Systems Thinking is Solving the Problems - Term Paper Example

System: Business Management and IT College Diagram summarizing case contents The organization’s management observes over a period of time the employee performances in order to detect any problems that there may be. Once a problem is detected, the management sets out on how best to deal with it internally with the employees and resources at their disposal. The decisions arrived at are communicated to the employees to act on them. An agreed time frame is agreed upon which these policies are to be implemented. The management observes for a given time period whether these have any positive impact and /or solve the problems. If some shortcoming is detected, the people concerned tweak the new policies appropriately in order to achieve a much more positive result. Closed control loop model This shows a process of learning in the organization in which they change their methods or policies if they don’t suit the error. This presents a model whereby managers learn to perform a task much better without looking at the underlying assumptions and beliefs behind the problem. Learning disabilities according to Peter Senge Most modern organizations experience several difficulties in learning. Most people view organizations in terms of buildings, office furniture and other assets found in the offices. They tend to forget that this term organization actually refers to the people who work in them. Peter Senge outlined seven such learning disabilities that are common and the roots of the problems in many organizations. These are vital for one to be able to get to the base of the problem. I am my position People have the habit of confusing their jobs with their own unique identities. This is mainly due to the fact that they are expected to be loyal to their jobs. Senge explained that when the employees tend to mainly focus on their positions, it will lead to them having a reduced sense of responsibility for results that are due to different office positions interact. The Enemy is Out There Whenever something goes wrong in an organization, the people in employees and management will normally blame a third party for causing it. They might heap the blame on a competitor, or the respective regulatory body in the industry for enacting faulty policies. The Illusion of Taking Charge Every employee will be told to be proactive in their day to day activities in the organization. Which normally means taking charge until something positive happens. What we fail to understand is that this act of being pro-active can tend to be a reactive action albeit in disguise. Real pro-activeness should be based on an employee’s ability to see how they contribute to their own problems. It should be the outcome of how they think but not how they react emotionally. The fixation of Events Most discussions in organizations nowadays tend to mainly centre on events. These refer to the urgent issues that are the main focus of our attention. However, the real threat to an organization’s survival is the gradual process that creeps in on it. The organization has to incorporate long-term thinking in its ranks. The Boiled Frog This is a parable that states that a frog will jump out of a pot of boiling water immediately it is placed in. This will however not be the case if placed in cool water whose temperature is gradually heated. In the second scenario, the frog will most likely stay in the water till it’s gradually cooked to death. This parable is applicable to organizations that wish to implement change. The management has to slow down and pay attention to the dramatic as well as subtle if it wishes to see a slow and gradual process. The Delusion of Learning from Experience It is normally stated that experience is the best teacher. There is however a short coming to this saying in organizations since employees doesn’t usually experience directly the consequences of their actions and decisions. This is caused mainly by the existence of functional silos in the organizations. These will normally impede the flow of communication amongst employees in the organization. This will consequently negatively affect the ability of the organization to analyze problems in its ranks. The Myth of the Management Team The term ‘management team’ is normally used to reflect the desire for management to project an image of it being a closely cohesive team that is headed in a common direction. This is so important that dissent within its ranks is normally frowned upon and the final decisions actually contain a variety of watered down compromises. Most organizations still have the habit of rewarding individuals that subscribe to the senior management’s views and penalize those who rock the boat. How a split between espoused theory and theory in use can affect organizational learning Approach to the learning theory of an organization is primarily based on these often conflicting theories;- Espoused theory This refers to the organization’s formalized part. Every company has different instructions that guide the way its workers conduct themselves in order to perform their assigned tasks. These instructions are usually specific in nature and quite narrow thus confining the employee on a pre determined path. Example would be in case of a malfunctioning computer, employees are advises to reboot it and if the problem persists, they are advised to phone the IT department. Theory-in-Use This refers to the reality on the day to day workings in the office. Employees do not always follow the espoused theory. They often rely on brainstorming and peer interaction in problem solving. This can be explained as the flowing, loose and social manner that employees tackle problems and learn new short cuts daily. A computer problem may have been solved differently by another employee by using an IT forum or