Traditional (EPO) and (LO) learning organizations capitalize off their ability to create learning opportunities because organizations have the opportunity to motivate leaders and followers giving them a since of empowerment through training to eschew mistakes. The main characteristic difference between traditional organizations and LO were their system thinking (Johnson, 2009). O’Connor & McDermott (1997) noted that system thinking is comprised of feedback loops (reinforcing and balancing) with identifiable patterns and continuous loops that helped people think in circles that were comprised of system theory and systems thinking. These authors revealed that the concept of a system have to be understood based on individuals’ experiences to …show more content…
Bobis (2011) further implied that when leader’s mastered system thinking language, their contribution to an organization as a whole was fostered because system thinking is what is needed to operate from the sideline which gave allowance for innovation by reviewing the company in a linear perspective, while embracing the chaos theory through exploration when organizations dealt with complex system changes in the initial stages of making a difference in organizational outcomes.
Comparison of Traditional and LO
Johnson (2009) stated that Traditional (EPO) Efficient Performance Organizations and (LO) have five differences that make up the design of organizational elements, and they are: structure, systems, culture, strategy and tasks. Traditional EPO operated under structure that is vertical that embraced a level of authority that demonstrated a design that was considered functional, while LOs employed a structure that was horizontal that influenced interconnected activities in a functional manner the excluded a system, called caste, to avoid the disturbance of communication efficiency and cooperation of department’s efficiency. Understanding the need for accommodating
1. System Thinking: System thinking is nothing but instead of focusing on only one particular issue, we have to analyze and try to understand the entire system on the whole. With this kind of analyzation, we can easily find a solution to the problem as the problems are not confined to only a particular area or time. We might find a solution for a particular issue, somewhere in the whole system by analyzing the entire system completely. We should try to relate the actions and the consequences on the whole as the issues occur at different time levels, not confined to only one particular time level. We have to have knowledge of the relation between different departments of an organization and the relation between them and the functionality between the departments as to how they are related in an organization. We generally focus on only one particular issue rather than seeing the bug picture and that shouldn’t be done. In system thinking we analyze the big picture.
The Organizations have evolved over the years and from the Concept of people management they slowly have moved towards the concept of System managements and this is how an organizations needs to aim to grow and to succeed in growing complex market environment.
On this forum a learning organization refers to the organizational style allow for a certain degree of flexibility that hinder being constrain by structure; in simple terms, this approach allows for the organization to not only adapt to, but embrace change in order to attain the desired market position (Purhaghshenas, and Esmatnia, 2012, p.244). On the other hand, an efficient performance organization refers to the classical approach in which a scientific and systematic approach that primarily focused on the administrative and
With today’s fast moving pace there are many challenges we face that demands more non-linear system thinking instead of cause and effect linear thinking. In The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge stated, “system thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes,” rather than reacting to a specific part or event. System thinking involves shifting from the linear to non-linear thinking and/or the rational to the intuitive or thin-slicing type decisions. System thinking is
In order for any organization to be successful, they must find effective ways to change systems and policies that are ineffective in creating a successful environment. A system consists of four things, elements, attributes, internal relationships, and the system environment. The systems theory is transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). The study investigates all the principals common to all complex bodies, and the models which can be used to describe them. Von Bertalanffy (1971) was the creator of the “system” concept, he developed this idea as an answer to the limitations of individual disciplines in addressing complex social issues (Mitchell, 2005). The underlining principal of this theory is that an organization consists of multiple, interdependent parts that collectively form more than the sum of their parts. Developed from the systems theory, are three separate theories with the basis of each being the systems theory. The activity theory considers the entire program versus just one single sector, it sees the operation as a whole instead of sub departments, it combines both micro and macro elements of the organization. The chaos theory does not mean a chaotic hectic situation, rather a situation where there appears to be little to no order, there really is a hidden underlying order. The complexity theory is
Nassar, N. S. (2007). A Systems Approach to Organizational Development (P. Campbell, Ed.). Nashville, TN: Savant Learning
This course covered many important topics helpful in understanding learning organizations. This paper will incorporate real-life situations from my organization, The American Red Cross. It will focus on three areas I found to be most helpful and relevant to my experience which is the understanding of systems thinking, growth, and the need to practice reflection.
Systems thinking is the capacity to see the master plan and to recognize patterns as opposed to conceptualizing change as segregated events. System thinking requires the other four orders to empower a learning organization to be figured it out. Additionally system thinking demonstrates that there is no outside that the reason for your issues at a piece of a solitary system.
The System Theories focused attention on organizations as 'systems ' and on the complexity and interdependence of relationships of their inter-related sub-systems. This approach attempted to synthesize the classical approaches (organizations without people) with the later human relations approaches that focused on the psychological and social aspects ( 'people without organizations).
Chaos is the one word I would choose to describe our society right now and I believe system thinking is the cure for all the problems we are facing. Unfortunately, many people do not think before they executive their actions nor before speaking, therefore this trait is lacking in system thinking. A change needs to be made in education, daily life style, home life style, and many more aspects to create a better foundation for system thinking in our society. In the video, “How Thinking Works” Derek Cabrera emphasized on the fact that children are in school are being taught to be good at school, and that means that they can easily get an A on a test with studying along with instructions but the students struggle if they are given an assignment where they are require to actual think themselves.
The General Systems Theory (GST) came about as an effort to describe the systems approach, born from the biological concept of the organism developed in the first part of the 20th century (Von Bertalanffy, 1972). In contrast to the mechanistic systems which are closed and have a direct relationship between a cause and its effect, a biological or social system is open, operating on a principle of equifinality, where regardless of the starting point, the objective can be achieved (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Any system will achieve equilibrium, but an open system can reach a steady state by accessing resources from outside itself (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). The underlying assumptions of GST rely on the organization of a company resembling the inner workings of an organism. However, subgroups within organizations can act independently of the the whole, in
A system is a collection of elements that interact with each other over time to function as a whole. Systems thinking is a combination of the previous four practices: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning to dissect and examine the practices of the organization. I first heard learned about systems thinking five years ago when I started in the Hazelwood School District. Our district had just began our district wide professional development on systems thinking, but then we had a change in our superintendent in late August, just a few weeks after the start of school. With the change in district leadership, came a change in our district focus, and systems thinking was almost immediately abandoned. However, since revisiting it this semester, I can’t help but incorporate it into many of my daily
Systems Thinking – It is the ability to see the 10,000 foot see, and to perceive plans instead of conceptualizing change as isolated events. Systems thinking needs the other four requests to engage a learning relationship to be made sense of it. There must be a standpoint change - from being separated to interconnect to the whole, and from denouncing our issues for something external to an affirmation that how we function, our exercises, can make issues.
Peter Senge and Andres Edwards expressed the importance of system thinking in that it is necessary for “understanding the dynamic complexity of a situation”, anticipating “the unintended consequences of proposed actions” and implementing “lasting solutions” (Higgins, K 2014).
An example of the importance of systems thinking in a learning organization can be seen in the automobile manufacturer Fiat Auto Company. Fiat's Direzione Technica took a systems approach to understanding the consequences of its structure on new product development. As a result, it changed the structure to establish mechanisms for simultaneous engineering. To reduce the new products' time to market, functions now work in parallel rather than sequentially. [Extracted from Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems by Edwin C. Nevis, Anthony J. DiBella and Janet M. Gould, Society for Organizational Learning (SoL), www.solonline.org]