General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science
Abstract
In recent years increasing need has been felt for a body of systematic theoretical constructs which will discuss the general relationships of the empirical world. This is the quest of General Systems Theory. It does not seek, of course, to establish a single, self-contained “general theory of practically everything” which will replace all the special theories of particular disciplines. Such a theory would be almost without content, for we always pay for generality by sacrificing content, and all we can say about practically everything is almost nothing. Somewhere however between the specific that has no meaning and the general that has no content there must be, for each purpose and at each level of abstraction, an optimum degree of generality. It is the contention of the General Systems Theorists that this optimum degree of generality in theory is not always reached by the particular sciences.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Systems thinking scholarship conceptualized organizations as complex systems characterized by an assemblage or combination of parts whose relations make them interdependent.
“While this scholarship did not use the terms 'configuration' or 'causal complexity,' it nevertheless conceptualized organizations as complex systems (Boulding, 1956) 'characterized by an assemblage or combination of parts whose relations make them interdependent' (Scott, 1998: 83) and whose 'outcomes cannot be fully inferred from their constitutive parts analyzed in isolation' (Simon, 1996: 184).”
From Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective (2017) · cites this paper as Boulding, 1956
The walled-in hermits that Boulding feared would be the fate of the sciences is in fact the reality of religious studies today.
“The walled-in hermits that Boulding feared would be the fate of the sciences is in fact the reality of religious studies today:”
From Religion as a Complex and Dynamic System (2013) · cites this paper as Boulding (1956: 198)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903 · see citing works
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868 · see citing works
Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316679252 · Cited by 1,099 · see citing works
Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of Complexity Theory for leadership research
Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006 · Cited by 599 · see citing works
Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., Levy, P. E., Hargrove, D. C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206318755303 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.31 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Religion as a Complex and Dynamic System
Cho, F., & Squier, R. K. (2013) · Journal of the American Academy of Religion · doi:10.1093/jaarel/lft016 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Andersson, J., Hojcková, K., & Sandén, B. A. (2023) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2023.100786 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Benítez-Márquez, M. D., Bermúdez-González, G., Sánchez-Teba, E. M., & Cruz-Ruiz, E. (2021) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math9111218 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Boulding, K. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Boulding, Kenneth E.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1956-04
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 197-208
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2098978150
- Cited by
- 2,333
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 107 · 2013: 93 · 2012: 90
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Systems and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Diverse Interdisciplinary Research Studies
- Keywords
- general systems theory, systems thinking, generality and specificity, levels of abstraction, interdisciplinarity, theoretical constructs, philosophy of science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
