See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281625373

New Paradigm of Systems Thinking

Article · September 2013

CITATIONS READS

9 1,586

1 author:

Dr. Bernard Charles Henry

Pace University
18 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

http://journals.csadeals.com/ View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Bernard Charles Henry on 09 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VOL. 2, NO. 5, August 2013 ISSN 2307-2466
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management
©2013. All rights reserved.

http://www.ejournalofbusiness.org

New Paradigm of Systems Thinking

B. Charles Henry
Adjunct Faculty, University College of the Caribbean, Kingston Jamaica
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Accepting new paradigms are important to advancing scientific knowledge. Over the history of humanity, discoveries
have been made because of the availability of new facts that would be either previously impossible or improbable for
multiple reasons. However, whenever one contextualizes the importance of leadership within the contemporary period of
existence, one would find it difficult to diminish its contribution. Leadership makes or breaks organizations. Therefore,
every facets of leadership should be scrutinized carefully; styles, types, reasons, and rewards, so that effective leadership
can be appropriately placed and applied. Such broad perspectives may require further assistance because of missing links
or incomprehensible relationships. If such is the case, one may be required to broaden one’s horizon by examining
existing facts in new ways. The foregoing is a scrutiny of the broader perspectives of paradigms and situating leadership
appropriately within that massive scientific discourse.

Keywords: Philosophy, leadership, transformational leadership, paradigms, scientific revolution, contemporary

leadership, systems thinking, leadership skills

1. INTRODUCTION systems thinking dynamics necessary to meet the existing

The concept of paradigm introduced by Thomas challenges are thus imperative to modern organizational
S. Kuhn in his seminal work the structure of scientific success. The path to business success is riddled with
revolutions [7] gave substantial meaning to changing and uncertainties and turbulence [13] and therefore, leaders
transitioning moments of scientific knowledge. Kuhn [7] have an obligation to seek ways that engender business
posited that normal science tend to gather knowledge in intelligence that creates values beyond competitors that
particular schools of thoughts and often reject basic deliberately advance business performance. Systems
innovations because they may act contrary to proven or thinking are not the first choice of individuals because
acceptable allegiance or loyalty. Kuhn [7] opined that humans want the easiest and quickest resolution.
such suppression of scientific discoveries cannot be However, Systems thinking reduce uncertainties and
sustained however because sooner than later the novelty establish clear performance indicators [13].
will rise to the fore. Kuhn [7] proffered that this process
of accepting new discoveries is a scientific revolution in Whereas “a system is created when two or more
creating new paradigms or ways of thinking and doing. components interact” [16, p. 271], a thinking is “a
conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning,
The context above is a framework for which I remembering experiences, [and] making rational
will endeavor to establish my new paradigm of systems decision[s]” [16. p. 272]. Systems thinking are therefore
thinking called leadership paradigm by transitioning concerted efforts at understanding how parts by
through the process of scientific revolutions as knowledge themselves are fundamentally worthless until they are
advance from one paradigm to another. I therefore interconnected and assembled for functionality. For
propose that leadership paradigm is a narrow focus taken example, the parts of a car are worthless as isolated pieces
from the broader perspectives of Kuhn’s paradigm whereas when joined together they provide substantial
transitioning into contemporary paradigm then to functionality [16]. Systems thinking incorporate
transformational paradigm and finally, into leadership interrelated people and machine interacting in consistent
paradigm, with each of the paradigm having its own and pre-determined ways [16].
scientific revolution within its given domain.
3. SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
2. SYSTEMS THINKING According to Kuhn [7], science advance by
Systems thinking in not a novel idea. The alternating between “normal” and “revolutionary” phases.
ancient Mayans, for example, used system thinking to The author opined that when a revolutionary phase
establish their system of calendars [10]. Tun focused on occurs, it does not necessarily imply that there is radical
the evolution of consciousness, Tzolkin addressed and accelerated progress; instead it simply means a
months, religious, and ceremonious occurrence, and Haab qualitative difference between itself and normal science.
determine taxes [10]. The Mayans use system thinking Whereas normal science accumulates over time,
hierarchically whereas modern philosophies of systems revolutionary science revise existing scientific ways of
thinking recognize complex interconnectedness and doing and believing [7]. Kuhn [7] noted that both normal
interrelatedness [10]. The need for systems thinking is and revolutionary science progress although not
therefore more relevant in contemporary times than it was necessarily cumulatively. Therefore, the imperative for
previously. System thinking is a preferred choice for this paper, as Kuhn explains, is not so much about the
fierce competitors, especially within the context of distinction between contexts of discovery and
prevailing economic instability and flux [13]. The

