ASSESSMENT ESSAY 1
“SYSTEMS THINKING ESSENTIALLY SEEKS TO UNDERSTAND PHENOMENA AS A
WHOLE FORMED BY THE INTERACTION OF PARTS.” (STACEY, 2011) CRITICALLY
APPRAISE THE ABOVE STATEMENT IN RELATION TO CHANGING IDEAS OF
STRATEGIC THINKING AND EXPLAIN HOW IT EXISTS WITHIN YOUR COMPANY’S
APPROACH TO STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT.
31-MARCH-2019
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHWALES
Wales, United Kingdom
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 2
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 13
References ................................................................................................................................................ 15
List of Figures
1
Introduction
Strategic thinking has been recognized as an important ingredient for the success of an
organization for a long time now, and yet, there are discrepancies in how it is theorized
and its chief constructs (Dhir et al.,2018). It has been dwelt upon at length and has been
al.,2018). The existing literature has compiled various aspects of strategic thinking;
however, there is lot of overlapping in the way different researchers have defined the
“We are the blind people and strategy formation is our elephant. Each
of us, in trying to cope with the mysteries of the beast, grabs hold of
This essay will critically appraise Stacey (2011) statement on systems thinking. Stacey
whole formed by the interaction of parts. This statement will be appraised in relation to
To fully appraise the statement, the essay will begin by presenting the traditional ideas
of strategy. These will provide a basis for critiquing the statement in relation to the idea
of systems thinking. This will be done through the analysis of approaches to strategy,
do this, the writer will carryout a literature review of the different authors with authority in
the constructs of strategic thinking. The analysis will also be punctuated with examples
2
from the writer’s real-life experiences. These examples will be mainly drawn from the
Before formulating the concept of strategic thinking, a definition of strategy will first be
sought. Roberts and Stockport (2009) define strategy as a plan for the future. From a
multiple actors and the situation practices upon which they draw.
From the two understandings of strategy above, it can be concluded that a good
strategy would require long-term goals and objectives, a thought-out course of action
and resources to execute it (Chandler, 1962). It must also deal with the unknown
(Aluko, 1995) and in so doing it allows for rethinking and recreating new courses of
action and seizing emerging opportunities. These actions must be consequential for the
strategic outcomes, directions, survival and competitive advantage of the firm (Johnson
et al, 2003). Strategic thinking therefore is the act of finding shape or common direction
related to the organisation’s activities and derived from its policies, objectives and goals
Over the ages, strategy development has been presented into two models (Mintzberg
and Waters, 1985; Quinn, 1980). The first is the deliberate model developed from formal
with an analysis of environmental factors. This model has been termed variously by
different authors as linear model (Chaffee, 1985), design and positioning schools
3
(Mintzberg, 1990), classical perspective (Whittington, 2001) and planning synoptic
formal model (Brew and Hunt, 1999). To a large extent, the deliberate model delineates
positioning schools. The design and positioning schools were the dominant views of
strategy formulation between the 1970s and 80s given impetus by authors like Michael
Porter (Mintzberg, 1999). To date, this is the dominant view of strategy formulation for
strategy originates from the NGO owner or through use of consultants. In some
instances, ingredients of the emergent model are to a small extent integrated in the
strategy.
The second one termed emergent model looks at strategy as ever changing based on
new information and opportunities and has been labelled logical incremental (Quinn,
(Brews and Hunt, 1999). This model looks at strategies as being present throughout the
organisation and their formulation and implementation are connected (Mintzberg, 1999).
Embedded within the emergent model are the power, cultural, environmental and
configuration schools.
The power school looks at strategy making rooted in power (Mintzberg, 1999). This
power is both at micro and macro levels. Micro level is based on how actors within an
organisation use their bargaining, persuasion and confrontation skills to give the
Kelly, 2001). The macro level deals with the organisation’s ability to use its power to
influence others in its interest. The cultural school highlights how an organisation uses
4
its culture to position its self above competitors (Mintzberg, 1999). The emergent model
environment both within and out to develop coherent strategies for the organisation’s
survival.