his tried and tested tricks that saved him the time needed to wait for the IT department to respond. This knowledge can be shared to other employees in their day to day interactions. We can deduce the fact that these two theories are hugely mismatched. It will be hugely problematic for a firm to strictly enforce the espoused theory on its employees. Successful firms are encouraged to employ theory in use so as to create an environment that is conducive to learning. This will make it much easier for the employees to interact with the working environment in an undefined and free manner. The management should ensure there is the right environment for inquiries to take place that are not constrained by formal procedures. Organizational learning is possible through education, socialization, imitation and so on. This however tends to change due the various interpretations of the organization’s history. The three types of learning Schon and Argrys (1996) identified three main levels of organizational learning;- Single loop learning: It is made up of a single feedback loop when there is a modification of strategy due to an unforeseen result. An example is when sales managers tweak their strategy to shore up sales when the numbers are undesirable. Double loop learning: This is learning that normally leads to a variation in theory-in-use. The organization can change the strategies, values and assumptions in order to come up with a much more efficient working environment. Deuterolearning: This is learning on how to improve the learning system in the organization. This is made up of behavioral and structural components that determine how organizational learning occurs. This is effectively ‘learning how to learn’. For learning to be effective, all these three must be incorporated. Single loop is however the most commonly used since the other two provide a significantly greater challenge to the organization. Five disciplines discussed by Taggart for overcoming the learning disabilities Systems thinking This deals with viewing the big picture. This discipline makes it possible for us to see patterns of change and not simply snapshots of these situations. This is important because it helps us to deduce the cause as well as effect. This is quite important since it is not always influenced in a singular direction. It has an important element of feedback which plays an important role in cause and effect. Personal Mastery This is a term used to refer to the discipline of learning and personal growth. Individuals that have a high level of this constantly increase their ability to achieve the results that they seek. These individuals possess an insatiable desire to for self-improvement and discovery which underlies the learning organization’s spirit. This discipline does not refer only to competencies and personal skills. It also includes approaching life as a creative work as well as spiritual growth. This means that individuals constantly clarify what is important to them and learn how to see more clearly the real world. People that have a high level of personal mastery possess some common traits;- They possess a heightened sense of purpose that drives their personal goals and visions. They tend to work with change as opposed to against change. They have a feeling of being connected to life and others as well These traits enable them to be in a continual mode of learning. Mental Models Every individual has his own set of prejudices, views and assumptions that tend to influence how we interact with other people. We often tend to deny these prejudices that we possess though it is difficult to continually do so if our words and actions contradict each other. Mental models are significant from a management perspective due to their associated consequences whether bad or good. However, if a person’s mental model is due to past experiences, it gets more difficult to develop the appropriate systems thinking. Shared Vision This refers to a force that is within people’s hearts. People are connected together with a common aspiration when they tend to share a vision. The discipline of shared vision is significant in an organization’s learning since it tends to provide the energy and focus for learning. Shared vision is derived from personal visions and this is the means through which committed is created and energy formed as well. Masters should therefore ensure that their vision is shared by their subordinates so as to enable the organization achieve its goals. Team Learning This discipline builds on personal mastery. This refers to a process that includes building the team’s capacity to attain the team members’ goals. Individual learning may be important at a personal level but turn out to be irrelevant to the organization as a whole. The organization may fail to learn. Therefore for the organization to learn, it must be through teams that form the vital microcosms. The three main components of this are;- Teams need to explore and probe issues by drawing on the knowledge, experiences and talents of each member of the team. The members must be able to trust one another which will enable them to work together in effort coordination and openly and closely communicating. Lastly the teams must share with one another what they have learnt for it to be beneficial to the whole organization. Systems Thinking This is the ability of one to view things holistically which includes the various relationships between the components of a complex organizational system. The goal of systems thinking Its main goal is to manage the constantly growing complexities of the business and technology world. This is achieved by creating systems within an organization that are favorable to employees thus enabling them attain increasingly higher levels of productivity for the organization. System thinking tends to concentrate on the