351
 VOL. 2, NO. 5, August 2013 ISSN 2307-2466
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management
©2013. All rights reserved.

http://www.ejournalofbusiness.org
justification, instead it’s about the divergence between the relationship between systems thinking and paradigms
standard picture and the context of justification. pertinent to professional development. The authors
reasoned that while one may advance systems theory to
Contemporary paradigm for example, is a comprehend the contemporary changes occurring in
transitioning of paradigms from classical to neo-classical organizations, one must also recognize that such
to contemporary. Docherty, Surles, and Donovan [6] transformation, modification, or transition has an
argued that the classical model with its machine metaphor interconnected relationship within an historical context
focused on mass production and therefore its hierarchy of and what prevails presently. Gilbert and Davis [9]
authority is centered at the top because individuals were proffered that individuals advancing their professional
never a focus under such paradigm. Docherty et al., [6] development may want to consider the interrelationship
noted that there is a narrow span of control with this between systems thinking and paradigms to understand
paradigm. and appreciate the changes occurring so that they can
pursue appropriate responses.
Transitioning continued with an attempt to refine
contemporary paradigm or to correct its flaws that were Likewise, Yolles [18] posited that the link
inconsistent with modern organizations but are inherent to between systems thinking and paradigms should equip
the paradigm. Neo-classical paradigm was the response. individuals for effective coordination because in
Asopa and Beye [2] noted that neo-classical theory is understanding the relationship they bear, efficient
informal, recognizing individuals’ uniqueness and group methodologies can be adapted for successful, productive,
synergies. Individuals became the center of focus under and adequate response. To this end, Yolles [18] noted
neo-classical theory [6]. that the process used to model our concept or idea must be
viewed within the perspective of paradigms. However,
The culminating contemporary theory is the most Yolles [18] opined that the process is best served when
revolutionary along the transitioning line [6] of done with order. In conducting his research for his PhD,
organizational theory and practice. Docherty et al., [6] Sterling [15] reasoned that systems thinking is an ideal
opined that in comparison to the foregoing two platform for understanding and executing paradigm
paradigms, contemporary paradigm examines a number of change in education. He argued that when one
issues that have arisen in the previous paradigms such as appreciates the relationship between the two,
division of labor, human factors, and the effect of sustainability is more likely to materialize. Sterling [15]
information and communications technology (ICT) on stated that such relationship creates a positive difference
organizational theory. that may often be transformational. Note however, that
none of these or other research examines the issue under
Scott and Davis [12] approximate the arguments scrutiny within the context presented. This author could
of the previous writers by advancing their rational, find no research that critically considers the arguments
natural, and open systems perspectives. The authors advanced herein for their linear connection to creating a
reasoned that individuals and groups might influence perspective that strengthens and encourages a new
organizations in different ways. Scott and Davis [12] approach to leadership.
opined that the organization is subjected to the influence
of power and statues and therefore personality and 5. LEADERSHIP SKILLS
performance may be affected. The authors posited that Having a grasp of the organizational climate in
this sociological impingement weighs heavily on which one is operating, the next step is to appropriately
communication, decision-making, and socialization. An match the knowledge and skill-sets necessary to run a
understanding of their combined effect upon successful business. It is therefore incumbent upon
organizational practice is therefore essential to the leaders to have an understanding of their leadership roles
contemporary manager. However, other conditionality and responsibilities. Leadership is itself a scientific
and circumstances affect contemporary management and revolution evolving from born leaders according to the
decision-making such as the leadership skills required to great man theory to transformational leaders [17] and a
match organizational theories within a given situatedness plethora of styles in between. Leadership transitioned
of people, machines, and the prevailing environment. I from born leaders to leaders having special characteristics
will address some of these issues in the proceeding called traits. Traits are unique and distinguishing features
paragraphs. that are lacking in followers [17]. The evolution
continued with the recognition that certain environmental
4. MERGING SYSTEMS THINKING & factors are important to leaders when making decisions.
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS These Situational factors “pays special attention to
Although by themselves, both systems thinking contextual factors: the nature of the work performed by
and Kuhn’s scientific revolution is well established, not the leader’s unit, the individual characteristics of the
much attempt has been made to view the benefits of both followers, or the nature of the external environment” [5].
approaches strictly from an evolutionary process through
the various stages of development that may culminate in Building upon situational leadership, Fred
an effective and pragmatic leadership perspective. Fielder posited that although it is important to note the
Gilbert and Davis [9] for example, examined the situational circumstances a leader faced, those situations

