Systemic thinking or a quick fix: A managerial dilemma
Supervision
Burlington
Jul 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: Michael E Smith
Authors: Jerry Kinard
Volume: 62
Issue: 7
Pagination: 3-5
ISSN: 00395854
Subject Terms: Managerial skills
Cognition & reasoning
Supervision
Classification Codes: 9190: United States
2200: Managerial skills
Geographic Names: United States
US
Abstract:
Clearly, systems thinking involves developing a broad understanding of systems.
It comprises elements and processes that cross the traditional disciplinary
boundaries of a "modern" world deeply fragmented by the passion for expertise.
Thus, managers might conclude systems thinking looks for the common in things,
and serves as the antidote to the frequent lament people have come to know
more and more about less and less. Systemic thinking represent a dramatic
departure from the traditional business approach.
Copyright National Research Bureau Jul 2001
Full Text:
Since the publication of, P. Senge's The Fifth Discipline in 1990, business
academicians and practitioners alike have urged managers to thirik systemically
in their quest solutions to business problems. Many, including Senge (1990);
H.T. Johnson (1992); Senge, C. Roberts, R. Ross, B.J. Smith and A. Kleiner
(1994); F. Capra (1996); and A.P. DeGeus (1997) have suggested a change to
systemic thinking is necessary for sustainable success in today's business
environment.
Systemic Thinking Defined
Senge argues systems thinking is a conceptual framework consisting of knowledge
and tools that make patterns of whole phenomena observable, and point toward
ways to effectively change the phenomena. Senge and Kleiner say systems thinking
... encompasses ia large and fairly amorphous body of methods, tools and
principles, all oriented to looking at the interrelatedness of forces, and
seeing them as part of a common process. The field includes cyber. netics
and chaos theory; gestalt therapy; the work of Gregory Bateson, Russell Ackoff,
Eric Trist, Ludwig von Bertallanfy, and the Sante Fe Institute; and dozens
or so practical techniques for "process mapping" flows of activity at work.
All of these diverse approaches have one guiding idea in common: behavior
of all systems follows certain common principles, the nature of which ale
being discovered and articulated.
Clearly, systems thinking involves developing a broad understanding of systems.
It comprises elements and processes that cross the traditional disciplinary
boundaries of a "modern" world deeply fragmented by our passion for expertise.
Thus, we might conclude systems thinking looks for the common in things,
and serves as the antidote to the frequent lament people have come to know
more and more about less and less.
Systems thinking involves developing the ability to see the parts and the
whole, and understand how they are related. Systems thinking seeks to understand
how emergent properties arise in the whole through relationships among the
parts. It also defines the meaning of the parts through the whole. Such thinking
requires the ability to take multiple perspectives when looking at any situation,
and then to integrate the knowledge gained from these perspectives in understanding
how complex interrelationships give rise to the observed behavior of the
system.
Thinking in a very broad sense is the ability to unravel novel situations
- those for which pre-programmed instincts do not provide adequate resolution.
An individual engaged in systems thinking must constantly be integrating
multiple perspectives. This entails obtaining, refining, understanding and
testing what is observed. In other words, thinking in this sense is learning.
Old Style Thinking Vs. Systemic Thinking
Capra and D. Steindl-Rast identified a number of changes one experiences
in shifting from the classical Newtonian scientific paradigm to the systemic
thinking paradigm. One change is a shift from part to whole, such that what
has been called the part is seen as a manifestation of a pattern that underlies
and shapes an inseparable web of relationships. Another change is a shift
in focus from the structure of things to the process that manifests the structure.
A view of business based upon these two features of systems thinking focuses
not on optimizing small portions of the overall business, and assuming the
sum of the optimized parts will represent the optimal whole, but instead,
focuses on patterns which connect processes by which the business accomplishes
its work. The new systemic view of managing does not focus on outcome, but
on learning about the relationships that produce patterns of observed outcomes.
Johnson, as refined in personal communication in 1996, has proposed a number
of criteria that contrast the changes in thinking between old-style businesses
and those operating under the new paradigm. These criteria are presented
in Table 1. (See page 6).
Systems thinking is about taking a wider view of phenomena. Systemic thinking
arises when we change our view of the business organization from the perspective
of a machine to the perspective of a living entity in itself. A systemic
approach views the organization as a life system interacting with the rest
of the ecosphere. From that perspective, sustainability requires thinking
about the organization as a web of interconnected wholes in a co-evolving
web that includes all living beings. This extension makes us aware the only
meaningful unit of survival is not the organization itself, but includes
the organization and its environment. Meaningful portrayals of systems thinking
are increasingly recognizing that only when people and organizations concede
the biosphere is necessary to survival can real sustainability be achieved.
