System thinking perspective assignment
“Some business writers suggest that the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of our contemporary world make it too chaotic to determine and achieve a desirable sustainable future. A systems thinking perspective however adopts the idea that there is an enduring structure to economic, social and environmental systems, that somehow predetermines achievable futures: in short-hand, structure drives behaviour. This idea is not necessarily obvious to some (if not many people), who adopt a perspective that individual personalities, traits, skills & ambition, or chance, circumstance, fate, and unforeseen events hold the keys to a sustainable future in what is an uncertain world.”
Reflecting on the systems thinking concept of ‘structure drives behaviour’, how is this perspective insightful to managing for sustainability? Please provide a practical example
System thinking perspective assignment
Systems Thinking in Structure Drives Behavior
This project allows for the examination and reflection on the likely key drivers of organizational learning as regards the “structure drives behavior” aspect of systems thinking. I have understood that a myriad of organizational and managerial complexities – external and internal – determine if and impact how organizational operation is sustainable. To successfully maneuver those difficulties through planned structures is a key principle of organizational development as well as the hallmark of sustainable organization.
Among the dominant factors for developing this reflective paper is a substantive view of management offered during the course. Despite the course following the curriculum along with offering an abundance of sustainability improvement methodologies and tools, a real bonus was engaging in the reflection on sustainability in terms of structure drives behavior part of systems thinking. Systems concerns the interrelationships and interdependence of managerial systems. In practice, systems are patterns of connections (Furman, 2012). They are an internetwork of connections or formal cognizance, otherwise defined as informal and tacit (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004). The components or elements connected to the existence of these systems happen as a form of their connections with others. Several writers including Norma Uphoff and Albert Hirschman have acknowledged the crucial contribution of what they refer to as social energy within cohabitation systems. Systems of social relations shape certain qualities or thoughts (Meadows et al., 2004). A greater part of the systems thinking approach manages the interrelationships between an individual’s thoughts and actions or between standards and practice.
Aspects of Sustainability in Structure Drives Behavior
There are occasions when strategies are seldom integrated effectively, especially when organizations rarely manage the development and identification of structures driving sustainability strategy. I realized that the key learning in this case is that structures are fundamental to driving behavior. When discussing organizations, structure refers to the implicit and explicit procedures and policies, the mental models or systems thinking of individuals mandated to act out the sustainability strategy. First, systems of thinking gives a manager an added significance to planning. According to Denning (2016), leadership is all about reengineering structure. Individuals in organizations live in a social world in which their interconnections with other individuals must be always overseen. Trust, among different qualities, matters much more than arrangement in organizations (Brown, 2009). This leads managerial systems to offer careful consideration to the traditional classifications of errands, capacities and progressions.
The “structure drives behavior concept” takes a closer look at the examples of connections and structures that may encourage individuals in various managerial positions to effectively act out the sustainability strategy (Furman, 2012). Systems of thinking helps to define the possibility of authenticity to transform a plan into a project (Meadows, 2009). For example, an authoritative performing artist must create and improve their ability by developing something of significant worth to others within a framework. Managers must offer authenticity and significance. Without being appended to some kind of significant behavioral structure that is approved by others, a sustainability strategy is bound to fail (Furman, 2012).
Elements of Structure
In reference to organizations, structure defines the implicit and explicit processes or policies, the models of systems thinking of individuals responsible for implementing the sustainability strategy, human physics – what individuals can actually accomplish, layout of organization’s infrastructure, and the documented sustainability objectives of the company. A sustainable strategy will only work if proper application of these structure elements is considered. These elements are summarized in to rewards systems, rules/procedures/regulations, policy, and hierarchy. The chances of sustainability goal to succeed is slim at best when any of these elements are incongruent with the goal.
