Chapter 1

Systems Thinking

1.1 Introduction

This book is about systems thinking and insights from my application of the discipline
in various sectors such as private industry, public health, professional services, and the
charitable sector. Systems thinking is also commonly referred to as holistic thinking.
Through the deliberations presented in this book, I will take the reader through a
journey covering theory, practice and conceptual models. But what is systems
thinking? What are its origins? Is it a discipline? And why is it relevant?
The first chapter of this book will attempt to address some of these questions. I
will introduce the background and relevance of systems thinking. I will talk about
the origins of systems as a concept and broadly present the progression of thinking
and arguments that have brought systems thinking to its current state as a major
consideration for policymakers, senior management and change agents. Key concepts
are introduced, along with a narration on the shift from reductionist thinking to
systems thinking. I refer to some seminal work in the field and lead a discussion on
the establishment of systems as a discipline.
This chapter is not intended as the final definition of systems; it only sets the tone.
The reader will appreciate systems thinking in greater depth and its finer nuances as
they go through the book and the arguments presented here.

1.2 Origin of Systems Thinking

I will attempt to highlight some of the key debates and theories that have shaped
systems thinking in the way we understand it today. The discussions here will focus
on the origins of systems as a management discipline.
Descending from the Greek verb, sunistanai, the word systems originally meant
“to cause to stand together” (Senge et al. 1994). Standing together comes from
bonding, interconnection and dependency.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 3

R. Chowdhury, Systems Thinking for Management Consultants,
Flexible Systems Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8530-8_1

[email protected]
4 1 Systems Thinking

To cater to the deliberations in this book, I will refer to the contemporary defini-
tions and discussions of systems thinking in this chapter. However, it is to be noted
that the systems idea itself predates formal writings in the area and can be found in
ancient traditions, religious texts and tribal beliefs. I quote Reynolds and Holwell
(2010):
Systems approaches have a rich historical tradition. Systems thinking in terms of promoting
holistic views – particularly emphasising the integral relationship between human and non-
human nature – can be traced back to the ancient spiritual traditions of Hinduism (e.g.,
through ancient texts like the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita), Buddhism (oral traditions of
the Dhama), Taoism (basis of acupuncture and holistic medicine), sufi-Islam (in translations
of the Kashf al-Mahjûb of Hujwiri, and the Risâla of Qushayri), ancient Greek philosophy
(particularly Hercules and Aristotle), as well as being prevalent through the oral traditions
of many indigenous tribal spiritual traditions which have existed for tens of thousands of
years (pp. 8–9).

Ludwig von Bertalanffy is often quoted as the father of systems thinking because
of his contribution of the General Systems Theory in the 1950s. Bertalanffy
approached systems as an integrated discipline that transcends all knowledge dimen-
sions and looks at the interactions between parts of the system that leads to emergent
behaviour. It is the network and interaction between the parts (or subsystems) that
give rise to the character of the system as a whole. A biologist, Bertalanffy’s interest
was in understanding creation starting from the cell to organs to individual to society
and finally social systems. Each of these progressive stages is complex sets of inter-
actions and cannot be described by simple cause and effect explanations. The parts
add up to result in a phenomenon that is qualitatively different from the individual
parts themselves. For instance, an individual human being does not behave or operate
in the way an individual cell does, yet we are made up of a multitude of such cells.
The behaviour of the individual cells, or for that matter organs, cannot be equated
with the behaviour of the human being. A complete organ is an amalgamation of
individual cells and something more; a complete human being is the amalgamation
of individual organs and something more. These are all examples of systems—cell,
organ and the human body. There is a constant flow of energy within and between
these systems. Every system seeks to maintain a stable existence that is able to sustain
itself by addressing the deviations of energy and taking corrective action. Feedback
loops are central to the existence of a system.
The main concepts of the general systems theory are as follows:
• Open System: This is the characteristic state that means that the system exchanges
energy and matter beyond its boundaries.
• Homeostasis: Implies the steady state of an open system due to the constant flow
of energy through the system. It can also be looked at as a self-regulating system.
• Equifinality: The final state of an open system can be reached by the same initial
conditions or different initial conditions.
The above characteristics are in stark contrast with a closed system that exists in
a state of equilibrium in itself as per the second law of thermodynamics. A system
(read an open system) has a boundary and an environment outside its boundary. There

[email protected]
1.2 Origin of Systems Thinking 5

Fig. 1.1 A system

is constant interaction between the elements and other systems within and outside
the boundary. The system itself adapts and changes over time due to feedback loops
between the parts and the subsystems. This is the characteristic of often referred to
as an open system as represented in Fig. 1.1.
There is a constant flow of information or energy or influences within and outside
the system whereby the system strives to achieve a state of equilibrium. If a system is
broken down to its constituents, the individual parts display their own characteristics
and behave in their own distinct ways as subsystems.
It is during the 1940s and 1950s, through the works of scholars such as Bertalanffy,
Bernard and Wiener, that systems thinking emerged as a new formal perspective to
visualise organisations as goal-directed, purposive, structurally interdependent enti-
ties which exist in a “dimensional domain”, yet changing its domain by its action.
A system does not exist in isolation from its constituents. Humans bring their own
interpretations, feelings and emotions to shape the system, which in turn shape the
humans who constitute the system. Boulding’s work is widely recognised as giving
further comprehensiveness to general systems theory with his categorisation of sys-
tems based on complexity and its relation to various disciplines (Matthews 2004).
He builds a hierarchy of levels to explain the complexity that comes in with every
progressive system and the relevant disciplines that have emerged to understand each
of these levels. Boulding’s categorisation is represented in Table 1.1.
The nine categories represent nine progressive levels of characteristics based on
complexity and interrelationships, until we reach the transcendental level of the
incomprehensible system. The deliberations in this book will be on organisational
management; that will fall in the realm of socio-cultural systems. It is at this level
that humans agglomerate for a common objective, be it for wealth creation or social
change. An agglomeration of people who are working towards a common objective
needs to have common values and norms that bind them together and enable them
to work with predictability and constructive communication. This is where a social
system comes into form. When people agglomerate there is bound to be emotions,
bias and interpretations in the social system.

[email protected]
6 1 Systems Thinking

Table 1.1 Boulding’s hierarchy of systems complexity (cited from Matthews 2004; p. 201)
Level Characteristics Example Relevant discipline
1. Structure • Static Crystals Any
2. Clock-works • Predetermined Machines, solar Physics, chemistry
motion system
3. Control • Closed-loop Thermostats, Cybernetics, control
mechanisms control mechanisms in theory
organisms
4. Open systems • Structurally Flames, biological Information theory,
self-maintaining cells biology (metabolism)
5. Lower organisms • Organised whole Plants Botany
with functional
parts
• Growth
• Reproduction
6. Animals • A brain to guide Birds and beasts Zoology
total behaviour
• Ability to learn
7. Humans • Self-consciousness Humans Psychology, human
• Knowledge biology
• Symbolic language
8. Socio-cultural • Roles Families, clubs, Sociology,
systems • Communication organisations, anthropology
• Transmission of nations
values
9. Transcendental • Inescapable God Metaphysics,
systems unknowables theology

Before I go deeper into the philosophy of systems thinking, I will discuss the
dominant line of thinking prior to the appearance of systems as a formal discipline
in management science. This is the reductionist approach.

