena in the relationship of the system with its environment. Extroversion
is perception of a system as one that is predisposed to operate as an adaptable
part of a larger system, with an emphasis upon the importance of the
environment in the system-environment relationship.

According to Ritzer (1992: 519), the three types of systems also differ in the
extent that they are open or closed, that is, the degree of interaction with aspects
of the larger environment. An open system tends to be better to selectively react
to a larger variety and detail of variety of the environment. Mechanical systems
tend towards being closed, organic systems more open and socio-cultural
systems the most open of the three.
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 36

Closed systems do not exchange energy, content or information with the

environment. Open systems, on the other hand, move outside of its borders to
the surrounding environment (Turner 1991: 120).

The comprehension of equal finality is of importance here. It refers to the fact

that the condition of a system on a given moment is rather independent of the
organisation of the elements at the start. Equal finality is more typical of an open
system than a closed system (Marais 1979: 156).

2.5 COMMUNICATION AS A PROCESS

Most definitions of communication explicitly or implicitly state that communication

is a process. Process implies movement, change and the interaction between
parts of the whole. These meanings cannot be related to the fixed description of
communication as transmitter, message, medium and receiver. Systems
approach can be said to be an attempt to clear the idea of communication as a
process (Marais 1979: 155).

Recent trends indicate a clear shift in preference in using the term corporate
communication rather than the traditional public relations. The latter term suffers
from negative associations with the way in which the function was practised in
the past. Modern definitions of the function indicate that three key terms
represent the essence of corporate communication as a management function. It
applies to all kinds of organisations; it entails the management of communication
between an organisation and its internal and external stakeholders; and being a
management function, it is far more that a mere collection of communication
techniques (Steyn & Puth 2000: 6).

In this research the term communication and public relations are used inter-
changeably, although the preference is for the term communication.
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 37

The systems approach is one of the most fruitful approaches to public relations
management. It offers a framework that places the public relations processes
and tasks logically within the ambit of the organisation’s operations. The
approach illuminates the part which public relations plays in the effective
operation of the organisation (Lubbe & Puth 1994).

In applying the systems approach to public relations, the public relations

practitioner and management accept certain systemic properties of organisations
and their operations.

The relatively stable interaction patterns of organisations, their overt

manifestations and underlying determinants, are the products of communication,
of the sharing of certain meanings. It is by communication that co-ordinate
behaviour, control, the definition of tasks and goals, the measurement of their
attainment, and informal operations are made possible. Communication is not an
independent variable, but rather the essential component of organisational
functioning (Lubbe & Puth 1994).

The organisation is a group of individuals who share meaning regarding specific

objectives. The variance of their interpretation of certain organisation-related
symbols is minimal; constraint exists in the intention; behaviour and goals
associated with those symbols.

The nature of each organisation is determined by its culture, which comprises the
values, beliefs, perceptions, and behavioural norms which exists within the
organisation, and not by its formal rules, authority and rational structures.
Manifest behaviour and the organisation’s artifacts are distinguished from the
assumptions which precedes them (Lubbe & Puth 1994).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 38

2.6 THE SYSTEMS APPROACH AND ENVIRONM ENTAL SCANNING

According to Gould (1977: 90) “Extinction is the fate of most species, usually
because they fail to adapt rapidly enough to changing conditions of climate and
competition.”

Gould’s (1977) essay on evolution repeatedly conveys the same message.

Organisms that cannot change fast enough to cope with rapid environmental
change or competition will become extinct.

Social organisations often behave in ways similar to biological organisms. As the

changes occurring around us seemingly accelerate, it is imperative that we
carefully monitor the major trends that may affect us and evaluate appropriate
strategies of adaptation. If we do not heed the futurists and attempt to adapt, we
are destined, like the dinosaur, to become extinct (Gould 1977: 91).

Organisations should know that they are heeding for a crises if the speed of
change inside the organisation is slower than the speed of change outside the
organisation.