models. The whole process of strategy formulation depends on how the two models are
example, the chaos theory can be viewed as a mixture of learning and environmental
schools (Mintzberg, 1999). This then lends to the idea of a system where actions are
There is wide recognition that systems thinking can help managers and others achieve
(Jacobs, 2004). Systems thinkers have for long incorporated strategy into their works
which would seem as if systems thinking and strategic thinking were one of a kind
(Ackoff, 1970). Indeed Pidd (1996;2004) argues that systems thinking has much to offer
in strategic thinking. Ackoff (1970) also points out that strategic decisions are messes,
thinking in strategy has incorporates ideas ranging from complexity theory seeing
strategy as ‘order out of chaos’ and strategic decision making as complex, involving
different issues and many interacting factors and stakeholders (Aligica, 2005; Broman et
5
Complexity thinking delineates changing ideas of strategic thinking. The theories
systems theory (Kelly, 2001). The theories are not to be applied in isolation or exclusion
of the others. Such deeper awareness allows strategists to coin superior strategies and
The level of effect caused by the decisions and actions of an individual, group or
not equal or uniform but varies with the state of each related individual and system at
the time (Kelly, 2001). This means that the higher the degree of interdependence
action by one entity against the other related entities (Kelly, 2001). Improvements in one
entity may lead to a worsening condition in the others in organisational terms extra
costs. But at the same time, they are capable of adapting and evolving to create new
order and coherence in this unpredictable environment. In other words, they are self-
group or an entire organisation can create coherence. New working ways, structures,
different relationships may be created and with no hierarchies this may enable the
resources around them can save organisational resources while achieving goals and
objectives.
From a personal experience within the NGO world, working with Local Government
officials is hard in situations were one NGO pays them allowances and the others do
either all NGOs agree to pay or not to pay. Any disagreements will cause a great
disturbance in the ecosystem since almost all NGOs require them to implement their
strategy.
Using the Benard cell example as spelt out by Nicolis and Prigogine (1989)
organisations face a lot of constraints which force them to react in various ways. Once
individuals or teams to create coherence. The new order created will mean creation of
new ways of working. These may be sources of innovation if the right choices are made
and appropriate support provided to those entrenching this new form (Kelly, 2001).
Constraints are not necessarily bad because they condition both the individual and
organisation to look for new ways of working to overcome the constraint (Kelly, 2001).
During the credit crunch, funding for NGOs dwindled. All programmes stalled and
decision was made to invest the remaining funds into farm inputs which we would then
loan out to farmers who were beneficiaries on our stalled programmes. The outcome
7
was cordial as we were able to meet our administrative costs in the short-run and
Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) are understood by looking at the system as a whole
irreversible and unpredictable manner (Dooley, 1996). These agents, events and ideas
interact with each other in an unpredictable fashion and it is from this that change
emerges. This change is nonlinear, occurs in unexpected places and their history
cannot be revisited (Dooley, 1996). The connectivity and interdependency of the agents
is a rich bed for emergent creativity and learning. Creativity and learning are manifested
CAS have the adaptive response ability to environmental problems or internal demand
McKelvey and Boisot, 2003). The adaptive responses include counter moves, altered or
new strategies, learning and new knowledge, work-around changes, new allies and new
technologies (Uhi-Bien et al., 2007). Increased complexity will facilitate the ability to
process data (Lewin, 1992), solve problems (Levy, 1992), learn (Carley and Hill, 2001;
At the time our organisation secured funding from the European Union (EU), the
monitoring, evaluation and visibility functions were weak, yet the EU was very sensitive
to them. Capacity was provided but it was evident that we need someone with the skills
8
and knowledge. According to Uhl-Bien et al (2007), certain conditions affect the capacity
of CAS to emerge and function effectively. Uhl-Bein et al (2007) argues that there
should be capacity of agents to interact with each other, the environment and
conditions that force them to operate out of their norm. Such conditions normally lead
them to either degrade into disorder, lose morale, productivity or even create a new
order and organisation (Kelly, 2001). Timely feedback plays an important role in such
the whole. In this perspective, organisations are dynamic and operate in cycles of
conditions, negative feedback may help to stabilize the operating environment. This can
be seen through recourse to old methods that have worked which may include
influencing the behaviour of the organisation (Kelly, 2001). But due to the constantly
changing operating environment, negative feedback may not work. In this instance,
positive feedback which allows for space of creativity and innovation, good skills will
9
From an organisational point of view, regular meetings between teams, sharing of
important emails across the board, autonomy for staff to explore their creativity and
support from superiors are important resources for strategic direction. Within
is given space to share. To enhance creativity and innovation, each programme officer
is encouraged to submit at least two project concepts after every three months. There
are also platforms where we invite our stakeholder for feedback sessions. These
stakeholder feedback sessions are used to enrich potential projects what Beer (1974)
terms participative management. The regular meetings have created cohesion and trust
within the organisation while the concepts are instrumental for the organisation’s
resource mobilization.
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is still the most widely used and practical application
of systems thinking (de Water et al., 2007). SSM allows for analyzing and modeling
hard to define and complex systems that integrate technology (hard) systems and
them with improved understanding and control of change related issues and problems
orderly and systematic style (Checkland, 1999: 11). Users do not presume the pre-
10
SSM concentrates on learning from organisational and contextual uncertainty and
method to group and individual thinking about context, complexity and uncertainty
owners, actors and customers, collaborating with the expert analyst or consultant, in the
1974).
Checkland (1999) recommends assessing of a problem situation through the use rich
pictures and analysis as critically important because problems in SSM are subjective.
