Systems Thinking in Organizations
Systems thinking described human thinking in a spiritual activity of the brain, that is, brainwork, following the concept of being as the spiritual alive body. It asserts that thinking means the processing of information that is essential for the management of the human body life (Broks, 2016). This paper discusses systems theory of systems thinking as applied to organizations today, in particular to learning institutions versus those of traditional organizations, and their functionalities. Research has taught us that companies are compelling, hierarchically structured entities. Such dynamism lives in the emergence of significant events at every organizational level (Caldwell, (2012).
Characteristics of Systems Thinking.
According to Davis, Powell, Dent and Wharff (2015), the features of “discovery, action, and framing” are the characteristics of systems thinking that promote organizations success. These three features analyze the organizations ' leadership processes between the linkages and interactions of the whole systems. For example, the three characteristics view the complete organization with its environment and incorporate the discovery component to explores and guarantee boundaries that include all concerns parties. The framing nature gathered patterns of behaviors and make feedback loops design connections that recognizes the points of leverage. The action engages all parties involved in the project by exercising opening
In society, there are groups that interact with each other. They may be families, churches, government agencies, or anything in between. Those groups can be defined as systems, and in the systems perspective that is what they are referred to (Hutchison, 2017). In the 1960s, Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed the general systems theory in relation to biology, but it was widely publicized and used for various subjects (Hutchison, 2017). Hutchison (2017) summarized Bertalanffy’s theory by saying, “any element is best understood by considering its interactions with its constituent parts as well as its interactions with larger systems of which it is a part.” (p.
1. System Thinking: System thinking is nothing but instead of focusing on only one particular issue, we have to analyze and try to understand the entire system on the whole. With this kind of analyzation, we can easily find a solution to the problem as the problems are not confined to only a particular area or time. We might find a solution for a particular issue, somewhere in the whole system by analyzing the entire system completely. We should try to relate the actions and the consequences on the whole as the issues occur at different time levels, not confined to only one particular time level. We have to have knowledge of the relation between different departments of an organization and the relation between them and the functionality between the departments as to how they are related in an organization. We generally focus on only one particular issue rather than seeing the bug picture and that shouldn’t be done. In system thinking we analyze the big picture.
The methodology is designed to allow leaders to consider the organization from different angles, in order to develop a multi-perspectival approach to innovation and change. Each frame (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) can be applied to an organization in order to view it more clearly from a different frame of reference to find the most effective solution and strategy for advancement. I liken this model to “seeing is believing.” Sometimes an organization is seeing the wrong picture and doesn’t understand why it’s not getting the result it wants. The four frames allow leaders to see organizations in their complexity and think critically about alternative possibilities for change. They help to clarify reality and actually see what’s happening. An example would be FEMA’s response to Hurricane Irma. All frames were used to make a true assessment of events and quickly assemble appropriate leadership intervention. (Structural: environmental infrastructure and function, Human Resources: American Red Cross efforts and charity distribution, Political: both Houston and Florida struggling for power and resources, Symbolic: bringing a diverse group of individuals together into a cohesive team.) Through time, effort, and repetitive practice FEMA was able to use the four frames
The Organizations have evolved over the years and from the Concept of people management they slowly have moved towards the concept of System managements and this is how an organizations needs to aim to grow and to succeed in growing complex market environment.