352
 VOL. 2, NO. 5, August 2013 ISSN 2307-2466
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management
©2013. All rights reserved.

http://www.ejournalofbusiness.org
are highly influenced by the state of being or prevailing 7. LEADERSHIP SYSTEMS THINKING
facts, the degree or accuracy of advanced knowledge, and PARADIGN MODEL
the power or influence the leader brings to the situation As Figure 1 above shows, the broadest
[17]. These new acknowledgements gave rise to perspective of understanding scientific revolutions is
contingency leadership. Kuhn’s paradigm theory. This level of the model “Kuhn’s
Paradigm” has the dullest line because environmental
Burns, more concerned with distinguishing factors are not as limiting for transitioning forward and
leaders from managers proposed that leaders and for adhering to a specific scientific paradigm. At this
followers achieve their objectives when there is mutual level of thinking, the objective is to recognize “normal”
respect and cooperation between them [4] in his seminal and “revolutionary” in the context of scientific
work on the transforming leader. In adjusting the term transformation. Here, general systems thinking
“transforming” to transactional, and by extension, predominate. General systems thinking or GST is an
slightly changing its meaning, Laohavichien, Fredendall, attempt at understanding cross-disciplinary functionality.
and Cantrell [8] noted that transactional leader “produce However, GST is limiting in its abilities to discern the
incremental change” [8, p. 8]. complexities of either concepts or methodologies within
the prevailing heterogeneous, multifarious, and elaborate
These leadership paradigms however reached realities of modern business operations [19]. GST focuses
their pinnacle when Baas introduced the concept of the too extensively on internal relations [16]. Therefore, there
transformational leader. Laohavichien et al., [8] opined exists a need to shift focus to applied systems thinking,
that the transformational leader is essential for creating for example, system engineering or operation research.
“radical change” [8, p. 8]. The transformational leader is
a requirement for contemporary management because The next level “Contemporary Paradigm” brings
such a leader produces “entrepreneurial champions, Kuhn’s theory of paradigms into focus, limiting the area
organizational champions, and champions of radical of discovery to a specific field or discipline. One would
military innovations” [17]. Transformational leadership is therefore notice an increase in the sharpness of the line
therefore a necessary tool to engage followers in over the level at Kuhn’s Paradigm. At this second level,
analyzing, interpreting, deciding, and taking actions in decisions are specific to a particular discipline but broad
these modern and post-modern times. enough to encourage and appreciate divergent
perspectives within the domain of focus. At this second
6. LEADERSHIP PARADIGM rung of the hypothetical elliptical ladder, applied systems
The preceding paragraphs clearly identify and thinking emerge from GST. Although applied systems
outline the necessity for contemporary leaders to thinking address the complexities of engineering and
understand the multiple paradigms of contemporary times technology within the contemporary sphere, it remains
and to fuse the knowledge and skill-sets gleaned from primarily hard systems thinking or HST [19]. It is
these multiple perspectives if leadership is to be miraculous in its mission, such as putting humans on the
successful within an environment of constant change. A moon. However, it lacks the ability to address diverse
leader understanding the concept of paradigms as issues and activities as they occur, “especially the
proffered by Kuhn, meandering through and extracting the difference and conflicts of worldviews and values within
necessary characteristics of scientific revolutions that human organization” [19, p. 142].
occurred in organizational theories, and comprehending
the historical and contextual contributions of modern and The third level of the model takes into account
post-modern management principles will equip himself or that having understood organizational theory from the
herself to approach leadership in a comprehensive way second level there is a need to match organizational
that will render success in decisions and actions. My theory with an appropriate leadership model. One can
leadership paradigm model is illustrated below. observe this strengthening of the model toward strong
leadership as one notice the increased boldness of the line
as one proceed toward the center of the model. At this
level “Transformational Paradigm,” management
principles become essential to decisions and actions as
both the internal and external environment increase in
focus. At the transformational paradigm level, decision-
making is hinged on the organization’s strategic fit and
purpose for organizational existence and performance.
The transformational paradigm level shifts from HST to
soft systems thinking or SST. At this stage within the
elliptic, the subjective epistemological concepts emerge
subjectively from stakeholders instead of from objective
world entities [19]. It regards the inquiry nature of the
Fig 1: Leadership Systems Thinking Paradigm Model contemporary world for establishing and exercising
objectives and outcome.

