Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Module detail
Submitted by:
Mbakwe Julian
R1512D1165523
28/10/2018
1
Introduction
they may be seen as different entities, they are the application of cognitive principles to
organization” Jofre (2011). Better set as act of cognitive perception, leveraging the
strategic organizations in problem solving processes. While perception builds from the
thought process while developing the best approach to strategy development, the best
strategic approach and thinking process allows strategic leaders to have the best
Consequently this essay tries to access Stacey (2011)’s declaration that “systems
interaction of parts”. Systems thinking creates the best imagery for a systems in
Approaches of systems thinking has seen the rise of various component or deriving
concepts including soft systems thinking, complexity thinking and Adaptive systems of
McMaster, 1996).
To better understand the implications of system thinking approach, this essay will build
from Mingers & white, (2010)’s, highlights on core ideas of systems thinking,
1
3. People oriented and variable view tendency (further posited by Pidd (2009) in
defining strategic mess)
4. A hierarchical system levelling
Holistically, this paper aims to evaluate the way business (systems) are perceived in a
To accomplish this objective the essay takes an archival review method to develop
Earlier applications of concepts taking the systems approach had been acknowledged
by von Bertalanffy (1950) in a theory posited as general systems theory (GST) though
biological basis. This theory had the solutions to the limitations of traditional
approaches, which were more mechanistic. Systems approach provided a rationale for
rejecting “principles” based on traditional “closed-systems” thinking which was seen new
In the first place, the aim of systems theory can be seen in systematically
(purpose, measure, methods, tools, etc.) “That can be discerned and applied to systems
at every level of nesting, and in every field for achieving optimized equifinality”. Beven
(2006).
Although majority of the pioneers had their application in physical science applications,
fields of organization and management theory had its early taste of systems theory.
2
Barnard (1938) in defining cooperative systems states views it as a complex of
components that are in specific systematic relationship. Just like Stacey’s declaration,
Barnard had explained that such systems could be clearly a subordinate unit of bigger
systems taking from one perspective and comprising of subsidiary systems from other
perspective. Thus developing that "Cooperation of two or more persons," can be seen
approach) by Katz & Kahn (1966) warned on a potential fallacy in trying to make a
similar analogy as typical organisms thus making an easy attribution but Silverman
Fremont & James (2017); however makes a strong clarification to Katz & Hahn (1966)
and Silverman (1971) argument while relating to a similar analogy by Ackoff (1994) on
“system” nature of the automobile system. Fremont & James (2017); leveraged on
Ackoff (1971)’s notion that social organizations consists of elements with purpose and
This though creates a distinction between the “biological/physical system” that were the
3
be carried away from the core values systems thinking has afforded which had yielded
concepts like Adaptive systems. Fremont & James(2017); lists of feedback concepts,
social systems which may develop activities and adaptations on its own Fremont &
James(2017)
with similarity with cybernetics takes a path of seeing businesses and organizations as
the identity of the organization, management can as well be seen as identity sub-system
of the organization,
Many characteristics and concepts of systems with wide and earlier acceptance include
systems, information and control. Fremont & James (2017); Mingers & white, (2010)
4
Strategy and Today’s environment
works, in the sense that configuration in this context can be substituted for synthesis.
fosters strategy identification Casey and Goldman (2010) with the purpose of
discovering novel, imaginative strategies, re-write competitive game rules and to predict
A strategic thinking process must be of some attribute Liedtka (1998; 2006) established
the process must be “system” oriented, must be of purpose and intent, must be open to
explore not only incumbent strategies but as well emergent strategies, must have a full
considerations of past, present and future without isolating any and lastly must be ready
Mintzberg et al (1998) did a great work classifying a group of theory and practices in
5
Minztberg & waters (1985); Quinn(198) in another work detailed by Jarratt & Stile (2010)
Alternative an emergent model that take as incremental strategy in the face of changing
and emerging factors Jarratt & Stile (2010). This model is characterized to be Adaptive
Each of these 10 schools has its unique attributes, for example the positioning approach
traditionally signaled by Sun Tsu has been consistently applied Apple and Rolls Royce
taking the high end strategy/niche in business. Culture is typical of Coca Cola and lot of
top FMCG firms. Well, Design approach has been the basis of most manufacturing firms
like ford and notable TRANOS (my employer). Though the design approach is
characterized by its classical nature, its application of analytical tools has been widely
criticized. To sum it up, a contingency approach would be the best, since systems are
This establishment thus emphasizes on the process of strategy a term often used as
Strategy as a process.
