Search results

Being the most powerful creatures on the planet, we humans should carefully consider our beliefs for the simple reason that the way in which we think influences our behaviors; this in turn can either transform the world or negatively affect the world. Our mores, paradigms, and worldviews translate into behaviors (e.g., factory farming for meat production and consumption) that in turn modify the environment. In general, much of our thinking system is backed up by some concept, theory, paradigm, or ideology. Our thinking systems generate our belief systems of goals and mission statements; our belief systems, in turn, determine our behavior systems (e.g., our strategies, choices, commissions, omissions as implementation systems); our behavior systems determine our impact systems (e.g., impact on us, our families and neighborhoods, our cities and villages, our state and our country, our globe and sometimes our cosmos). Thus, our behavior systems eventually impact our thinking systems, which we started with, thus completing a circular or spiral loop. This chapter examines the thinking–beliefs–behaviors–impact loop, exploring its internal and external dynamics and validities. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structure of our belief systems in business; in Part II, we explore the power of our structured belief systems in business; in Part III, we apply critical thinking that systematically questions and seeks to redesign our presumed thinking and belief systems.

The purpose of this research is to assess the current level of systems literacy of air force logisticians in Nigeria.

This research undertook an assessment of the knowledge of air force logistics officers on systems thinking with the aid of a qualitative questionnaire. The questionnaire featured questions on the level of literacy and application of systems thinking by air force logisticians in Nigeria.

The research finds that the majority of the air force logistics officers have very low levels of knowledge and training in systems thinking.

The research is a unique effort to ascertain the level of systems thinking literacy and training in air force logistics in Nigeria. The study presents a baseline and justification for intervention through an improvement of the logistics curricula used in air force training institutions in Nigeria.

The purpose of this paper is to understand how leaders within a school district system understand their own and others' leadership positions from the perspectives of systems thinking and systems thinking skills.

The findings are based on interviews with superintendents, area managers (deputy superintendents), principals and first teachers in Sweden. Sets of systems thinking skills guide the analysis, specifically how various leadership positions are related (their structure and relationships), how leaders understand themselves in relation to the whole and the parts (mindset), what they think about how the organization is organized (content) and how they relate to the organization's history and future (behavior).

Leaders at all levels in the school organization have regular communications, but a wider systems thinking perspective is underdeveloped. The systems are hierarchical, with each level taking responsibility for its subsystem to such a high extent that it does not use or learn from other levels. We also found that change in the investigated schools is subtle, and in the schools, it did not seem important to understand change over time or the nature of important leverage points; the organizations' histories and futures were emphasized less than current issues and relations.

Increased knowledge on systems thinking skills can provide insights as to whether mindsets, content, structure and behavior are supporting each other or not. These perspectives can help actors on all levels to learn together.

In addition to the study outcomes, this paper offers a unique approach for studying the leadership positions of the governance chain and their impact on an organization's work and results. It obtains a broader picture of school districts' systems when various members of the governing chain express how they understand their organizations, in relation to systems thinking.

The purpose of this paper is to provide early assessments of the changes for corporate reporting processes, which an emerging initiative like integrated reporting (IR) will require. The authors also consider the potential for these changes to contribute towards resolving major problems such as financial and environmental crises. IR is gaining momentum globally, and the implementation of some form of future mandatory requirement in this regard appears likely.

The authors begin by developing a reporting checklist based on the requirements for IR, which they use to assess the gap between current “best practice” reporting processes and IR. They then propose systems thinking, a widely accepted approach to problem-solving, as a theoretical basis for assessing the IR Framework and for deeper consideration of the gap analysis. They demonstrate, at a paradigm level, how systems thinking can be used to assess IR and find that IR has the potential to offer specific and implementable strategies for operationalising systems thinking principles.

The authors assess 2011 annual reports and related online reporting practices for four New Zealand “best practice reporting entities”, using their reporting checklist. Although none of their sample entities published a full integrated report for 2011, reporting scores range from 70 to 87 per cent. The findings suggest that current reporting processes lack the integration, oversight and due attention to future uncertainties required by IR. While this appears to be a relatively small gap, systems thinking principles indicate that these deficiencies may be critical to sustainability and financial stability, the stated aims of IR.

The normal limitations which apply to small sample studies.

The IR reporting checklist and systems thinking proposal could be used by policymakers, standard setters and firms to assist in assessing IR’s potential and the additional requirements it will impose for corporate reporting.

This study answers calls in the literature for a reactivation of the normative research agenda by assessing IR against systems thinking, a widely accepted approach to problem-solving. It contributes further to an understanding of IR through the development of a unique reporting checklist and by offering empirical evidence derived from application of this checklist.

The purpose of this paper is to offer theoretical and practical insights on the ways in which integrated thinking is observed in practice. Integrated thinking is linked to integrated reporting, and described as an attribute or capacity for senior management to constructively manage tensions between the multiple capitals (manufactured, intellectual, human, natural, social and relationship as well as financial capital) in strategy, resource allocation, performance measurement and control.