353
 VOL. 2, NO. 5, August 2013 ISSN 2307-2466
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management
©2013. All rights reserved.

http://www.ejournalofbusiness.org
The model culminates at the center where the leaders of such enterprises for effective management and
“Leadership Paradigm” takes over to lead, manage, and control. To this end, a systems thinking methodology
control decisions, performance, and output that meet engages leaders and managers to combine skill-sets and
organizations expectations. Here, leaders assume their understanding of a complex and unpredictable
responsibilities to manage contemporary enterprises in a environment [14]. Systems thinking paradigm is
changing world influenced by the strong presence of competency based and need alignment with leadership
technology coexisting with humans and co-constituting paradigm for effective performance within the prevailing
the means and ends to productive endeavors. The line situatedness of business flux and instability.
signifying organizational boundaries is strongest and most
pronounced at this level. Although SST advances from 10. CONCLUSION
the applied to the social, the relationship along the totem As the model above portrays, an understanding
pole is somewhat limiting. HST is akin to functionalism of the broad perspectives of multiple disciplines will
because of its positivist influence and SST is equip leaders to make more relevant and timely decision
consanguineous to phenomenology because of its suitable for the prevailing circumstances within the given
interpretative perspective [19]. At the “leadership situatedness of leaders, managers, workers, and other
paradigm” stage, advancement is necessary for stakeholders. Leaders who grasped the respective
effectiveness. A two-paired system therefore prevails at organizational theories and who equally comprehend the
this level. The human active system and the learning various leadership paradigms and management roles will
system predominate at this stage. Whereas the human likely make appropriate decisions that will allow their
active system focuses on issues of the real world, the organizations to operate as successful going concerns.
learning system recognizes that experiences of the real
world contribute considerably to knowledge acquisition Equally, businesses operating successfully will
and manipulation [19]. Self-consciousness is thus contribute to their environment, will build the life of their
pertinent to legitimating actions at this level of the model employees, owners, and stakeholders, and will help to
[19]. develop their local and global economies. A full
comprehension of both organizational and leadership
8. ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS paradigms are therefore essential for contemporary
According to Argandona [1], a leader’s action leaders as they face the challenges of an ever changing
should incorporate three fundamental criteria (1) environment and as they grapple with the need to survive.
competence, (2) necessity, and (3) coherency and
reliability. These characteristics are important to making REFERENCES
effective ethical decisions. Lacking abilities in any of [1] Argandona, A. (2008, March). Integrating ethics
these three areas can prove devastating to organizations. into action theory and organizational theory.
Nekoranec [11] opined that it was because of deficiencies Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 435-446. doi:
in ethical principles that the recent financial crisis 10.1007/s10551-006-9340-x
occurred. “Ethics is not a management tool, but a
criterion for evaluating reality” [1, p. 439]. Therefore, if [2] Asopa, V. N., & Beye, G. (1997). Management of
leaders were more ethical in their actions and behavior, agricultural research: A training manual. Module 3:
the financial crisis may have been averted. Organizational principles and design.
Transformational leaders are suitably qualified for such http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7503E/W7503E00.ht
transition because of their honesty, frankness, and m
timeliness in bringing stakeholders together and for their
outlook in advancing organizations. [3] Baltzan, P., & Phillips, A. (2009). Essentials of
business driven information systems. New York,
9. PARADIGM PERSPECTIVE N.Y.: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Baltzan and Phillips [3] proffered that
contemporary organizations need bold radical and [4] Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., &
disruptive decisions to achieve their strategic objectives. Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory
Such examples can be seen in Amazon.com and eBay’s and competency frameworks.
approach to fusing technology and personnel for http://www.leadership-
achieving competitive advantage in the marketplace. The studies.com/documents/mgmt_standards.pdf
approaches of these organizations have changed the very
nature of businesses within the book industry and the [5] Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership:
auctioning industry respectively. A similar understanding Getting below the surface (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
aided by the diagram above engenders the River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
phenomenological consequence, especially of information
and communications technology and its relationship on [6] Docherty, J. P., Surles, R. C., & Donovan, C. M.
contemporary business demands and practices. This (n.d). Organizational theory.
perspective is therefore relevant to modern organizations http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/pi/ppf/Docherty.
operating in a climate of constant change and to the pdf