6
Fig.1 Classifitiation of the 10 schools of thought .Jofre (2011)
7
A simple view of strategic process captured as a measure of analyzing, formulating and
figure 1.
In evaluating Jofre (2011) proposal to analyze both internal and external environments;
approach has seen analysis tools like SWOT, PEST and comparator analysis.
These tools as well as other traditional tools has faced a lot of criticism amidst their
most importantly structured for analysis Gunn & Williams (2007). Firstly (Bharadwaj,
Clark and Kulviwat, 2005, p. 353;Burt et al., 2006; Levy, 2000; Pickton and Wright,1998)
as enlightened by Jarrett & Stiles (2010). view them as over simplified, lacking
explanatory and predictive values. Again Calori (1998) calls them biased and lacking
Works on strategy is dated as far as the 6th Century BC, with Sun Tsu’s work; “―The
Art of War (孫子兵法 or Sun Zi Bing Fa) which became a base for Asian military strategy
Jofre (2011). His work which highlighted the importance of positioning in strategy
however had been a motivation not only to the military world but as well foe strategists
and mangers. He remarks that the significance of Sun Tsu’s work was his though of
strategy not as a detailed plan of action but rather “a fast and appropriate response to
8
changing conditions”. Tsu established a clear argument suggesting that “planning”
works only for stable environment. Jofre (2011) then make what would be considered a
vital remark declaring that sticking to the plan would only result to unforeseen conflicts
in changing condition.
to even better understand the system, thus take the right approach on strategy, practice
Gintis (2006) in reviewing Eric Beinhocker’s “The origin of wealth” clearly makes a good
picture of the real world; “non-equilibrium”, “evolutionary dynamic” need for “imitation
more. Gintis (2006). Critical evaluation of Neo-classical approach which places a simple
and linear relationship between input and output of systems. Similar theories are seen
in game theory and equilibrium theory. These theories have gone outdated mostly for
lack of development and new insights contextual application thus failing in the dynamics
Another classical approach; the Game theory was unable to explain the need for a
mixed strategy ton one game so as equilibrium theory’s attempt to isolate the dynamics
of systems leading Franklin fisher(1983) and (Saari 1985,1995) to conclude it has little
9
Theories of systems holds that an organization is a system of with inter-relating
resources (people, information and lots more) geared towards achieving setout goals
Reisman and Oral (1979). Supported by the people oriented approach of systems
thinking, it’s thus established the significance of people in businesses of today. Pidd
termed a “Mess” which some worth aligns with some basics of game theory. A system
of problems involving multiple stakeholders, all holding unique views of what is both
feasible and desirable. Checkland (1999)’s proposal of soft systems method deals partly
The entirety of the way businesses (systems) are perceived as encompassed by what
strategic decisions. The process enables best systems comprehension thus better
analysis. Leaning to the cores of systems thinking partly suggested by Mingers & White
(2010), the best strategies need be holistic in viewing situations, recognize the
interaction of components of its system, respect the level of hierarchy and never forget
as Barnard (1938) views that "organization” “Cooperation of two or more persons," thus
The quality of the drivers of these strategies becomes of critical importance, otherwise
the theories and approaches becomes mere ideologies. Considering the typical
“strategic discontinuities” Hitt et al. (1998) business leaders need to be all the strategic
they need be. Therefore it would only take a strategic leader to take on typical
turbulence and uncertainties that what rule a business day and be able to excel with
10
better competition. The latter part of this essay will take on the ways/approaches that
Simon et al (2017).
Breen (2007) and Hitt et al (2010) puts up a call for the most “transformational &
charismatic leader” as a strategy who would build on social capital, attract and motivate
Stacey herself aligns with Levy(1994) to demand for better measure for addressing
today’s mark, though more like a warning hinting “unpredictability” and possibilities of
sudden dramatic.