With today’s fast moving pace there are many challenges we face that demands more non-linear system thinking instead of cause and effect linear thinking. In The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge stated, “system thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes,” rather than reacting to a specific part or event. System thinking involves shifting from the linear to non-linear thinking and/or the rational to the intuitive or thin-slicing type decisions. System thinking is
In order for any organization to be successful, they must find effective ways to change systems and policies that are ineffective in creating a successful environment. A system consists of four things, elements, attributes, internal relationships, and the system environment. The systems theory is transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). The study investigates all the principals common to all complex bodies, and the models which can be used to describe them. Von Bertalanffy (1971) was the creator of the “system” concept, he developed this idea as an answer to the limitations of individual disciplines in addressing complex social issues (Mitchell, 2005). The underlining principal of this theory is that an organization consists of multiple, interdependent parts that collectively form more than the sum of their parts. Developed from the systems theory, are three separate theories with the basis of each being the systems theory. The activity theory considers the entire program versus just one single sector, it sees the operation as a whole instead of sub departments, it combines both micro and macro elements of the organization. The chaos theory does not mean a chaotic hectic situation, rather a situation where there appears to be little to no order, there really is a hidden underlying order. The complexity theory is
Nassar, N. S. (2007). A Systems Approach to Organizational Development (P. Campbell, Ed.). Nashville, TN: Savant Learning
This course covered many important topics helpful in understanding learning organizations. This paper will incorporate real-life situations from my organization, The American Red Cross. It will focus on three areas I found to be most helpful and relevant to my experience which is the understanding of systems thinking, growth, and the need to practice reflection.
Systems thinking is the capacity to see the master plan and to recognize patterns as opposed to conceptualizing change as segregated events. System thinking requires the other four orders to empower a learning organization to be figured it out. Additionally system thinking demonstrates that there is no outside that the reason for your issues at a piece of a solitary system.
The System Theories focused attention on organizations as 'systems ' and on the complexity and interdependence of relationships of their inter-related sub-systems. This approach attempted to synthesize the classical approaches (organizations without people) with the later human relations approaches that focused on the psychological and social aspects ( 'people without organizations).
The General Systems Theory (GST) came about as an effort to describe the systems approach, born from the biological concept of the organism developed in the first part of the 20th century (Von Bertalanffy, 1972). In contrast to the mechanistic systems which are closed and have a direct relationship between a cause and its effect, a biological or social system is open, operating on a principle of equifinality, where regardless of the starting point, the objective can be achieved (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Any system will achieve equilibrium, but an open system can reach a steady state by accessing resources from outside itself (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). The underlying assumptions of GST rely on the organization of a company resembling the inner workings of an organism. However, subgroups within organizations can act independently of the the whole, in
A system is a collection of elements that interact with each other over time to function as a whole. Systems thinking is a combination of the previous four practices: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning to dissect and examine the practices of the organization. I first heard learned about systems thinking five years ago when I started in the Hazelwood School District. Our district had just began our district wide professional development on systems thinking, but then we had a change in our superintendent in late August, just a few weeks after the start of school. With the change in district leadership, came a change in our district focus, and systems thinking was almost immediately abandoned. However, since revisiting it this semester, I can’t help but incorporate it into many of my daily
Systems Thinking – It is the ability to see the 10,000 foot see, and to perceive plans instead of conceptualizing change as isolated events. Systems thinking needs the other four requests to engage a learning relationship to be made sense of it. There must be a standpoint change - from being separated to interconnect to the whole, and from denouncing our issues for something external to an affirmation that how we function, our exercises, can make issues.
Organizations that strive to excel in aspects of innovation, competitiveness, and performance must have clearly defined core values that are executed by specific learning disciplines (Senge, 2010). Giesecke and McNeil (2004) stated, "A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights" (p. 55). In the pursuit of defining specific practices that would produce an ideal learning organization, Senge (2008) proposes five disciplines that include, "...systems thinking, mental models, personal mastery, shared vision, and dialogue" (p. 1). In this application paper I will analyze each of the five disciplines discussed by Senge (2008) and discuss how they can be applied in an organization such as the high school where I am currently teaching to address specific areas in need of improvement.
Welcome to Focus, we are an organization that functions through a unique structure, with elements borrowed from several approaches and theories studied throughout the course of our year. Focus’s structure most closely models the systems approach. In addition to functioning like a human body, Focus has borrowed elements from the classical approach through ordered structuring of department levels, the family metaphor and human resources encapsulates our employees, and cognitive strategies to influence our decision making. Like a human body we need to operate at full capacity and so our group has added the best prescribed medicines, practices, to ensure that Focus efficiently functions internally between departments and employees as well as