Table 2 (see page 6) shows how our thinking changes when we shift from the
mechanistic view of business to this view of a life system that coexists
with natural processes.
The ecological perspective illustrated in Table 2 reflects a view increasingly
incorporated into descriptions of systems thinking. The ecological view of
business supports organizational activities that provide for true long-term
sustainability by embodying the basic principles of ecology, including interdependence,
recycling, partnership, flexibility, diversity and sustainability. A broader
view of systems thinking considers human beings and their organizations as
participants in the web of life. Such thinking views the organization as
a living system.
Why Managers Fail To Think Systemically
Business managers are generally interested in any tool that will help them
solve immediate business problems and guarantee future success. A belief
that such a universal tool can be found is based on the assumption the future
is predictable and solutions will be durable. Unfortunately, in our complex,
rapidly changing world, chaos appears to be more the rule than the exception.
The future often is not predictable and solutions must be regarded as temporary
at best.
Systems thinking, as the term implies, is intended to change management behavior
by changing how problems are perceived, and changing the cognitive processes
involved in seeking solutions to problems. Systems thinking should invite
us to think about how we think, not just to think about how we solve a particular
problem. Thus, approaches that foster systemic management should have broad
application across many different systems. That is, to claim to foster systemic
management, an approach must deal with regularities of system behavior, independent
of the specific "stuff" (i.e., materials, products, outputs, etc.) of the
system. Systems approaches are about recognizing patterns that cut across
systems, and from these regularities deriving useful understanding of "epistemological
errors," errors in how we know, think and decide, that lurk in nonsystemic
thought. If one accepts these requirements for an approach to systemic management
thinking, then it follows one's interest! must focus on changing thinking,
not just on informing decisions.
Managers frequently fail to engage in systemic management thinking because
our culture values action more than reflection. Among the many features of
systemic thinking is the recognition there are many interconnections in complex
systems, and action should be based on understanding mhe system and its potential
for producing unintended effects from any action we take. Thus, systemic
thinking requires reflection on what is observed, as opposed to immediate
management action. Nevertheless, managers often feel they must "do something"
rather than "think reflectively" because appearance is of central importance.
Unfortunately, the thing done is likely to focus on symptom relief. In contrast,
fundamental solutions require time for observation, understanding, design
and implementation.
Since business organizations are microcosms of the broader culture, we would
expect to see the results of cultural priorities at work in business operations.
Thus, managers are often viewed as being responsible for leading an organization
out of trouble. A bias toward taking action to promote the appearance of
everything being "under control" can cause a manager to be seen as a hero.
Such bias toward action is frequently crucial to the success of a manager.
Many current managers have been promoted due to a history of prompt action.
Since this is a common justification for promotion, managers may feel compelled
to "fight fires" rather than focus on longerterm solutions to problems.
Summary
Systemic thinking involves developing a thorough understanding of the functioning
of systems and the ability to see and understand the interrelationships of
the parts and the whole. Such thinking requires the ability to take multiple
perspectives when observing a situation and to apply the integrated knowledge
gleaned from those perspectives to the selection and solution of problems.
Systemic thinking represents a dramatic departure from the traditional business
approach. Its application in management seeks to promote effective relationships
among the organizational units as opposed to the time-honored optimization
of individual business functions. Further, rather than viewing a business
organization as an isolated entity, a systemic appreach views the organization
as a life system interacting with the rest of the ecosphere. This ecological
view of business supports organizational activities that provide for long-term
sustainability.
Unfortunately, business managers generally do not adopt systemic thinking
in their workplaces because a systemic approach places a premium on "reflective
thinking" rather than "doing."
Since our culture demands immediate action for any and all perceived problems,
managers often take action (i.e., do something) when inaction is warranted.
This tendency to act, rather than think, is all too often the impetus for
recognition and reward in our industrial society, leading to short-term gain
at the expense of sustained organizational performance.
[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: Table 1
Captioned as: Table 2
Michael E. Smith, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Management at Western
Carolina University.
Jerry Kinard, D.B.A., is Professor and Head, Department of Management at
Western Carolina University.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or
distribution is prohibited without permission.