1.2.1 The Reductionist Approach

Systems thinking is a radically different way of approaching situations as compared

to the reductionist standpoint. A reductionist approach was propounded by Descartes
(1968) by his Cartesian philosophy of mind and body dualism. This viewpoint looked
at the exclusive existence of the mind and the body as distinct. Reductionism seeks
to break down a system to constituent parts to comprehend and understand cause and
effect as a linear sequence. This is also referred to as the mechanistic approach or as
automata, meaning that a system is rather like a machine organised by parts. These
parts have predetermined functions that are predictable and changeable. Reduction-
ism is the attempt to break down a system to the minutest possible identifiable unit

[email protected]
1.2 Origin of Systems Thinking 7

and treat it independently with the belief that if every unit is managed, the overall
system will automatically get managed. The overall system is considered just an
addition rather than an emergence. To use an analogy, if a reductionist approach says
1 1 2, + =
a systems approach will say 1 1 (unknown)+ +3. The systems = approach lends
a holistic perspective, where
Holism puts the study of the wholes before the parts. It does not try to break down organ-
isations into parts in order to understand them and intervene in them. It concentrates its
attention instead at the organisational level and on ensuring that the parts are functioning
and are related properly together so that they serve the purpose of the whole (Jackson 2003;
p. xv).

Ruse (2005) attempts to simplify reductionism by suggesting a three-part divi-

sion of the concept. First, ontological reductionism, which is about the perspective
of breaking down a substance or phenomenon into smaller identifiable components.
An extreme form of ontological reductionism can be seen in dualism, where a dualist
would divide everything into two substances—matter and spirit. Dualism negates any
interference between matter and spirit thereby treating interpretation as independent
from the subject. Second, methodological reductionism, which is an explanation of
functions based on parts; this is more application oriented. Sequential treatment and
direct cause-effect perspectives are reflections of methodological reductionism. This
approach believes in linear, and not lateral, patterns, reducing the scope for an iter-
ation. And third, theoretical reductionism explores the possibility of generalisations
based on observable elements of the parts rather than on the whole system itself.
Summation of sub-theories to give rise to a bigger theory can be considered as theo-
retical reductionism. This eliminates the opportunity to understand emergent patterns
that can be appreciated with the ability to see interconnections and meanings in the
same.
A reductionist mindset is limiting for the complex situations that planners and
managers find themselves in. It curtails creativity and thinking outside the box for
change makers and interventionists who have to deal with situations in real life that
do not offer dualism and sequence, but multiplicity and divergence. The reductionist
mindset is also referred to as the mechanistic mindset. In management science, the
mechanistic mindset leads the observer or interventionist to view their area of inter-
vention as a machine breaking it up into smaller parts and thereby being unable to
appreciate emotions, patterns and unseen connections.
The reductionist or mechanistic mindset has had a significant influence on early
management research and thinking. This led to the belief that there is only one right
way of approaching organisations. Under the reductionist mindset, managers led
organisations in the command and control tradition. The strict sequence of events
guided by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), a carrot-and-stick administration
rewarding performance and penalising failure, and hierarchy-driven chain of com-
munication and supervision dominated management practices for a very long period
of time.
To reflect on this influence, I will discuss the works of three classical manage-
ment thinkers—Weber, Taylor and Fayol—who in their own ways, set the way for
modern management as a discipline around the early and mid-1900s.

[email protected]
8 1 Systems Thinking

1.2.1.1 Weber and Bureaucracy

Weber (1947) introduced the term “rational-legal authority” to describe organisations

as a manifestation of a well-structured set of hierarchies with normative behaviours
and interactions. For him, this is the bureaucratic form of the organisation that is based
on “rational grounds—resting on a belief in the “legality” of patterns of normative
rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands
(legal authority)” (Weber 1947; p. 328). A bureaucratic organisation defines a clear
structure based on the division of duties and responsibilities governed by a strict
hierarchy, and formal rules and regulations. Weber goes on to say that bureaucracy
is “superior knowledge” and is legitimised by a higher order or technical knowledge
and awareness that is based on facts and evidence (Weber 1947).
A bureaucratic organisation defines roles and responsibilities in a very strict man-
ner. Role-holders are guided by directed deliverables; adherence to the same ensures
success and any deviation is not encouraged. This leaves no room for spontaneity and
creativity. Lateral relationships and going outside the box may not be expected or
encouraged. Bureaucracy appeared as the prevailing mode of structuring and oper-
ating organisations from the 1930s onwards and rule-governed bureaucratic control
began to be adopted by senior management of large organisations across the world
(Huczynski and Buchanan 2001). This set the tone for formalism and rigidity.

1.2.1.2 Taylor and Scientific Management

Taylor (1947) built his theory of management around the idea of the “one right way”
of handling responsibility, which can be unearthed by meticulous scientific
observation and calculations and this he labels as “scientific management”. He was
of the opinion that it is the need of both the management and the workers to transform
their perspective towards work and embrace scientific modernism, which can be
revealed by time-and-motion studies.
Taylor was exceptionally optimistic about the positive results which can be
obtained by the application of scientific management, and he believed that all that is
needed is a “mental revolution” towards scientific revolution to transform the human
outlook. The growth of Fordism in the first half of the 1900s and the fast food service
organisation that we see today are fine examples of Taylorism at work. Consider the
way a typical fast food services chain operates around the world. There is a near-fixed
menu, a fixed delivery time and fixed expectation in terms of quality and quantity that
is standard across the world. Order execution and delivery are a predefined process,
where every step is identified and measured. This is an example of Taylorism at its
best.

[email protected]
1.2 Origin of Systems Thinking 9

1.2.1.3 Fayol’s Attempted Departure

Fayol (1949) marked a subtle departure from Weber and Taylor, with his introduction
of the human touch in approaching efficiency in management practice. He was of
the opinion that the “only outlet” through which managerial functions articulate
themselves in an organisation is through people and that there needs to be flexibility
and adaptiveness. Fayol developed the “Administrative Management Theory” with
14 principles, which he regards as the “lighthouse” guiding the manager towards
success and satisfaction. These principles included were: division of work, authority
and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination
of individual interest to general interest, remuneration of personnel, centralisation,
scalar chain, order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative and esprit de
corps (team spirit). It is in the last principle that marked a departure in Fayol’s
thinking.
Fayol was of the opinion that management is all about the ability of the manager
of perfect administration of “his” subordinates by achieving a unique integration
–differentiation model by the aid of the fourteen principles. Leaders have a significant
role to play because it is the leader who commands and co-ordinates and evokes the
energy of discipline within an organisation. He cited examples from his observations
that in France, workers’ obedience and loyalty depended upon the ability of the leader
(Fayol 1949).
Fayol was writing at a time when the academic climate was biased with the notions
of focalised centralisation and managerial superiority. He made a departure in his
attempt to look beyond the intellectual walls of his times and analyse what impact
can occur in the performance of the workers depending on employee-goodwill. His
perspectives on profit sharing, payment in kind, bonus, welfare work, non-financial
incentives, and above all, recognising that union is strength and contributes posi-
tively to an organisation’s effectiveness marked a change in tone. However, where
he realigned with the mechanistic view was with his return to symbolic phrases like
“a special code” and “serve those who already know the way into port” (indicating
a cast-iron view of strategy) indicating that the code of conduct finally rules (Fayol
1949). For him, the manager remains the superior administrator.
Organisations in the 1960s and 1970s started internalising such thought pro-
cesses and introducing worker welfare programmes towards enhancing teamwork
and workers’ motivation schemes. These developments began to influence Human
Resource policies that integrated concepts like performance-related pay, employee
camaraderie activities including entertainment and employee bonding, and making
employees owners of the wealth creation and sharing process.
The journey of management thinking starting from the three classics to where it
is today has seen a marked shift in how organisational complexity and its
management is viewed. The classical thinkers approached organisational efficiency
to be dependent upon the management-centric pathway of understanding the work
situation and that is independent of the world outside. Weber used the example of
the Catholic Church bureaucracy that he considered as “universal” without any con-
sideration to the inherent internal and societal dynamics that the Church exists in.