This detailed analysis of the problem will enable a clear understanding of the change
needed and the identification of underlying roles, norms and values (Checkland and
Scholes, 1990) with reference to the subjective interpretations and standpoints of those
addressing the problem situation, a root definition using the CATWOE mnemonic will be
formulated (Checkland and Scholes, 1990). For example, a root definition for late
with partners to go through a process of identifying the problems, root causes, and the
envisaged change (what the partner wants to see after implementation) then the
11
All the creativity, learning, goals, objectives, plans and solutions conceptualized through
interaction of agents, entities are not socially relevant if not put in practice. Strategy in
Whittington (2006) proposes three elements of theory of practice that is praxis, practices
and practitioners (see Figure 1), each comprising a different analytic choice and entry
Praxis
Situated,
socially accomplished flows
of activity that strategically are
Strategizing consequential
for the direction and survival of the
group, organization
or industry
B C
Practices Practitioners
Cognitive, behavioural, Actors who shape
procedural, discursive, the construction of practice
motivational and physical
A through who they are,
practices that are combined, how they act and what
coordinated and adapted resources they
to construct practice draw upon
Adopted from: Jarzabkowski, P., J. Balogun & D. Seidl. (2007). ‘Strategizing: The
From figure 1 above, strategizing comprises the nexus between practice, practices and
practitioners (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). Practitioners shape praxis through who they
are, how they act and what resources they draw upon. The identities imposed on
strategists (Beech and Johnson, 2005), their gender (Rouleau, 2003) impacts on how
12
they act, do and respond to others’ actions. The identities brought by strategists to work
places may form basically discrete experiences in the way those actors shape strategy,
which can complement existing knowledge (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007). The spectrum of
the firm level, the actions and influence of middle managers and low-level employees on
strategy is most times unintended but significant for firm survival and competitive
The specific situated practices, which practitioners engage when they are doing strategy
discursive forms combined with how they go about doing it while incorporating their
2007). This shows the importance of connectivity and interdependency. The conduct of
a meeting (Jarzabkowski and Seidl, 2006), the discursive interactions in the meeting
(Samra-Fredericks, 2005) and the way actors convey vested interests and intentions in
the meeting (Vuorela, 2005) for the social achievement of strategy. According to
Jarzabkowski and Seidi (2006), the conduct of a meeting has a baring on how strategic
issues come-up and gain imputes. This shapes the outcome of the meeting together
with shaping the wider accomplishment of the strategic activity over time.
Conclusion
This essay has discussed the systems thinking in relation to the changing ideas of
strategic thinking. It has been observed the there are two approaches to strategic
practice have been discussed. All the theories seem to point to the fact that strategic
thinking should be done in a participatory way, with cohesion, trust with knowledge and
information being freely shared in the system. The practice of strategizing should not be
done in isolation of entities but rather as a whole pointing to the idea of systems
thinking.
14
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1973). ‘Science in the systems age: Beyond IE, OR, and MS’, Journal of
Ashby, W. R. (1960). Design for a brain, (2nd Ed.). New York: Wiley.
Brews, P. J. and M. R. Hunt (1999). ‘Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving
the planning school/learning school debate’, Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp.
889–913.
Checkland, P., Scholes, J., (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley,
Chichester.
London: Routledge.
de Water, H.V., Schinkel, M., Rozier, R., (2007). ‘Fields of application of SSM: A
287.
15
Dhir S., Dhir S., & Samanta P., (2018) ‘Defining and developing a scale to measure
strategic thinking’, Foresight, Vol. 20 Issue: 3, pp. 271-288, Available at: https://doi-
Company.
Jacobs B. (2004) ‘Using Soft Systems Methodology for Performance Improvement and
UK: Sage.
037-March-2006).
Johnson, G., L. Melin, & R. Whittington. (2003). ‘Micro strategy and strategizing:
Kaspary M.C. (2014) ‘Complex Thought and Systems Thinking Connecting Group
Process and Team Management: New Lenses for Social Transformation in the
Workplace’, Systems Research and Behavioural Science Journal, 31, pp. 655-665.
16
Kelly E.M. (2001) ‘The Principles of Complexity and Enabling Infrastructures’ Complex
Levy, S. (1992). Artificial life: The quest for new creation. New York: Random House.
Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Lewin, R. & Regine, B., (2001). Weaving complexity and business: engaging the soul at
Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. (1985), ‘Of strategies, deliberate and emergent’,
Mintzberg, H. (1990). ‘The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Free Press
Freeman.
Some reflections’, Journal of the Operational Research Society 55 (8), pp. 791–800.
17
Quinn, J. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
everyday efforts to shape strategic direction’, Journal of Management Studies, 40: pp.
141–174.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). ‘Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era’, The Leadership Quarterly,
18