Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 2.8 – Affirming life: systems thinking as ethical worldview
This article is Section 2.8 of Chapter 2 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.
Although first articulated in 1968, von Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory1 remains a foundational and remarkably prescient contribution to the understanding of complex, interrelated phenomena. As the originator of systems theory in its modern form, von Bertalanffy challenged the long-dominant scientific worldview rooted in classical analytic procedures as too limited for studying wholeness, interdependence, and dynamic interaction.
Von Bertalanffy’s principles continue to find relevance today in fields grappling with complexity, including knowledge management (KM). Over the past two decades, KM has endeavoured to reorient its focus from purely internal knowledge processes to the broader inter-organisational networks where organisations operate, and lately towards more sustainable uses of organisational knowing. Knowledge has escaped its institutional confines and is increasingly understood as a force that flows across value chains, ecosystems, and stakeholder constellations. This evolution mirrors von Bertalanffy’s call to shift focus from the individual parts of a system to the relations between them. His general systems theory offers a compelling lens for understanding knowledge as part of a living, adaptive organism, particularly one that is brittle, anxious, nonlinear, and incomprehensible.
Von Bertalanffy uses Kuhn’s idea of scientific revolutions (1962) to explain how growing dissatisfaction with limitations of a current paradigm lead to a moment of conceptual rupture when anomalies accumulate, and previously suppressed questions begin to surface. These junctures usher in new paradigms, not merely through refinement but by fundamentally altering what is seen, investigated, and understood. This is what is currently happening within KM: the mounting complexity of global challenges, increasing concern over unsustainable knowledge practices, and persistent ambiguity around the role of knowledge actors contribute to intellectual turbulence that triggers “a shift in the problems noticed and investigated … in such critical phases emphasis is laid on philosophical analysis which is not felt necessary in periods of growth of ‘normal’ science.” The prevailing conceptual models are no longer sufficient in explaining the realities of the field. The emergence of a new set of philosophical priorities for KM is evidence of such a rupture.
Even though it has been over 50 years since von Bertalanffy criticised the reductionist, mechanistic worldview of classical science, this paradigm still dominates much of today’s thinking in the human sciences, including economics and, by extension, KM. The deconstruction of wholes “into isolatable causal trains” is incompatible with “parts ‘in interaction.’” Complex, adaptive systems such as human behaviour, social structures, and organisational life cannot be worked out from isolated parts on their own; the “condition of summativity” does not apply when you are dealing with “a set of simultaneous differential equations, which are nonlinear in the general case.”
Yet many contemporary frameworks, like the VUCA, continue to reflect precisely the kind of piecemeal logic von Bertalanffy rejected. VUCA encourages strategies that address each element of the acronym individually2 but is virtually powerless against their systemic interaction. The goal remains control: it is a framework that portrays a particular stimulus for the optimal reaction by the organisation. With VUCA, you strive for equilibrium, which, ironically, is the opposite of thriving and being alive.
Similarly, Handzic notes3, the evolutional tendency of KM towards specialisation is a way of “focusing on specific aspects of a problem” in an effort to tame the complexity of the whole4. Consequently, KM generally strives to stabilise and smooth-out knowledge flows, standardise practices, and neutralise disruption which tends to isolate phenomena and miss out on the dynamic interrelations that produce the ultimate meaning. Von Bertalanffy’s insights serve to remind us that responding to complexity requires more than managing parts, it demands the capacity to engage with wholes.
Two core principles of open systems, as described by von Bertalanffy, are particularly useful for understanding how organisations operate within a broader societal context. The first is the principle of equifinality, which refers to the tendency of an open system to reach the same or similar end state from different starting conditions and through different paths. Unlike closed systems, where a change in inputs or process predictably alters the outcome, open systems exhibit a more flexible logic. In the context of organisations, this means that there is no single correct way to achieve strategic goals or societal relevance. Best practices may in fact lead to path dependency and obsolete practices5. Being open to multiple approaches is more creative, more in-tune with the current environment, and more inclusive. Equifinality opens space for diversity, experimentation, and context-sensitive problem-solving.
The second principle is more subtle but equally powerful: open systems do not seek static equilibrium, but rather maintain a dynamic state of tension, a productive disequilibrium that drives ongoing adaptation and renewal. According to von Bertalanffy, life does not flourish by settling into fixed routines or “pre-ordained grooves”, but through a continuous striving, what he called “élan vital”, toward higher levels of organisation and complexity. For organisations, this suggests that long-term vitality is not found in pursuit of efficiency, but in remaining open to possibilities. The interactions between an organisation and its stakeholders, markets, or social systems create stimulating tension that drives the whole system. The system remains coherently in motion, not collapsing into chaos, but never frozen into stillness.
Next part: Section 2.8.1 – Systems thinking in practice: wicked problems.
Article source: Koskinen, H. M. (2025). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM. (Master’s Thesis, LUT University).
Header image source: Created by Hanna M. Koskinen using ChatGPT.
References and notes:
- von Bertalanffy, L. (1971). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller. ↩
- Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a Difference a Word Makes: Understanding Threats to Performance in a VUCA World. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311-317. ↩
- Handzic, M. (2017). the KM times they are a-Changin’. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 13(3), 7-28. ↩
- Also noted by Dumay, J. (2022). Using critical KM to address wicked problems. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(5), 767-775. ↩
- Roberts, J. (2015). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Knowledge Management. London: Sage Publications. ↩