[email protected]
10 1 Systems Thinking

Taylor’s science of shovelling does not touch on the environmental and ecologi- cal
contingencies that impact productivity and vice versa. Organisations have been
portrayed largely as some discrete uni-dimensional structure, which exists out-there
constituted of replaceable parts; in other words, not having a life of its own. The
arguments built up suggest what can be called the machine model of organisation.
Taylor himself strongly developed his theory and spelled out, “mechanism, human
mechanism”. Weber’s model of bureaucracy emphatically suggests a lifeless struc-
ture with the keys of operation in the rules and regulations. Fayol attempted to shred
this perspective, but only to a certain extent.

1.2.2 Shift to a Systems Approach

Several leading scholars in recent times have challenged the Cartesian view of
looking at situations and have argued for a more integrated approach. In the classical
view, organisations were seen as a closed system, unaffected by its environment. But
with progression of time, it was realised that organisations are actually open sys-
tems continually interacting with the contingent environment in a state of dynamic
vitality. Organisations do not exist in isolation but within a social, economic and reg-
ulatory context. With organisations beginning to work in more integrated ways across
national boundaries and across multiple regulatory environments, professionals mov-
ing across the world and socio-cultural nuances coming together like a melting-pot,
the complexity and dynamism in organisations is becoming more evident. Manage-
ment now needs a more connected way of thinking and the same began to surface in
both real-life interventions and scholarly writings to address the realities on-ground.
These developments set the tone for systems thinking in academia and practice.
Pertaining to this reality, specific intellectual debates and academic contributions
are highlighted in the rest of this chapter that talk about interconnectedness, complex-
ity and appreciation of emergence. However, it has not been my attempt to consider
them as a linear sequence. I have rather discussed them by drawing inspiration from
one another and explore how the connections between these developments led to the
emergence of systems thinking as a recognised discipline, as we know it today. The
emergence of systems thinking therefore is itself beyond boundaries and it spreads
across disciplines.
Ecology and the natural habitat offer a good example of a complex system.
Ulanowicz (1986) takes inspiration from ecology where the natural habitat is a
complex dynamic of several nodes of energy and life intersecting at multitude of
points to make the ecosystem what it is. The complexity of the ecosystem cannot be
explained by linear cause and effect equations. Ulanowicz’s perspectives and models
soon began to be used to understand other complex systems beyond ecology. The
ecosystem is an open system and so are organisations and other social systems. Eco-
logical systems offer the understanding of the progressive evolution starting from
multitudes of hyper-local interactions that lead to emergent behaviours that ulti-
mately manifest themselves in societal patterns in organisations. Non-linear patterns

[email protected]
1.2 Origin of Systems Thinking 11

and self-organisation are central to such progressive behaviours and resultant social
systems.
Bateson (1979) takes an anthropological perspective and talks about how human
behaviour and cultural norms are shaped by reinforcing behaviour within sets of like-
minded or opposing groups that gives rise to group dynamics that he calls “vicious
cycle”. Social systems are not a mere addition and deletion of individuals and their
thinking, but is an emergent function based on “vicious cycles”. Excessive reinforce-
ment of a particular behaviour can lead to an overpowering of certain characteristics
in the system, which is later balanced by a counter behaviour to establish stability and
sustenance. He talks about a progressive sequence of how systems shape up from
individuals to societies to ecosystems. There are both reinforcing and countering
forces in every progressive step enabled by feedback loops in the systems ensuring
that there is an overall state of equilibrium. Feedback loops facilitate control and
communication as a cybernetic system.
Bateson goes on to say that every system is an interplay of control and commu-
nication that keeps building on and finally the state of a supreme cybernetic state is
achieved, which he calls “mind”. The same can also be equated with “god” where
an ultimate sense of “homeostasis” is achieved.
Senge (1990) dirrectly addressed organisational management, and put forward a
compelling argument for what makes a learning organisation. Senge talks about
critical inquiry into one’s own belief systems to understand limits to a firm’s ability
or inability to adapt to market challenges and stay relevant at times of change. He
says that learning organisations are those that are able to stay agile and adaptive with
this fuel of inquiry, constantly being able to reinvent themselves when required. This
can only be possible if organisations are able to look at the environment as a whole
within which it exists, considering all forces and influences. Having an isolationist
or static view of individuals, teams and the firm is a recipe for failure.
In his seminal work, The Fifth Discipline, Senge articulates five disciplines for
creating a learning organisation. These are explained below.
• Shared Vision: Understood not as a vision statement that is usual to be seen in
organisations, but an actual shared purpose of existence for the firm. This sets the
direction where the team has committed to move together towards, and not with
divergent individual goals. Authenticity and genuineness in single minded focus
of one and all towards a shared vision is the first step.
• Mental Models: These are belief systems harboured within the firm that identifies
with hierarchy and closeness instead of agility and openness. Senge calls for an
alteration of mental models that are open to learning and accommodation that
influence a work spirit that is progressive, risk-taking and learning-oriented.
• Personal Mastery: Being able to be authentic to oneself in seeing what is impor-
tant to us, where we want to be and what is the state of current reality. This is
fundamental for learning and to be able to be proactive towards positive reinforc-
ing behaviour.
• Team Learning: It is about shifting the balance from the individual to the team. It
is about shedding one’s ego and be open to learning from one another and believe

[email protected]
12 1 Systems Thinking

that together we learn faster than what we can learn as individuals. Extending this
to understand that together we can also achieve better and higher, than what we
can as individuals.
• System Thinking: The ultimate fifth discipline. This is the ability to connect the
dots and see patterns and trends. It is being holistic rather than being reductionist
in our approach to management. He famously said in his book that if you have to
manage an elephant, you need to manage it as a whole; you cannot split it into
two and then manage two smaller elephants. He views the organisation as a living
organism that is made of interacting parts and that exists in an environment with
multiple variables. Any intervention is only real if it is at the systemic level and
not isolationist.
Senge provides a set of systems archetypes that deserve a manager’s attention to
drive the organisation towards a learning organisation. These make us think in terms
of the long-term sustenance of the organisation and the system within which it
exists. Managers often face adverse situations that may make them lean towards
taking decisions for short-term yields; but this should not be the case. Managers
need to think sustenance and holistic rather than incidental and piecemeal. Further,
managers are seen to get trapped in solving surface level issues rather than the cause
itself. Treating issues at the surface often leads to recurrence of the same in a
different form or shape. Managers need to keep the long-term vision of the firm in
mind to find solutions that are more long term and sustainable. Senge’s archetypes
call for challenging mental models that limit thinking and human potential. Senge’s
perspectives shook some of the fundamentals of erstwhile management thinking
that were rooted in prediction and control, hierarchy and chasing results rather than
following a vision.