It has been noted that the organisation which has the greatest potential for
ongoing success in the exchange of values with the environment is one that
interacts actively with its environment for the mutual benefit of both organization
and environment. Such organisations can be described as actively outward
orientated. Because this condition is a state of being, it is possible that it could
exist without the active intervention of a facilitating agent. Without such an
agent, however, it is possible that management and staff would pursue objectives
closely aligned to their specific organisational functions, and ignore those related
to a holistic organisational policy (Lubbe & Puth 1994).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 39

The degree to which the organisation is actively outward orientated depends

largely on the extent to which management and the public relations personnel
perceive their organisation to be a whole comprising parts which are
hierarchically ordered, which works towards certain ends, is relatively open to its
environment, and is adaptable (Lubbe & Puth 1994).

A systems approach implies an understanding of the “glue” which holds

organisational systems together – the communication process and the underlying
culture that exists within the organisation. Because public relations from this
perspective incorporates aspects such as assimilation and dissemination of
information, change and involvement with extremely complex phenomena such
as attributes and values, some understanding of these processes is called for.
The public relations practitioner must know the ends towards which the
organisation strives – especially those aimed at the attainment of environmentally
sources values. This implies a close understanding of and interaction with
management (Lubbe & Puth 1994).

According to Morrison & Renfro (1984: 49) given the accelerating pace of
change, planners and the organisations they serve found that, increasingly,
emerging issues in the outside world had a greater impact on the organisation’s
future than internal issues.

The four systems concepts of input, throughput, output and feedback are also
relevant to understanding the relationship between systems theory and
environmental scanning. The contribution of corporate communication mostly
focused on the throughput and output phase. Input (research, including
environmental scanning) on strategic level was missing in the past.

In relating these concepts to corporate communication, information (input) can

be obtained by doing research (such as environmental scanning) in order to
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 40

identify problems or issues that can create consequences for the organisation.
This information is mostly obtained from the external environment.

This is the role of the communication strategist and enables the communication
department to make a contribution on organisational level (strategically) and not
only on departmental level.

In the throughput phase the corporate communication strategist becomes more

involved in strategic intelligence. This includes analysis and interpretation of
information; the dissemination of strategic information to relevant players and
thereby participating in the strategic management process. The information is
then analysed and solutions to problems are formulated by setting corporate
communication goals and deciding upon communication activities.

In the output phase, practitioners behave by doing something, e.g. write a press
release.

In conceptualising a strategic role for the communication professional and

department, it is suggested that the systems approach to corporate
communication is broadened in order that corporate communication become
more deeply involved in the organisation’s information acquisition phase (input)
through environmental scanning. Furthermore that throughput is extended to
include analysis and interpretation of information, and dissemination of strategic
intelligence to relevant players, thereby participating in the strategic management
process.

The environment of an organisation is composed of all the forces external to the

firm that directly or indirectly influence its operation and which, in turn, may be
influenced by the organisation. Organisations as open systems collect and
process information about the external environment on which to base
organisational actions (Daft & Weick 1984: 284).
 Univ ersi ty of P ret oria etd – Jan sen va n Vuuren, P ( 20 02) 41

The correct use and application of environmental scanning can be used as an

answer to organisations to deal with change and the impact thereof on the
company. Environmental scanning is a process by which an organisation learns
about events and trends in the internal and external environment. It helps
establishes relationships between these trends and considers the main
applications for problem identification and decision making.

2.7 CONCLUSION

In Chapter Two the theories used as framework for this study were discussed.
The systems theory and the information gap theory provide the theoretical base
for this research.

The systems theory states that organisations are effective when they survive in
their environment and successfully bring in resources necessary for their
survival. The systems theory, therefore, adds the environment to the equation of
organisational effectiveness, but it is limited because survival is a weak goal.
The systems theory also defines the environment in vague terms. It does not
answer the question of how an organisation determines what elements of the
environment are important for its success (Grunig & Huang 2000: 31).

It is clear that the fundamentals of environmental scanning link very closely with
the idea of the systems theory. Future, financial and technological trend analysis
forms part of environmental scanning. These future trends must be incorporated
in the planning et cetera of the company or organisation.

In Chapter Three, the development and importance of communication research

receives attention. The communication professional and research are also
addressed. The importance and measurement of relationships in
communication, reputation management and knowledge management are also
discussed.