WEEK 2 (Discussion)—Systems WHAT?
DISCUSSION: SYSTEMS WHAT?
Last week, you read Vinten (1992) and Fitzgerald (1999). This week, complete your readings on systems theory with Skaržauskienė (2010)* and Styhre (2002) in Course Materials. In addition, please read the four one-page handouts on systems theory and associated concepts posted in the same location.
*When citing Skaržauskienė (2010) in text, make sure to figure out how to retain the diacritical marks; otherwise, you will misspell her name. In the 21st century, we can no longer blithely ignore diacritical marks in writing!
Relevance to Quality Management
How does systems theory relate to quality management? Most people point to the interactivity of organizational processes to answer this question. Every process in an organization will ultimately affect every other process. Similarly, no one in an organization can act in isolation. Everyone in a self-organizing system works under a constant barrage of sensory inputs from events, people, and information from all around.
Those relentless inputs overwhelmingly affect the unconscious thinking, decisions, and behavior of every individual who is trying to function within the system. In this sense, the emergence and structuration of an organization are natural, rather than being the predictable results of planners’ intentions, despite the organization’s admittedly rational purpose. Organizations are nonrational, self-reinforcing, sociopsychological structures.
In addition to the human side of organizations, however, the paradigm of self-organizing systems provides insights into the sources of value creation in organizations. The highly abstract concepts of dynamic morphology, dynamic homeostasis, and nonlinearity, in particular, reveal some of the deeper ways in which scientifically construed systems dynamics produce value.
Additional ways of seeing inside the invisible infrastructure of organizations result from making an effort to apply systems thinking to understand them. The systems thinker begins by striving to visualize the organization as an open system. The systems thinker tries to perceive the common characteristics of self-organizing systems within the organization in practical ways. The systems thinker tries to suppress the temptation to interpret actions and events using mechanistic logic. These efforts typically result in an epiphany at some point in the person’s experience, whereupon all of systems theory and systems thinking suddenly makes sense simultaneously.
Select a Question to Answer
For this commentary, select one of the following dynamics from the paradigm of self-organizing systems (items 1–4) or perceptual biases from systems thinking (items 5–8). Explain the reference in your own words. This effort may require some creativity, as the ideas are sufficiently abstract to challenge ordinary thinking. Then identify an example of the selected phenomenon from your own experience as part of a team or organization, and try to explain how the experience at issue qualifies as an example of the identified phenomenon.
The aim of this exercise is to motivate energetic thinking rather than to test whether you seem to have correctly understood the selected concept. Multiple perspectives are available in answer to each of them. Therefore, be as creative as possible while nevertheless formalizing your writing to meet the rhetorical expectations explained in the syllabus.
#1. Butterfly effect.
#2. Fractality.
#3. Equifinality.
#4. Nonlinearity.
#5. Synthetic thinking.
#6. Expansionist thinking.
#7. Teleological thinking.
#8. Contextual thinking.
———————————————————
Instructions
Please treat this task as an essay rather than an informal discussion. That is, write correctly and formally (cf. the syllabus). Proofread your work by reading it again and making changes before posting it.
Clearly indicate your selected item first, by indicating the number. Write at least 300 words (as defined in the syllabus). Your concept may demand more detail than that short length allows. Then reply to the commentaries of at least two other students. For each reply, write at least two complete sentences that add value to the participant’s main commentary, through addition, correction, or novel interpretation.
Cite at least three sources in your answer: (a) the textbook; and (b) two scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles that meet the restrictive criteria in the syllabus. Your commentary should reflect the care and seriousness of a formal essay. APA style note:
Cite in proper APA style (Summers, 2018). Attend to every detail in formatting in-text citations and the references at the end. Please be sure to “quote and cite correctly” (Summers, 2018, p. 72). Note the positioning of the quotation marks and the inclusion of the page number to support the quote.
Further tips:
Never begin a commentary with a quoted passage, and never write a quoted passage in place of your own thoughts. When you make a point, explain your reasoning rather than merely advancing an assertion. If you happen to agree with a prior respondent to the same item, offer a unique rationale rather than repeating that prior explanation.
Add a reference section, called References—as a section header in normal (non-bold) font, after your commentary to list your sources. In citing, be sure to include the doi-number (see syllabus), but exclude the database URL. The citation formatting provided automatically by ProQuest and EBSCOhost is wrong.
Be sure to read what others have written. Scrutinize formatting, style, and mechanics at all times. Proofread your work by rereading it in search of errors or lack of clarity.
As a matter of style and evidence of genuine thinking, please avoid the following conventions:
Contractions; slashes; colloquialisms; the use of quotation marks merely for emphasis or to justify inserting jargon or imprecise phraseology; the insertion of quotes from online sources (they are often wrong anyway); the inane use of encyclopedias, dictionaries, or authorless sources; and the inessential use of news or blog sources. These tactics cause you to think less, which is contrary to the aim of these discussions.
Remember that this discussion forum is mandatory. After posting your main commentary, read the main commentaries of at least two other course participants, and post a substantive reply to each one, as described in the syllabus, for full credit.
Your main commentary is due Sunday night. Your two replies are due the following Tuesday night (i.e., two additional days, to allow time for everyone to post a commentary). This deadline pattern will remain the same throughout the course.
To amend your main commentary (before the deadline), type “AMENDED SUBMISSION” at the top of the new version.
Lastly, here is how your reference section should look in a discussion commentary:
References
Fitzgerald, L. A. (1999). Why there’s nothing wrong with systems thinking a little chaos won’t fix? A critique of modern systems theory and the practice of organizational change it informs. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(3), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022443516414
Skaržauskienė, A. (2010). Managing complexity: Systems thinking as a catalyst of the organization performance [sic]. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(4), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041011093758
Styhre, A. (2002). Non-linear change in organizations: Organization change management informed by complexity theory. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(5/6), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210441300
Summers, D. C. S. (2018). Quality (6th ed.). Pearson.
Vinten, G. (1992). Thriving on chaos: The route to management survival. Management Decision, 30(8), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749210022168