1.2.3 Complexity Theory

Complexity theory came to surface in the 1980s at the Santa Fe Institute in New
Mexico (Chan 2001). The deliberations featured Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)
that explored self-organising systems in highly complex environments that give rise
to emergent properties. Complexity theorists talk about underlying structures that
govern behaviours of systems that are manifested in patterns and trends over time.
Order emerges as a result of such underlying structures and need not be imposed by
extraneous forces.
In the context of biology and ecology, the concept of progression of species is
explained with the concept of coevolution. The ecosystem is like an open system
where there is a constant flow of energy and matter leading to unexpected changes
to the external observer, but actually are governed by underlying structures that set
the system to evolve with the progression of time. Kauffman (1996) talks of “fitness
landscapes” whereby systems need to adapt themselves to suit the demands of
environmental changes around them, when applied to biological systems lent a

[email protected]
1.2 Origin of Systems Thinking 13

new dimension to the theory of “survival of the fittest” to one where organisms need
to exist through a period of coevolution. Provata et al. (2008) talk about patterns
and processes that surface in the complex ecosystem, where non-linearity and self-
organisation are central characteristics. In their words:
Patterns and processes resulting from interactions between individuals, populations, species
and communities in landscapes are the core topic of ecology. Complex natural networks often
share common structures such as loops, trees and clusters, which contribute to widespread
processes including feedback, non-linear dynamics, criticality and self-organisation (Provata
et al., p. 4).
Complexity is a combination of size and/or volume, awareness, variety and dis-
order. It is an “unknown” mix of these components that make the system complex
for the members or observers. A system may have a lot of size or variety but it may
not be a complex system. It is when we are unable to comprehend the system or its
behaviour and observe disorder, we can counter a complex system. Complex systems
present more variety that can themselves be countered by variety.
Volatility and uncertainty of the business environment have paved the way for
complexity theory to come into the business and management discourse as a way of
understanding patterns and trends. Managing with a complexity mindset also encour-
ages creativity and innovation as it has its premise on understanding interconnections
and hidden relationships.
Any research or managerial intervention cannot be esoteric in nature that per-
ceives organisations as stand-alone entities. Organisations are, therefore, in a state
of flux in which the interventionist needs to be absorbed from within to make sense
of its reality. A discrete objectivistic external perspective does not work. Gergen
(1992) suggests the reality of social life is not quite the same as opined by modernist
formalistic organisational researchers; it is rather a domain of complexity, flux and
transformation, micropower struggle and a discourse of domination and subjugation.
The inability of modernist approaches to address these issues gave rise to an intel-
lectual climate where they came to be seen as an “ideological mystification”, and
there arose a “yearning for alternatives”.
Organisations of the present day are highly mobile and dynamic, sometimes ad
hoc project based, and based on temporary collaboration. Peters (1992) refers to this
kind of organisations as “spaghetti organisation”. Networks and companies have
started to be formed based on short-term projects and assignments, which Kanter
(1994) would call “opportunistic alliance”.
Complexity theory lets us take a step back from the apparent and obvious to deep
dive into the unpredictable and uncertain. This greatly helps in understanding how
organisations cope with their environments and adapt themselves to ensure their
sustainability. A complexity approach to organisational management would mean
letting people direct and manage their own work in a self-directed manner. They will
operate within their own constraints and optimise resources to align themselves to a
shared objective with minimal supervision.
The downside to this in an organisational setting is that complexity theory would
assume people to be driven and responsible. However, the reality faced by organi-
sations are often different and require certain degree of control and predictability in

[email protected]
14 1 Systems Thinking

managing them. An overreliance on complexity theory may also lead to a lack of

planning and managerial oversight. There needs to be both information and wisdom
to make the best use of complexity theory in organisational management.

1.3 The Making of Systems as a Management Discipline

With works of thinkers such as Ulanowicz, Bateson and Senge, management thinking
saw significant influence in the understanding of organisations as systems with a
purpose. Reed (1992) remarks: “… the starting point for the systems framework is
a conception of organisation as a goal-oriented, purposeful system constituted
through a set of common underlying abstract variables or dimensions relating to
structural properties which are geared to the functional needs of a more inclusive
social system” (p. 7). Organisations began to be seen not as esoteric structures that
exist in isolation, but as contextual ones that exist in a socio-cultural milieu and have
an active interface within and outside itself. Managing organisations is not merely
about administration, but is about continually negotiating with stakeholders, and
dialoguing between people.
The systems thinker is continually negotiating and renegotiating with bound-
aries—a process where knowledge not only diverges from the observer, but also
culminates in them. Sparrow (1998) advocates that systems thinking is “about bound-
aries” and that our analysis needs to be directed towards the generative mechanisms of
systemic structures that cannot be structurally reduced. The important message it car-
ries is that the boundaries organisations normally create between departments—HR,
finance, sales, marketing, production, procurement and so on—are not only based
on insufficient and reductionist understanding, but also creates artificial divisions
between people. In this regard, Starbuck and Mezias (1996) found in their research
that organisations define their responsibilities and their environments “very narrow-
ly” leading to a kind of a pathological compartmentalisation; and this has to be
overcome to achieve an intra-firm collaborative synergy. Such compartmentalisation
is an example of cartesian reductionism that poses limitations rather than opening
minds.
Systems thinking provided a viable alternative lens to approach complex man-
agement challenges. Complex systems have their own characteristics (Chowdhury
2017a). At the outset, they are difficult to pen-down, or sometimes even difficult to
imagine. They start evolving as we get into them. We need to look beyond the
surface and dig below what is evident to unearth what is not. Interestingly, different
people can have their own narratives of the same problem. Every narrative is valid.
While simple systems are often replicable and predictable, complex systems are
self-organising and do not follow any given rules. Therefore, simple problems can
be solved using a template that can be replicated from one situation to another. How-
ever, in the case of complex problems, templatization does not work. Every problem
is unique and requires unique approaches and highly situational perspectives.

[email protected]
1.3 The Making of Systems as a Management Discipline 15

Fig. 1.2 Bird flock. Image credit express.co.uk

Casti (1994) talks of commonly held beliefs or mental models that lead us to think
that order can only be created by centralisation, predictability and control. However,
several complex phenomena in nature display order without any centralisation; they
are rather emergent. A common example is a flock of flying birds (Fig. 1.2).
A bird flock is a fascinating example of that is able to display direction and agility
without an identified leader or structured pathway. It is a self-organising complex
system that lies outside the realm of organised command and control. This
completely overturns beliefs that there needs to be either external or internal control
imposed for order and direction (Feltovich et al. 1989; Resnick 1994). A bird flock
is an “organised” system that originates spontaneously and pervades and perpetuates
purely by virtue of communication and self-directed action without any said rules
and regulations. The mindset required to approach complex systems is very different
from that required to approach simple structures. These different mindsets build
mental models that are based on very different parameters or even value systems.
Jacobson (2000) talks about the difference in belief and mental models that may
drive an approach to complex systems effectively or ineffectively. A novice would
approach with a “clockwork” set, whereas an expert would approach in a “com-
plex system” set. The latter offers the required lens to appreciate characteristics like
emergence, self-organisation or multiple agency. Jacobson elaborated his thinking
as represented in Table 1.2.
I often refer to systems thinking as a state of mind. It is a plethora of intercon-
nections and the ability to appreciate “wholes” with a purposefully non-teleological
perspective.

[email protected]
16 1 Systems Thinking

Table 1.2 Complex systems mental models framework (cited from Jacobson 2000; p. 17)
Categories of beliefs Types of component beliefs
Clockwork set Complex systems set
Understanding the phenomena Reductive (e.g. step-wise Non-reductive:
sequences, isolated parts) whole-is-greater-than
the-parts
Control Centralised (within system) De-centralised (system
external agent (external to interactions)
system)
Causes Single Multiple
Agent actions Completely predictable Not completely pre-
dictable/stochastic/random
Complex actions From complex rules From simple rules
Final causes or purposefulness Technological Non-teleological or
of natural phenomena stochastic
Ontology Static structures events Equilibration processes

The growing popularity of systems thinking soon became evident in greater schol-
arly work and application of the field in various areas ranging from management,
development, international relations, government, ecology and sustainability stud-
ies. In the following discussion, I will focus on specific developments in systems
thinking in the field of business and management with reference to select scholars
who have had a profound impact on organisational studies. The contributions are not
to be read sequentially and by no means, this is an exhaustive list.