A theoretical framework is developed from the accounting and systems thinking literature, linking integrated thinking to sustainability. Soft versus hard integrated thinking approaches are applied to contrast the siloed management of sustainability with a model that focuses on relationships and broader indicators of societal health and well-being. Practical illustrations of the conceptualised framework are presented for discussion and for further empirical research.

The illustrative examples offer a diversity of corporate, government and not-for-profit viewpoints, providing evidence of both hard and soft integrated thinking in practice. Valuable insights are provided into innovative approaches that foster and make explicit the soft integrated thinking skills and map them to broader societal outcomes.

Potential problems can arise if hard integrated thinking dominates over the soft, and data required for internal management accounting purposes become narrow, linear and segregated. Routines and practices will then be based on quasi-standards, further concealing the soft integrated thinking that might be occurring within the organisation.

With theoretical roots in systems thinking, this paper contributes to the relatively underexplored area of integrated thinking in accounting for sustainability.

The purpose of this study is to understand the concept of stakeholder marketing orientation (SMO), its dimensionality and the development of an SMO scale. Further, the study also aims to analyze the impact of SMO on business performance (BP) in Indian pharmaceutical marketing companies. The moderating role of organizational culture between the study variables (i.e. SMO and BP) is also evaluated.

The data regarding SMO are gathered from 93 owners/managers of pharmaceutical marketing companies operating in North India. The underlying dimensions of the scale are identified through exploratory factor analysis. Further, the reliability and validity of the scales are also checked. Further, the partial least square (PLS) technique is used to analyze the study variables.

SMO is established as a multi-dimensional scale comprising system thinking (personal consideration of stakeholder, the relationship of stakeholder, systematic problem-solving and interdependence), paradoxical thinking (decision control and autonomy, uniformity and individualization and distance and closeness) and democratic thinking (ease for the stakeholders to share their voice, involvement in decision-making, the existence of participatory culture in the organization). The SMO showed a positive and significant impact on BP (market growth, return on investment, return on asset and market share). Further, the results also indicated the moderating role of organizational culture between SMO and BP relationship.

This study primarily focuses on the measurement of SMO, exploring its dimensions (system thinking, paradoxical thinking and democratic thinking) and validating using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and PLS techniques. Further, the sample size of the study is small (n = 93), and hence confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and covariance based-SEM could not be applied. It is suggested that future research needs to be undertaken with a bigger sample in the pharmaceutical sector and later in other sectors to validate the results of the study. The impact of moderating variables such as organizational culture, industry size, type and owner experience can also be explored between the study variables in the future. The study is limited to the measurement of SMO from owners/managers’ perspectives, other internal (employees) and external stakeholders such as suppliers, distributors, chemists and hospitals were not contacted because of time constraints. Future research needs to consider the perspectives of these stakeholders in grounding the conceptual framework of SMO.

This research contributes to the development of the SMO scale. It is identified as a practice, based on system thinking, paradoxical thinking and democratic thinking, which provides an organization with better performance. The study results help in strengthening SMO and BP in pharmaceutical marketing industries.

This paper seeks to address complexity in project management via an innovative course that focuses on systems thinking.

Intuitions about systems thinking evident in everyday language are developed and applied to phases of the system development life cycle.

Complexity in project management may be tamed by systems thinking. Surprisingly, project managers do not seem to use simple systems thinking tools even though these provide unique benefits in framing and solving problems that arise from multiple perspectives and relationships.

The findings are broadly conceptual. They introduce only some elements of a tertiary curriculum developed by the authors and certified by a major project management practitioner group.

The findings are of value to educators, practitioners and researchers who seek a practical approach to integrating complexity theory into modern project management practices.

An individual's educational choices – and institutional policies – are now caught up in a complex dance of cause and effect that is difficult to understand. This research article investigates one educational response, which is to provide practical guidance for coordinated goal‐directed activities (including policies, procedures and projects) in an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.

The approach of addressing complexity via a project management course certified by the Project Management Institute (PMI) is innovative, perhaps unique.

“The unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates. That is, without critically inquiring into the knowledge of life, which is well-being and valuable, life is not worth living. Critical thinking questions existing theories and their unexamined and obsessive assumptions and generalizations, constraints, and the so-called “best” practices of the prevailing system of management and tries to replace them with more valid assumptions and generalizations that uphold the dignity, uniqueness, and inalienable rights of every individual and the community. In our diverse and pluralistic cultural environment, the promise of a truly generative dialogue among occidental (western) and oriental (eastern) cultures and civilizations holds great hope for the future. Critical thinking can facilitate this dialogue such that all of us have a meaningful place in this universe. In this chapter, we explore introductory working definitions of critical thinking so that we can early enough understand its demanding domains, moral calls, and ramifications in its current critical applications. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structured layers of our thinking and reasoning to dismantle them progressively, and in Part II, in support of our claims, we explore complexity and chaos theories as a new resource for critical thinking.

Outlines, with the aid of diagrams, the core concepts of systems theory as a basis for understanding the applications of systems thinking in organizations. Explains ideas like waste, outcomes and feedback in systems terms, and links systems thinking with quality thinking. Once systems thinking is understood, understanding organizational systems and quality management becomes easy. The diagrams and summarized principles are useful for anyone wanting to teach the concepts to others.