Search results

This paper aims to offer a case study for teaching specific systems thinking competencies that promote leadership for systems change. It uses leadership as a novel way to identify and organize systems thinking competencies that are important for successful multistakeholder collaboration.

Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to assess learning outcomes across four cohorts of graduate students – with approximately 30 students per cohort – from 2017 to 2020 in the USA. The study examined a one-month-long assignment, out of a year-long program, that focuses on systems leadership for climate change.

Our findings demonstrate that higher education programs can successfully build these competencies in sustainability students and professionals. Our pedagogical approach enhances students’ systems thinking and leadership competencies.

We advance the understanding and teaching of systems thinking by integrating it with the direction, alignment and commitment model of leadership. Reframing systems thinking through the lens of leadership offers an important innovation and focus to the theory of systems thinking, and the pedagogy of building competencies sustainability professionals need.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s work on modes of “thinking” provides a comprehensive text which is little explored in respect of work with people who have an intellectual or developmental disability. This paper aims to explore the potential of this work to change staff development and practice.

Key themes from Thinking Fast, and Slow (Kahneman, 2011) are described and applied to current staff practice.

Modes of thinking are relevant and important to understanding and improving manager and staff practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to describe and understand staff thinking and practice using Kahneman’s ideas.

The purpose of this action research is to gain insight into how people learn to think systemically. An examination of the themes that emerged from this action research will be undertaken.

An action research approach was adopted which involved the collection and reading of 120 journals that were kept by graduate students in their systems thinking course.

A theory of practice identified and supported three significant areas in systems thinking: how the structure of the system influences the behavior of its members; the consequences of decisions on other parts of the system and a shift from blaming to seeing how one is contributing to the situation; and insights gleaned from actually learning to think systemically: meta‐learning of systems thinking.

The positive implications that emerged from this action research indicate that, once students are introduced to systems thinking theory, tools and application, they are able to link their decision‐making abilities to consequences; see the delays in a system; move away from blaming external “others” and look to see how they are contributing to an issue or problem. Limitations include other areas that could have been included: challenges, stories, and questions that emerged from the action research. Data from other groups would also be warranted.

The paper shows that systems thinking can be taught…that the benefits are being realized on different levels!

This action research presents one of the first attempts to actually gather data on how people learn to think systemically and to begin to categorize the themes and patterns that emerged from the data.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

This paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of behaviors effective technical managers and executives use to lead complex projects, programs and organizations.

Described is a qualitative study to identify and document behaviors and attributes of effective technical executives at NASA. Methods included observation, shadowing and interviews with 14 NASA executives, who possessed a technical background and a systems orientation, and whom agency leadership identified as highly effective in their roles. Included also is a review of related theoretical and empirical scholarship on leadership and managerial effectiveness, focusing on research describing leaders' behaviors and competencies and approaches to deal with project and organizational complexity.

The study surfaced 225 observable behaviors clustered into 54 elements, within six broad themes: leadership, attitudes and attributes (including executive presence), communication, problem solving and systems thinking, political savvy and strategic thinking.

Limitations include the small number of executives interviewed for 60‐90 minutes and observed for a brief period. Future studies might include more executives, from a variety of organizations, and/or employ a quantitative approach based on or incorporating these findings.

The study's rich data will serve as a framework to help develop technical executives where complexity and technology drive the need for systems‐oriented leaders with technical backgrounds.

The study and literature review provide a context for a deeper understanding of technical leaders' behaviors and use of systems thinking within complex situations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how holistic thinking and the use of systems methodologies can help organisations handle increased problem complexity. The paper provides a critical discussion of the development of applied systems thinking and examines how its main strands can deal with problem complexity, multiple perceptions of reality and the unequal access to power resources in organisations.

The paper uses social theory and a systems meta-theoretical framework to examine the different ontological and epistemological assumptions that each strand of applied systems thinking makes about the nature of problems and the way in which an intervention will be made.

Complex problems require joined-up thinking and the use of systems ideas. Viewing the problem situation from a holistic perspective and applying appropriate systems methodologies and tools can help managers handle the complexities that their organisations face.

The paper makes a clear link between systems approaches and social theory and emphasises the need to understand the different assumptions that theories, methodologies or people make when they intervene in complex problem situations.