1.3.1 Katz and Kahn’s Organisations as Open Systems

In organisation studies, early on Katz and Kahn (1966) brought in the appreciation
of the organisation as an open system. They talked about ten characteristics to draw
this parallel that are highlighted below (Katz and Kahn 1966):
1. Importation of energy from the environment (resources, people, etc.)
2. Throughput (transform resources available to them)
3. Output (export some resources to the environment)
4. Systems as cycles of events
5. Negative entropy (moving towards more order through the input of
energy/resources)
6. Information input, negative feedback and a coding process (to maintain steady
state)
7. The steady state and dynamic homeostasis (and a tendency towards growth to
ensure survival)
8. Differentiation and specialisation

[email protected]
1.3 The Making of Systems as a Management Discipline 17

9. Integration and coordination

10. Equifinality (many paths to same end).
The above characteristics can be demonstrative to look at organisations as open
systems that enable us to understand employee behaviour, structure and change, and
business performance. For managers and consultants, this understanding helps in
designing performance metrics, manage conflict and navigate change from a com-
pletely new lens and incorporate multiple factors in decision making to work towards
the adaptation and evolution of the organisation in the business ecosystem.

1.3.2 Senge and the Fifth Discipline

Senge’s model (discussed above) became an instant hit in the management fraternity.
The Fifth Discipline became widely accepted across industries for change manage-
ment and leadership development. Senge went on to author his second best seller,
The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, four years later, where he presented actual tools to
be applied on the ground by managers to bring his concepts to life through practice.
The Fieldbook (Senge et al. 1994), brought to life the ideas in The Fifth Discipline
with toolkits to describe the managerial approach along with practical tips that can
be applied on the ground. It dug deeper into how one can critique one’s own values
and challenge mental models to achieve personal mastery at the workplace. Several
case studies were discussed to present real-life situations in complex organisational
environments including family-owned businesses, large corporates, media, hospi-
tals, schools, communities and governments. The Fieldbook also presented its own
limitations.

1.3.3 Total Quality Management

Another movement that was taking shape during almost the same time was inspired
by Deming (1986, 1993) and his work on Total Quality Management (TQM). TQM
is a holistic intervention taking the organisation in its entirety to make a qualitative
change in the system through continual improvement keeping the final customer in
mind. There is no specific toolkit for TQM, but it is about the integration of thinking
and connecting the combined efforts of existing improvement initiatives that make
this approach systemic in nature.
Deming talks about his theory of continual improvement by the application of four
principles that can improve efficiency and effectiveness that he calls the System of
Profound Knowledge. The four principles started with the concept of “System”, the
starting point as the ability to understand organisations as a network of interdependent
components that work together towards achieving a common aim of the system. He
talks of mutual gains for all parts of the system without harming one part at the

[email protected]
18 1 Systems Thinking

cost of another. The second principle talked about understanding variation in the
systems outcomes due to internal or external reasons, and how to address the same.
The third principle talked about the theory of knowledge and the importance to
move beyond superficial “fixes” in the system. His final principle talked about the
knowledge of psychology for managers to take the team forward with them.
Organisations saw significant improvements with the application of Deming’s
theories. The Japanese Government honoured Deming with the institution of the
Deming Prize in 1951, which became an internationally acclaimed recognition for
quality.

1.3.4 Ackoff and Purposeful Systems

Ackoff and Emery (1972) wrote that systems have a purpose and they need to be
understood from a standpoint of how the social, cultural and psychological contexts
impact them. Organisations are made of individuals who collectively identify their
purpose, and therefore purposeful systems lie at the heart of organisation studies.
Ackoff said that a purposeful system is always “ideal seeking”. He looked at social
systems science as a value-driven activity and that objectivity in social research is a
myth as purposeful systems have values inherent in them. Purposeful systems cannot
be “value-free”, and therefore objectivity in social systems study is “value-full”.
Ackoff (1999a) spells out five profound ideas in systems thinking for management:
• In most cases, the obvious is normally not right. He says that for most people, the
obvious is not what needs no proof, but what one does not want to prove in the
first place. He cites specific examples of instances from real-life management and
administration to explain himself. The most common being to focus on parts of a
system independent from the whole system with the hope that the organisational
performance will improve, which he calls a fallacy. This may in fact, destroy an
organisation. He further cites the example of problems being perceived as disci-
plinary in nature that defeats the purpose of meaningful interventions. Research
and interventions need to be transdisciplinary and holistic in nature and need to be
approached in a systemic manner. Finally, the “best thing” to be done to a problem
is not to “solve” it, but to “dissolve” it. Dissolving means to redesign the system
so that it can exist as a new system considering internal and external conditions so
that the problem is completely eliminated.
• The revelation that organisations tend to misrepresent the objectives they pursue
and what is actually pursued is wrong. This may be a result of misplaced vision or
restrictive worldview of the business. This leads managers to keep repeating their
wrongness rather than being able to focus on the right things. Ackoff believed that
it is always better to do the right things wrong than doing the wrong things right.
• Producing order and harmony in an atmosphere of ambiguity and uncertainty.
Ackoff focuses on the right acquisition of knowledge and the role of learning.
Learning comes from doing mistakes when mistakes are made whilst doing the

[email protected]
1.3 The Making of Systems as a Management Discipline 19

right thing. Mistakes can be of two types: commission (doing what should not have
been done) and omission (not doing what should have been done). The former is
generally a lot more serious than the latter. However, business pressures often lead
managers to end up not doing mistakes of commission. If something is never done,
there is no learning. Real learning can be enabled by systemic support, where not
only “getting it right” is reaffirming but also “getting it wrong” is not penalised.
• Disclosure of what Ackoff calls “intellectual conmen” such as propagators of
benchmarking, downsizing, process reengineering and scenario planning. These
are rooted in the belief that there are shortcut measures to deal with any problem,
may it be the most complex of problems. They tend to approach situations from
a reductionist perspective and with a mindset where achieving the perfect state,
rather than the learning state, drives all energies of the system.
• Design of organisations that can be free from the “traps” mentioned above. Ackoff
cherishes democratic organisations that are multidimensional and transparent, and
not driven by hierarchy and short-term goal seeking. Where learning is at the
centre of everything. Where there is constant focus on the organisation as an open
purpose-seeking entity constituting by people existing in a wider business and
environmental ecosystem.
Ackoff’s work has had a significant impact on management science and research.
His view of organisations was at a completely different end of the spectrum from
those of classical management thinking where organisations were seen as esoteric
structures formed to achieve certain material ends. Ackoff argues that organisations
are purposeful systems and this purpose has social, business and environmental
impact. Hence, decision-making needs to take into consideration the interplay of
such disparate and complex aspects. Managers need to play a balancing role to meet
organisational vision, business objective, people’s aspirations and work towards
environmental sustainability.
Ackoff identified (1999b) identified four different types of system models. “De-
terministic” systems that have no purpose and neither do their parts; however, they
can serve the purpose of other purposeful systems. “Animated” systems have their
own purpose but their parts do not. “Social” systems have a purpose of their own
and so do their parts; in addition, they together form parts of larger purposeful sys-
tems. “Ecological” systems do not have a purpose of their own but have a plethora
of social, organismic and mechanistic systems in interaction and interrelationships
between and within themselves. Each of these systems has their own characteristics.
The problem is when models appropriate for one system is forced into understanding
and/or addressing another system.
Kirby and Rosenhead (2005) call Ackoff’s work a shift in thinking as a shift from
the machine age to systems age.