These revelations from the true nature of systems gave rise to the Complexity theory
which rose to tackle the deficiencies of traditional approaches which perceived systems
11
disequilibrium, sudden change and simple models behaving in complex ways. Lewin
(1992); Mainzer(1997).
Certainty inherently became the factor for organizations. Similar to complexity, Chaos
meaning their future behaviors are entirely dependent on their initial conditions, with no
Systems were viewed as 'Chaos'; an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the
However, how does one compete better in these situations or rather complex
better posited by Schumpeter (1934) leverage firms in the face of the dynamics today’s
market. Eve (2000) supports same calling on organizations to reduce cost of “constant
imposed” restructuring that would arise in trying to constantly tackle the changing
line.
Adapting a system is per say a means of tackling the complex nature of systems in real
12
Work place had adopted measures like “continuous learning” as a culture. Little wonder
This has checked on new and better ways of doing things leaner and effectively.
a big step towards an adaptive system, TRANOS (work place) had learnt and adopted
concepts of 5S (gradually more efficient day by day), TWI, Lean manufacturing, 6-sigma
process.
13
Conclusion
Strategists have and will continue to be faced with challenges of irregular structure,
leveraging with an intuitive “sense of situation”, making them flexible, and adapting their
actions and decisions accordingly. Fremont & James(2017); . As with the systems
approach to strategic management, the sense of situation remains the core element of
systems analysis. Seeing all issues as a system and keeping in mind all constituting
The process of strategic thinking taking a systems approach extensively guides its
employers through the nature complexity of the systems they may have dentified and
However, strategist should avoid what Ackoff (2006) called fait accompli;the inability to
pass through mistakes and not learn. This is the best way to be emergent and adaptive
in systems approach.
14
References
1. Ackoff R. (1971). “Towards a system of systems concept” management science
(July 1971).
www.youtube.com.
Applications, New York: George Braziller, revised edition 1976: ISBN 0-8076-
0453-4
320(1), 18-36.
7. Bharadwaj, S., T. Clark and S. Kulviwat (2005). ‘Marketing, market growth, and
endogenous growth theory: an inquiry into the causes of market growth’, Journal
8. Boeing (2015). "Chaos Theory and the Logistic Map". Retrieved 2015-07-16.
http://www.fastcompany.com.
15
11. Casey A and Goldman E. (2010). Enhancing the Ability to Think Strategically: A
14. Eric, D. B (2006). “The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical
http://appli6.hec.fr/amo/Public/Files/Docs/101_en.pdf
on: http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/ecid/EMK_The_Principles_of_Complexity.pdf
16. Fremont, K. & James, R. (2017); General systems theory: Applications for
https://www.semanticscholar.org 10/27/2018
usw.unicaf.org/course/view.php?id=712#section-3
18. Gunn, R. and W. Williams (2007). ‘Strategic tools: an empirical investigation into
Planning, 31(3):481-487
16
20. Hitt, A, Haynes, K. & Serpa, R. (2010). Strategic leadership for the 21st century.
Executive digest. Business Horizons (2010) 53, 437—444. Available online at:
www.sciencedirect.com.
21. Jarrett, D. & Stiles D. (2010). “How are Methodologies and Tools Framing
22. Jofre, S. (2011). Strategic Management: The theory and practice of strategy in
2011, No. 1.
23. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring Corporate Strategy
24. Katz, D &. Kahn, R. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York:
26. Levy, D. (1994). Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory, Application, and
27. Liedka, J. (2006). Strategy Formulation: The Roles of Conversation and Design.
Chapter 3 in: Hitt M, Freeman E and Harrison J (Eds). 2006 Edition. The
17
28. McMaster, M. (1996). The Intelligence Advantage: Organizing for Complexity.
Butterworth
29. Mingers, J. & White L (2010). “A review of the recent contribution of systems
www.elsevier.com
30. Peter, A. and Bruce, C. (2004) “Management from the perspective of systems
31. Pidd, M. (2009). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, 3rd
https://www.semanticscholar.org
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle (Oxford: Oxford
35. Silverman, D (1971). The Theory of Organizations (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1971).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
18