The current field of systems thinking consists of a variety of views, methods and a number of organisations involved with these views which suggests a state of confusion and fragmentation of the field which fundamentally is supposed to be a uniform view of structures or systems. This can be interpreted as a “crisis situation”. A resolution of the crisis in the form of a “new science of systems” is proposed. Assuming this new science becomes part of the field of systems thinking, a debate of the elements of the field is suggested with a view to consider its current state and future developments. “Crisis - resolution - debate” is the central theme of the paper.

The field of current systems thinking is described in terms of views, methods and organisations and is seen as the “problematic issue”. A “new science of systems” strongly rooted in natural language as its primary symbolism and consisting of three general principles of systems and linguistic modelling is outlined to be considered as the resolution of the crisis. A set of criteria is discussed for use of judging the quality of models and element of the field of systems thinking including the “new science of systems”. To demonstrate a preliminary use of these criteria, the same example is worked out using both, the “soft systems methodology” and “linguistic modelling” for comparison.

The universal view of parts of the world as structures or systems is inconsistent with the multiple methods basically pursuing the same purpose: modelling aspects of systems which prevail in current systems thinking. To try to resolve this anomaly an equally universally applicable approach, the “new science of systems” is proposed which can also serve as an aid to problem solving, in particular to an integrated systems and product design. This approach is to be part of the suggested debate of the field of systems thinking. In general, there is no alternative to the structural view.

The “new science of systems”, if found acceptable, can offer research opportunities in new applications of accepted branches of knowledge like logic, linguistics, mathematics of ordered pairs, uncertainties and in the philosophy of science. New teaching schemes can be developed at classroom level combined with engineering as creator of novelties with linguistics as the symbolism to supplement mathematics. Further considerations can be given to current methodologies of systems thinking as part of a debate with a view of future developments in exploring pioneering ideas. New software is needed for working out the dynamics of scenarios.

The debate, if it takes place, should result in new developments in the field of systems thinking such as concepts accepted as fundamental in the discipline of systems. Applications of the “new science of systems” to larger scale scenarios and organisations guided by the universal scheme in Figure 1 and linguistic modelling with software are needed for development of schemes for problem solving schemes “utilising” or “producing” products.

The “new science of systems” is rooted in accepted branches of knowledge; it is highly teachable at school and university levels and should lead to use by professionals and in everyday life activities once found acceptable. The use of the scheme in Figure 1 should help in clarifying confusing scenarios and to aid problem solving.

The suggestion of a debate is an original idea. The “new science of systems” consists of three general principles of systems implemented by linguistic modelling of static and dynamic states. Mathematics of uncertainty and topics from conventional science at the object level supplement the “new science” which together form the “scientific enterprise”. The notions of cognitive value and informative content of models are introduced for evaluating their cognitive worth.

In this article we will discuss the link between systemic thinking, organizational learning and knowledge management. We will develop a conceptual model to illustrate and explain this link, which will be further discussed throughout the article. The main entities of this model are: emphasis on internal motivation, relations in and among systems, in addition to the development of vision, generation of ideas and creativity. The philosophical basis for this model is systemic thinking. We will thus explain the meaning of this way of thinking, before we discuss the individual elements of the conceptual model.

This paper aims to explore how the integrated thinking of a chief executive officer (CEO) impacts the management’s orchestration of the six capitals to create value in an organization.

Following a case study approach, data was gathered on two business organizations in Sri Lanka through interviews, focus group discussions and documentary analyzes. Thematic and cross-case analyzes were used in analyzing the data based on an analytical framework that was developed using systems and resource orchestration theories.

The study finds that the integrated thinking perspective of the CEO determines which capitals to embrace in the pursuit of value creation by an organization. A broader perspective on the integrated thinking of the CEO can lead to a sustainable perspective for value creation focusing on integrated corporate responsibility. On the contrary, a constrained perspective of integrated thinking can lead to a business case perspective for value creation that focuses mainly on the key areas of responsibility extended for operational efficiency. These different perspectives result in differences in value creation in organizations over time.

The capitals embraced in the integrated thinking perspective of a CEO should be translated into objectives, strategies and performance measurement and implemented at every level of the company to create value. This perspective of a CEO can be institutionalized through the adoption of accredited management systems. To foster value creation, managers should use a variety of information technology platforms and internal networks.

This is one of the first studies that explore how the perception of integrated thinking of the CEO impacts value creation in an organization through a combination of resource orchestration and systems thinking theory lenses.