[email protected]
20 1 Systems Thinking

1.3.5 Capra and Ecological Systems

Austrian-born American physicist, Capra’s work on deep ecology and systems think-
ing has had a profound impact on modern business and ecological management. Deep
ecology refers to the understanding that living beings have inherent worth regardless
of their instrumental utility. Capra was heavily influenced by eastern philosophy of
looking at the world as a living spiritual being or a “one great harmonious whole”.
This is what is also called the Gaia hypothesis. Capra draws on several theories and
analogies from different disciplines to argue that existence is a set of complex rela-
tionships and any explanation by the reductionist route of breaking down into parts
misses its real essence. Drawing from biology, Capra (1996) says
The limitations of the reductionist model were shown even more dramatically by the problems
of cell development and differentiation. In the very early stages of development of higher
organisms, the number of their cells increases from one to two, to four, and so forth, doubling
at every step. Since the genetic information is identical in each cell, how can these cells
specialise in different ways, becoming muscle cells, blood cells, bone cells, nerve cells, and
so on? This basic problem of development, which appears in many variations throughout
biology, clearly flies in the face of the mechanistic view of life (p. 25).

Capra talks of every situation to be contextual having its own level of complexity.
Appreciation of complex situations needs systems thinking, which is at the opposite
end of analytical thinking. In his bestseller, The Web of Life, Capra (1996) addresses
deep ecology and says that living systems are a complex network of relationships
where the ecosystem is a network of nodes. Each node, when magnified, itself will
appear as a network of further nodes; so on and so forth. Capra (1996) makes an appeal
to reconnect with the web of life by nurturing a sustainable relationship between
human beings and their ecosystems by learning the basic principles of ecology. This
can help in creating a link between ecological communities and human communities.
He places great importance on the principle of interdependence between the systems
as the nature of all ecological relationships.
Capra’s lessons on sustainability and ecological literacy are highly relevant to the
current age of the world’s material pursuits and conspicuous consumption that we
all find ourselves in. He talks of the ecosystem as cyclical, whereas the industrial
world is linear, where natural resources are being used endlessly to be converted into
consumer goods with no respect to principles of sustainability, and where wastes
from such linear processes are fed back into the ecosystem without consideration to
further deplete the ecological balance. To address such grave harm, Capra (1996)
proposed an ecological tax reform that rewards and penalises nations on the basis of
how they handle the ecology.

1.3.6 Ashby and Cybernetics

Ashby (1952, 1956) made a big impact in mainstreaming systems thinking with his
contribution to cybernetics. Cybernetics is the science of communication and control
to define a system. It studies feedback loops within a system in circular patterns of

[email protected]
1.3 The Making of Systems as a Management Discipline 21

causal loops. Asbhy drew heavily from neurology to understand living systems in
the light of cybernetic models of neural processes. In his landmark books, Design for
a Brain and An Introduction to Cybernetics, Ashby talks of self-regulating systems
and the law of requisite variety. Self-regulating systems are those that strive towards
a state of order and equilibrium from that of tension and disorder. This is enabled
by a constant flow of energy and matter in a non-linear nature, which may also pose
a challenge to the structure of the system. Changes in the structure of a system will
always take place within a variety pool. The ability of the system to sustain will
depend on the requisite variety that it is able to demonstrate on the face of this
challenge. He thus says that variety absorbs variety. If a system is unable to display
at least the same amount of (or more) variety, it is unlikely to be sustainable. The
external variety always “amplifies” in different ways for the system, that the system
needs to “attenuate” by its own tools and tactics.
Asbhy’s theories influenced biologists, mathematicians and engineers to under-
stand the human brain and thereby leading to fascinating developments in the sci-
ences. As Capra (1996) notes, Asbhy’s views were “… crucial for the invention of
digital computers, and the technological breakthrough in turn provided the concep-
tual basis for a new approach to the scientific study of mind” (p. 66). Further, “The
field of artificial intelligence developed as a direct consequence of his view, and soon
the literature was full of outrageous claims about computer ‘intelligence’” (Capra
1996; p. 66).
Further, in management science, Ashby influenced the birth of a new field, man-
agement cybernetics, where an organisation came to be described on the basis of the
input-transformation-output schema. An organisation’s survival is dependent on its
ability to present a requisite variety to the variety challenge posed by its environment.
Managers need to constantly learn, adapt and reinvent themselves in order to stay
relevant. Beer’s (1972) Viable System Model (VSM) was influenced by management
cybernetics where he presented a completely new way of looking at organisations
as a system of communication and control within the law of requisite variety so that
it can respond to environmental changes. The VSM became extensively used for
organisation design and restructuring.

1.3.7 Churchman and Social Systems Design

Churchman is celebrated for his philosophy of working with an objective to improve

human lives. Post the Second World War, he worked diligently to apply his philoso-
phy to business and management to understand interconnections and constraints in
business. Churchman’s work was inspired by the understanding that we can have a
better appreciation of any system when it is viewed from the eyes of another because
every individual worldview is restrictive.
He talked about every system having a meaning with five basic considerations
(Churchman 1968), which are the following:

[email protected]
22 1 Systems Thinking

• The total system objectives and, more specifically, the performance measures of
the whole system.
• The system’s environment (the fixed constraints).
• Resources of the system.
• Components of the system, their activities, goals and measures of performance.
• Management of the system.
The above considerations can offer a concept map to understand a system and
reveals interconnections between the parts of the open system. Churchman goes on
to say that every tool we employ for the inquiry of the system will never be able to
give us the complete picture, thereby taking head-on the concept of objectivity. His
approach led to the understanding that systems, as they exist, are actually at the
behest of the observer and are not independent. He talks of bringing together multi-
ple perspectives and viewpoints, in other words, multiple subjectivities, to overcome
the restricted nature of worldviews (Churchman 1971). Further, just as every world-
view is restrictive, it is also hesitant of change. However, bringing together multiple
worldviews with evidence can serve as a challenge to restrictive worldviews.
Churchman proposes a dialectical approach to an inquiry as there is no expert in
the systems world. An individual may have their own understanding biased by their
own worldviews and the same is true of another individual. Hence, the world is a
play of “thesis” and “antithesis”. Near-objectivity can be reached by the process of
“dialectical debate” between “thesis” and “antithesis” that can lead to a “synthesis”
based on both worldviews supported by evidence.
Churchman kept improvement as the agenda at the heart of a systemic inquiry.
Improvement is a continual learning process that keeps unfolding as the inquiry
and/or intervention progresses. A system can be looked at from different perspec-
tives by inquiring into it from the “is” and the “ought” mode that can reveal the
objectives and agenda of the systems design and implementation from the planners’
and receivers’ viewpoints. This can help the inquirer understand the real purpose of
a system, which may be different from the stated objective.
Churchman’s ideas were a shift from the cybernetic approach or the hard systems
paradigm (discussed in detail in Chap. 3) that believes that systems can be studied
in terms of nodes of communication and control and are objective in nature. In the
words of Jackson (2000):
A model can only capture one possible perception of the nature of the system. Objectivity,
therefore, can only rest upon open debate among holders of many different perspectives.
And the results of a systems study can only receive their guarantee from the maximum
participation of different stakeholders, holding various worldviews, in the design process
(p. 224).

