How Systems Thinking Approach Can Be Used to Break Down the Success To Successful Archetype - Coursework Example

Introduction Systems thinking involve understanding how systems work and how parts in a system influence each other within the whole. System according to Meadows (2009, p. 2) refers to a “set of things such as people, cells, molecules among others interconnected in such a way that they produce own pattern of behavior over time.” An example of a system is an organism whereby it has many different organs but all of them are interrelated and must work together for the whole organism to live. If one part is removed, then the organism may not function normally. A System is triggered or influenced by outside forces but its response is a characteristic of itself hence it is not simple in the real world. Furthermore, it is the system itself that causes own behavior hence solutions must be found within the system itself. Systems do have structures that enable it to function and these are the ones that produce behavior. These structures are referred as archetypes or system traps by meadows (2009, p. 6). She also refers to them as opportunities since they can be transformed to produce more desirable behavior. This paper will outline how systems thinking approach can be used to break down the ‘success to successful’ archetype in order to restore a greater work/family balance to the life of the leader. The ‘success to successful’ paradigm is a system trap or archetype involving circles of causality whereby limited resources are to be shared by two people or groups. In this case, competition for the resources is high and the winner or the most successful gets the largest share. In turn, he uses these resources to produce more and be more successful. The one who loses does not have resources to enable him achieve his goals hence remains unsuccessful. This means that in the next round, the most successful (the one who got resources first round) is given more and the other is assumed to be underperforming since he does not achieve his objective hence is denied resources and the cycle continues (Meadows, 2009). This is why the rich get richer and the poor poorer; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy or “competitive exclusion” as Meadows calls it (2009, p. 3). Reinforcement feedback loop rewards the winners of competition to win further competition resulting in the elimination of all competitors save for a few. This unhealthy competition is bound to interfere with the goals of the whole system unless the loop is broken. A good example of ‘success to successful’ archetype is the work vs. family life which always competes for the limited time available. The more the leader prioritizes his work, the more he devotes his time to it and the lesser the time he devotes to the family. The more he indulges in work, the more he is given more responsibilities that take up his time. In the end, he finds that he is spending more and more time on the job at the expense of the family and is bound to feel guilty or depressed thus affecting his work as well as his family life and the community as a whole. This cycle thus needs to be broken to have greater work/family balance restored to the life of the leader. Using the system thinking approach, the problem of work/life balance should be treated as a result of the system hence the solution must come from the system itself. The basic idea according to Senge (1990) is that every action triggers a reaction. The first step is thus to identify the causes of the problem or the reinforcing loop so as to determine how to change the structure of the system to produce more of what is desired and less of what is undesirable. After recognizing this, leverage points have to be identified that would balance the system. However, according to Meadow (2009), recognizing the leverage points (points of power) should be done carefully as a push in the wrong direction can lead to undesirable result. The systems thinking lens in this case enables us to “understand the parts, see interconnections, ask ‘what-if’ about possible future behaviors, be creative and be courageous about system redesign” (Meadows, 2009, p. 6). Each action taken should be considered in context of the whole organization. The reinforcing loop in this case is what makes more time to be allocated to work as opposed to the family. May be the leader has a lot of responsibilities or it is due to career ambition of the leader that makes him devote more time to work. By doing this, he may earn more recognition and as a result be given more responsibilities that take up more time hence leaving no room for family life. Whatever the case, systems thinking proposes three ways of breaking out of the ‘success to the successful’ trap (Meadows, 2009). The first way out is to diversify the resources by creating new ones that do not compete with the existing ones. In this case, the limited resource to be shared between work and family is time and hence cannot be reduced or increased. The only way to diversify is to find different ways of sharing the time by using leverage points such as flexible working, introducing leisure activities with family members, or holidays. However, there is no guarantee that it will work as it can lead to offshoots (2009, p. 129). For example, having more leisure work can interfere with workings of the whole company as less time is spent on work. The only solution to this is introducing feedback loops to keep away competition such as the labor laws involving time working hours. The second way out is to level the playing field or equalizing the advantage (Meadows, 2009). This may not be possible to pursue as the leader has responsibilities to take care of. Equal amount of time may not be spent on work and family. Furthermore, what we are looking for is striking a balance between work and family life not equality. The third way of breaking the loop is improvising devices to break the loop (Meadows, 2009, p. 130). For example, to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich, tax laws can be introduced to reduce the income of the rich. Strict restrictions of how to share the limited resource may also be put in place or revise policies that devise rewards for success so that they do not bias the next round. In this case, although the government puts restrictions on working time, there is no guarantee that the leader would not spend more time on work depending on the reinforcement he is getting for doing so. As such, restricting the time may only cause more problems as the leader may not be able to accomplish his goals within limited time. The only sound way thus to strike the work/life balance is to diversify time by introducing flexible time such as flexitime, annualized hours, compressed week, or work at home through use of technology. This requires restructuring of the work schedule so that the whole organization can function properly during the absence of the leader. Leader can also delegate work and responsibility to juniors so as to have more time at his disposal for family but this may not be the solution for a leader who wants recognition. Once the work has been rescheduled, the management should wait for feedback to know if it is successful before further action is taken. This is because according to Senge (1990), delays in response do occur that may be misconceived as failure. Short delays may cause overreaction, long delays may result in explosion and if too long, it means danger or irreversible damage. It is thus important to understand this cycle so as to know the leverage points and how to harness them to create a balance in the system. References Meadows, Donella H (2009). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. London, UK: Earthscan. Senge, Peter M (1990). The Fifth Discipline. Double day/Currency. Read More