Characteristics of Systems Thinking as concerns “structure drives behavior”
Systems Thinking is generally determined by shared interests and personality, data, forms and connections (Brown, 2009). Structures, and particularly connected ones, for example, are held together by some kind of shared personality and significance as qualities, center convictions, skills, standards, reason and mission (Meadows et al., 2004). Successful behavioral frameworks have some kind of cognizance and shared comprehension in spite of the fact that they are not actually sustainable (Moon, 2013). This blend of character and importance additionally makes a difference to an individual’s inner vitality that prompts the more profound limit which is the establishment of behavioral performance. Systems identification and significance are the way to ‘autopoiesis’ (Furman, 2012). From numerous points of view, they are a definitive control structures in behavioral frameworks as regards the success of implementing sustainability strategies. The program of systems thinking, as an arrangement of plans, is an example of acknowledged qualities as opposed to progressive planning. They can give shape and course to human conduct (Meadows, 2009). They give focus and shared interests. Character and reason give more security than plans or results. Systems initiative has an incredible arrangement to do with molding qualities, purposes and mission (Furman, 2012). Individuals is a structural framework react to honesty more than specialized arrangements. Thoughts matter as does their correspondence through the framework.
Competencies and capacities rely upon character and significance. Denning (2016) posits that leaderships, in terms of sustainability, should involve tweaking the structure, not the people. Structure turns out to be a piece of the same framework. Limited improvements in systems thinking or behavioral conducts must be worried about specialized mediations (Meadows, 2009). The advantages of planning, for instance, can never overcome profoundly muddled examples of personality in the framework (Moon, 2013). Limit comes in assortment of structures including and temporary, inward versus outer and, particular versus cross-cutting. However, the most significant might be the “more profound” limit that showcases at the center of the framework and needs to do with its capacity to exist and maintain itself – the capacity to know and cognizant, to realize its own particular change, to draw in the vitality and duty of its own staff, to reflect and learn, to keep up its own particular uprightness, to regard itself as a human group (Brown, 2009). Key issues here are the way leaders figure out how to treat each other, how they work with data and how they build up an aggregate character. Change every now and again includes modifying the structures and methodologies of the framework yet it must do as such in view of the quality of the more profound center limits in the framework (Moon, 2013). From a framework’s viewpoint, limit may have as much to do with ‘how to be’ as it does with the more western instrumentalist thought of ‘how to do’ (Cummings & Worley, 2014).
Systems Thinking might only explain certain section of convinced parts of value incentives (Furman, 2012). In the real life, however, there is limited faith concerning the capacity of incentive architectures to place the punishments and rewards required for conduct modification. Several system thinking modules are perceived to fail in the long- or medium term. Also, Systems thinking is connected to limited inclination to treating collective or social phenomenon as they are situations characterized simply by reflections of real individuals (Brown, 2009). Innermost inferences emerges from a joint commitment to the definition of the enacted system. Various incentives founded on the intent to change individual conduct can well limit the scale of collaboration.
In conclusion, these conditions showcase
rejection of dormancy. They permit associations to look for new openings and
methods for getting things done. Systems thinking places less accentuation on
the conventional thoughts of consistency and control that underlie much
contemplating open administration. The inclination in frameworks deduction is
to give more consideration regarding addictiveness, to advancement, to change
administration and to comprehension hazard and vulnerability. Arrange, instead
of control, is accomplished by acing the more profound rhythms and progression
that move the framework, for example, variety. The employment of pioneers is to
get the association to perform with a scope of ‘limited precariousness’.
Hierarchical culture, for instance, cannot be with the end goal that it
restrains the limit or slant of the association to move heading. It must add to
differing qualities and vacillation. Likewise on this rundown would be the
esteeming of various points of view, straightened pecking orders, resident
investment, correspondences, handle administration, advancement, data
innovation, worker strengthening.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. Rutledge.
Denning, M. (2016). Structure drives behavior. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALLj3JfoLng
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191-229.
Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage learning.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Meadows, D. (2009). Thinking in systems: A premier. Sustainability Institute. Earthscan Publishers, USA.