This served as an important framework for decision makers to approach plan-

ning from a systemic perspective taking into consideration different worldviews. It
is important for the managerial and administrative functions to accommodate
varying forces in system designs. Plans do not exist in isolation within the busi-
ness/management entity. They need to be framed in context of several forces

[email protected]
1.3 The Making of Systems as a Management Discipline 23

including societal norms, cultural constraints, religious beliefs, ethical considera-

tions and stakeholder interests.
In this section, I covered only select foundational works that have influenced the
making of systems as a management discipline. In no way, this discussion should be
taken as exhaustive. A complete discussion will itself merit volumes on the topic.
A lens of bias is applied in selecting the above works in relation to the case studies
which are discussed later. The above works in some way or the other come handy in
deliberating on the cases.

1.4 Systems Thinking Today

Systems thinking provided the light at the end of the tunnel to approach the increasing
complexity that the world faces. In business and management, prominent scholars
and practitioners led deliberations on how to be systemic rather than being systematic
to approach real-life situations that firms face in the social, economic and regulatory
arena. With the rise of the focus on sustainable management, systems thinking offered
the optimal frameworks to connect the dots towards creating a sustainable planet
where the triple bottom line can be kept in mind—social, financial and environmental
(Elkington 1997).
Soon, systems thinking took centre stage in management dialogue and began to
be seen as a viable alternative to approach the dynamic and interconnected nature of
everything around us.

1.4.1 Adoption of Systems as a Discipline

Several international bodies were formed that brought together systems thinkers and
aspirants to create a strong academic and practitioner climate in the world of sys-
tems thinking. Notable amongst these are the International Federation for Systems
Research, the International Society of Systems Sciences, the Global Society for Flexi-
ble Systems Management, the Cybernetics Society, the Operational Research Society
and Systems and Cybernetics in Organisation that promote research, communication
and engagement amongst systems professionals.
Leading universities around the world today offer specialised research pro-
grammes and degrees in systems thinking and management.
Independent international bodies adopted systems as a founding framework for
several of their global initiatives and consulting interventions. The World Economic
Forum (WEF) formally constituted a Systems Initiatives track to approach the global,
regional and industry challenges of the world as systems. The WEF Systems Ini-
tiatives track looks at such issues holistically “from global systems that influence
the environment and natural resource security, to the economic systems that cre- ate
inequality, to the regional systems that determine the fortunes of nations, to the

[email protected]
24 1 Systems Thinking

industry systems that determine the effectiveness of supply and demand” (World
Economic Forum 2018).
The development sector saw a great influence of systems approaches with human
empowerment and sustainable change at its core. Systems began to be applied through
design, implementation and impact assessment by multilateral bodies and large con-
sulting firms. FSG, the leading development sector consulting firm, has a specialised
track on systems change that touches upon entire project lifecycles. Major founda-
tions like Ford Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the MacArthur
Foundation have chosen systems change as their preferred model for their priority
setting and vision realignment (Gopal and Kania 2015).
With opportunities come the challenges. Although systems thinking can offer a
viable lens to approach the world’s problems, there are also practical challenges to
making it happen. I discuss some of this in the next section.

1.4.2 Challenges of a Systems Thinker

Here, I will reflect on some of the challenges of systems thinking. I will also attempt
to touch upon some possible ways to address the same and reflect on some of the
skills sets required for a systems practitioner (Chowdhury 2017b).
The first challenge for a systems thinker to overcome is that of siloed thinking.
Our brains are almost automatically attuned to approach situations by dividing them
into individual parts as much as possible and applying a rule book for every part, in
the name of efficiency. Time and again, we are told that once an objective is decided,
we need to break it down in manageable chunks and conquer the goal step-by-step.
This often makes us lose sight of the woods for the trees. The problem is more deep
rooted. Look at how Universities are structured by Departments under the overall
segments of Arts, Sciences and Commerce/Management, disallowing the power of
inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge pollination. This pedagogy creates siloed
thinking in a practitioner’s mind and restricts them from approaching situations as a
“whole”. There are certainly more dominant pedagogies on “systematic” approach in
higher education than a “systemic” approach. To quote Ison and Blackmore (2014):
“Thinking systemically or holistically, in comparison to systematically, appears far
from the ‘mainstream’ in most western societies” (p. 120).
The way out is to first overhaul the way we are trained to think. Education bodies
need to encourage integrated thinking. This is to be facilitated not only in a way in
which students have the flexibility to choose subjects from different disciplines, but
also at a higher level where the essence of design thinking, problem solving and
critical ontology are introduced in the curriculum from an early age. We already see
some welcome change with many of the new curricula being designed across
Universities to encourage students to work on real-life problem solving with an open
mind, rather than sticking to the traditional approaches of textbook learning bound
within Departments.

[email protected]
1.4 Systems Thinking Today 25

The second challenge is of the education system itself in embracing systems as a

focused subject of research and teaching. Many universities teach systems just as an
additional subject and not necessarily as a core. Gregory and Miller (2011) in fact
talk about the need to establish the credibility of the systems approach in the higher
education setup from their own experiences of attempting for a mainstreaming of
systems as a formal teaching subject.
However, this challenge can be overcome by bringing in practitioner inputs to
talk about actual application cases of systems thinking. A joint effort from faculty,
industry, researchers and students is required to create a demand for formal courses in
systems as mandated in MBA programmes. This will ease the way to bring systems
thinking into mainstream education and may help to overcome the first challenge.
Overcoming both these challenges will hopefully trickle down to the rest of the
challenges I discuss below as well.
The third challenge is inherent in how we think and the expectations that govern
us in designing projects and planning for interventions. Due to resources utilisa-
tion and stakeholder expectations, there is increasing pressure in measurement with
the focus on quantitative indices to measure successes under time-bound metrics. In
such situations, often project managers race to achieve low-hanging fruits and shift
success metrics around short-term results rather than aiming for long-term sus-
tainable change. In the development sectors, different corporations and foundations
increasingly subject “beneficiaries” to report impact (normally understood in terms
of output and outcomes) under a regime of inflexible success measures.
However, a systems intervention needs patience, flexibility and agility. Often the
systems need to be allowed to learn through the course of an intervention and course-
correct or course-align as it proceeds. The feedback loop needs to be continual for
constant adaptation and be able to “change the wheels of the car when it is still being
driven”. The need for the project sponsor and the interventionist is to ensure open-
ended processes and be able to approach both measurement and impact with
flexibility. In the case of development projects, we will need to look at a problem-
solving approach, rather than a mere compliance-seeking approach. This means that
results can take longer than what we are used to, but they are more meaningful and
more sustainable.
The fourth challenge is more implementation-related. Systems thinking calls for
the practitioner to be well versed with a range of approaches and methodologies to
fully leverage the power of the discipline. Throughout this book itself, I will talk about
several popular methodologies and different paradigms, and this is just touching the
surface. In addition to these, there are a large number of tools and techniques that
the systems world has to offer. This can sometimes lead to confusion and can be
intimidating to someone new who may want to start working in this discipline.
It is to be noted that a systems practitioner does not need to be an expert in every
approach or methodology. But it is important to be having an overall understanding of
what exists so that they can bring in the right kind of expertise for specific situations at
hand. There are also frameworks in systems thinking that help in organising different
approaches in specific categories corresponding to the complexity of the situation
and the nature of participation. This supports the interventionist select the right

[email protected]
26 1 Systems Thinking

methodology in combination for respective issues they are trying to resolve by taking
a step-by-step approach. I will discuss this in detail in Chap. 3.
The fifth challenge is that of language as put forward by Cordoba-Pachon (2010).
As systems thinkers and practitioners, we use our own terminologies like “holis-
tic”, “interconnections”, “autopoiesis”, “self-organising”, “recursive”, “boundary
critique”, etc. General management terminologies are distinct from these words. And
for someone not used to the discipline, systems terminologies can sound alienating.
With the widespread adoption of systems thinking across sectors, more simple
words are, however, are being used as systems language. It is also to be noted that
when systems thinking is applied, the interventionist does not have to use systems
terminologies. They can work with systems frameworks in their minds without dis-
closing the same. In every case study I have presented in Part-II of this book, I have
not disclosed the approach to the participants or in the situations. I always used them
as my frame of reference.
Finally, as Cordoba-Pachon (2010) says, the excessive focus of systems prac-
titioners on appreciating the situation and on problem solving may end up being
cumbersome and time consuming. In real time, managers and consultants do not
have the luxury of time, but are often under pressure to show results.
It is also not necessary to use all systems methodologies in depth and in an
exhaustive manner for interventions. Systems methodologies can be approached as
reference points rather than fixed in themselves. In my own professional career, I have
mostly borrowed pieces of systems thinking from different methodologies to be used
within existing client services frameworks or have adapted several methodologies to
suit the situation at hand.