system’s component’s boundaries and the ability for the complete system to attain results that are much more than the sum of the individual system’s parts. Systems thinking and modern management This approach is mainly based on the general system theory. This theory states that for one to fully understand an entity’s operation, it must be viewed as a system. It will therefore be essential for one to fully understand all the parts’ interdependence. Botkin (1990) stated that many executives fail to see the forest for the trees and the trick is to see both the forest and the trees. This is system thinking simply explained. It is a methodology for doing all these simultaneously. Principles of system thinking The following are the seven principles of system thinking: There is no single root cause: When employing system thinking, you do not try to figure out only one single cause of a problem in the system. One will have to look at several other factors also. Consider behavioral, personal and environmental factors: The factors that influence change are reciprocal dynamic and interactive. The various changes in the employee environment will tend to affect their attitudes and behaviors. Measure these factors: Attitude and perception surveys are very significant barometers of people-based factors. These outcome measures can depend on several factors like reward and punishment programs. Investigate facts and not faults: If the organization’s management employs a fault-finding method in investigations at the workplace, employees will tend to withhold critical information that may be important to organizational learning. Feedback directs and motivates: System thinkers are always on the lookout for ways to encourage beneficial behavior and correct the risky ones. Feedback is used in motivating employees to keep up or abandon a certain behavior or way of doing things. Consistency develops commitment: When employees believe that their commitment was not due to management pressure, their consistency principle tends to be activated. Embrace reciprocity: A caring and rational management approach will lead to the same behavior from the employees. Principles and Effectiveness of Systems Thinking Systems thinking as a problem solving approach view the problems as being parts of the general system. It makes a point of emphasizing the available relationships of these parts while at the same time keeping in mind the whole system. The complete system is an overall view of the complete organization in relation to its surrounding environment. Complete systems are made up of the basic unit, which is made up of various entities like processes, policies, people and practices. An organization can undergo systemic failure that normally takes place in the whole system. This can be due to the failure between the system’s elements that have to work together to achieve overall success. The key factors that may bring about systemic failure are weak understanding of the system, flawed system design, incentives that tend to encourage loyalty to sub-ordinate goals, confused goals, ineffective feedback, absence of accountability and poor cooperation. The whole system can be effective only through collaboration of managers across the various functional systems. Whenever the leadership of the various levels in the system fails, this can lead to whole system failure. This will then be referred to leadership systemic failure. Conclusion Success of the whole system needs a performance management system, which is placed above the individual systems as well as their functional leadership. Its features usually include group level goal setting, incentives, reviews, communication, rewards as well as accountability. This means that its principle aim is to concentrate on what binds the various individuals together as well as the system rather than simply the functional silo performances. Reference List ARGYRIS, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Malden, Mass, Blackwell Business. ARGOTE, L. (2013). Organizational learning creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Heidelberg, Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5. DIXON, N. M. (2000). The organizational learning cycle: how we can learn collectively. Brookfield, Vt, Gower. EASTERBY-SMITH, M., & LYLES, M. A. (2011). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Chichester, Wiley. GREVE, H. R. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback: a behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge [u.a.], Univ. Press. Gary, L, F. (2011), Environment, management attitude, and organizational learning in alliances, Management Decision, (2011): 156-166. (e-library link http://proxy.aou-elibrary.com:9797/MuseSessionID=b811563cb189f10b5e67fcfffcd7a3/MuseProtocol=http/MuseHost=search.proquest.com/MusePath/business/docview/846767172/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=145454 Hsu, Hsiu-yen, Organizational learning cultures influence on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention among R&D professionals in Taiwan during an economic downturn, University of Minnesota, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3366878. (e-library link http://proxy.aouelibrary.com:9797/MuseSessionID=ab188f7b367edd8eedfd879e6b13490/MuseProtocol=http/MuseHost=search.proquest.com/MusePath/business/docview/304957195/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=145454 KING, W. R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning. London, Springer. Organizational learning: Mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Sage publications ( e-library link http://proxy.aouelibrary.com:9797/MuseSessionID=b4d593c515d81d7a2f29b8a65ce382a4/MuseProtocol=http/MuseHost=search.proquest.com/MusePath/business/docview/209892978/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=145454 Read More