1.5 Conclusion

This chapter presented an overview of systems thinking and its emergence as an

organised discipline. I started by defining systems thinking and led a discussion on
how systems made a marked departure from the reductionist way of thinking. Select
classical management thinkers were presented that included Weber, Taylor and Fayol.
A gradual shift in deliberation in management thinking was then discussed in light
of operating effectively in the complex environment. Works of Ulanowicz, Bateson,
Senge and Deming were referred to. The emergence of systems as an organised way of
thinking was presented through the works of Ackoff, Capra, Asbhy and Churchman.
Finally, we talked about the arrival of systems thinking as a formal discipline seen
through its popularity in application in multiple spheres and fields, the establishment
of formal associations, and recognised programmes and tracks in leading centres of
excellence around the world. Finally, I presented some practical challenges for
systems thinkers and practitioners, along with some recommendations of how these
can be overcome.
Systems thinking draws from a diverse range of perspectives including those of
biology, ecology, anthropology, sociology, chemistry and physics, amongst others.

[email protected]
1.5 Conclusion 27

Being able to transcend these significant bodies of knowledge and comprehend inter-
connectedness and emergence requires a great deal of flexibility for the systems
thinker; in fact, flexibility is a core in systems thinking. Significant academic and
practitioner works will be discussed as the book unfolds that brings in this intersec-
tion of systems and flexibility. In the next chapter, I will talk about flexibility as a
concept in detail.

References

Ackoff RL, Emery FE (1972) On purposeful systems: an interdisciplinary analysis of individual

and social behavior as a system of purposeful events. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago
Ackoff RL (1999a) On passing through 80. In: Conference proceedings: Russell L. Ackoff and the
advent of systems thinking. Villanova University, PA, pp 31–36
Ackoff RL (1999b) Ackoff’s best: his classic writings on management. Wiley, New York
Ashby WR (1952) Design for a brain. Wiley, New York
Ashby WR (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. Methuen, London
Bateson G (1979) Mind and nature: a necessary unity (advances in systems theory, complexity, and
the human sciences). Hampton Press, New York
Beer S (1972) Brain of the firm. Allen Lane, London
Capra F (1996) The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Anchor Books,
New York
Casti JL (1994) Complexity. Basic Books, New York
Chan S (2001) Complex adaptive systems. Research seminar in engineering systems. http://web.
mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Complex%20Adaptive%20Systems.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2015
Chowdhury R (2017a) Systems thinking for development. CSR J. http://thecsrjournal.in/systems-
thinking-development/. Visited 21 June, 2018
Chowdhury R (2017b) Considerations for a systems practitioner. CSR J. http://thecsrjournal.in/
considerations-systems-practitioner/. Visited 21 June 2018
Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Delacorte, New York
Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiring systems. Basic Books, New York
Cordoba-Pachon JR (2010) Systems practice in the information society. Routledge, Oxon and New
York
Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. MIT Press, Massachusetts
Deming WE (1993) The new economics for industry, government, education. MIT Press, Mas-
sachusetts
Descartes R (1968) Discourse on method and the mediations (trans: Sutcliffe FE). Penguin Classics,
Harmondsworth
Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone,
Oxford
Fayol H (1949) General and industrial management. Pitman, London
Feltovich PJ, Spiro RJ, Coulson RL (1989) The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine:
the deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions. In: Evans D, Patel
V (eds) The cognitive sciences in medicine. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 113–172
Gergen K (1992) Organisation theory in postmodern era. In: Reed M, Hughes K (eds) Rethinking
organisations: new directions in organisation theory and analysis. Sage, London, pp 209–226
Gopal S, Kania J (2015) Fostering systems change: five simple rules for foundations seeking to create
lasting social change. Stanford Soc Innov Rev. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/fostering_systems_
change. Accessed 12 July 2016

[email protected]
28 1 Systems Thinking

Gregory A, Miller S (2011) Waving or drowning? Re-evaluating the place of systems thinking in
business and management learning and curricula. In: Presented at the organisational learning,
knowledge and capabilities conference, Hull, UK
Huczynski A, Buchanan D (2001) Organisational behaviour: an introductory text. Financial Times
Prentice Hall, Harlow
Ison R, Blackmore C (2014) Designing and developing a reflexive learning system for managing
systemic change. Systems 2:119–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems2020119
Jackson MC (2000) Systems approaches to management. Wiley, Chichester
Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley, Chichester (UK)
Jacobson MJ (2000) Problem solving about complex systems: differences between experts and
novices. In: Fishman B, O’Connor-Divelbiss S (eds) fourth international conference of the learn-
ing sciences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 14–21
Kanter RB (1994) Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Bus Rev, 96–108
Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The social psychology of organization. Willey, New York
Kauffman S (1996) At home in the universe: a search for the laws of complexity. Penguin, London
Kirby M, Rosenhead J (2005) IFORS operational research hall of fame: Russell L. Ackoff. Intl
Trans Op Res 12:129–134
Matthews D (2004) Rethinking systems thinking: towards a postmodern understanding of the nature
of systemic inquiry. PhD thesis submitted to the University of Adelaide, Adelaide
Peters T (1992) Liberation management: necessary disorganisation for the nanosecond nineties.
Pan Books—Macmillan, London
Provata A, Sokolov IM, Spagnolo B (2008) Ecological complex systems. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.
1223.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2018
Reed MI (1992) The sociology of organisations: themes, perspectives and prospects. Harvester
Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire
Resnick M (1994) Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: explorations in massively parallel microworlds.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; Resnick M (1996) Beyond the centralized mindset. J Learn Sci
5(1):1–22
Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) (2010) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide,
Milton Keynes, The Open University in association with Springer-Verlag London Limited
Ruse M (2005) Entry for “reductionism”. In: Honderich T (ed) The oxford companion to philosophy,
2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art & practice of a learning organization. Doubleday,
New York
Senge PM et al (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning
organisation. Nicholas Brealey, London
Sparrow J (1998) Knowledge in organisations: access to thinking at work. Sage Publications, London
Starbuck WH, Mezias JM (1996) Opening Pandora’s box: studying the accuracy of managers’
perceptions. J Organ Behav 17(2):99–117
Taylor FW (1947) Scientific management. Harper and Row, London
Ulanowicz RE (1986) Growth and development: ecosystems phenomenology. Springer, New York
von Bertalanffy L (1950) The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science 3(2872):23–29
Weber M (1947) The theory of social and economic organization (trans: Henderson AM, Parsons
T). The Free Press, New York
World Economic Forum (2018). Systems initiatives. https://www.weforum.org/system-initiatives/.
Accessed 02 Jan 2018

[email protected]
[email protected]