354
 VOL. 2, NO. 5, August 2013 ISSN 2307-2466
International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management
©2013. All rights reserved.

http://www.ejournalofbusiness.org
[7] Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific [15] Sterling, S. (2003). Whole systems thinking as a
revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of basis for paradigm change in education:
Chicago Press. Explorations in the context of sustainability
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Bath.
[8] Laohavichien, T., Fredendall, L. D., & Cantrell, R.
S. (2009). The effect of transformational and [16] Waldman, J.D. (2007, May). Thinking systems
transactional leadership on quality improvement. need systems thinking. Systems Research &
The Quality Management Journal, 16(2), 7-24. Behavioral Science, 24(3), 271-284, doi:
10.1002/sres.828
[9] Lawrence, G., & Davis, B. (2006, Spring). Systems
thinking: A paradigm for professional [17] Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader’s companion:
development. The International Journal of Modern Insight on leadership through the ages. New York,
Engineering, 6(2), 1-9. N.Y.: The Free Press.

[10] Lazanski, T. J. (2010, November 24). Systems [18] Yolles, M. I. (1996). Critical systems thinking,
thinking: Ancient Maya’s evolution of paradigms, and the modeling space. Systems
consciousness and contemporary systems thinking. Practice, 9(6), 549-570. doi:10.1007/BF02169213
AIP Conference Proceedings, 1303(1), 289-296.
doi: 10.1063/1.3527166 [19] Zexian, Y., & Xuhui, Y. (2010, March/April). A
revolution in the field of systems thinking – a
[11] Nekoranec, W. (2009, Spring). Ethical leadership review of Checkland’s system thinking. Systems
and OD practice. OD Practitioner, 41(2), 2-7. Research & Behavioral Science, 27(2), 140-155,
doi: 10.1002/sres.1021
[12] Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations
and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system AUTHOR PROFILE
perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson X. B. Charles Henry received his Masters
Prentice Hall. degree in Management Information Systems from the
University of the West Indies in 2003. He is currently
[13] Seiler, J. H., & Kowalsky, M. (2011, March). pursuing his doctoral studies with University of Phoenix
Systems thinking evidence from colleges of in Organizational Leadership with specialization in
business and their universities. American Journal Information Systems and Technology. He is dedicated to
of Business Education, 4(3), 55-61. conducting research and have many publications in
multiple international peer reviewed journals. He is the
[14] Skarzauskiene, A. (2009). Systems thinking as a information technology manager for a large law firm in
competence in the leadership paradigm. Kingston and lectures as an adjunct professor with the
Management Theory & Studies for Rural Business University College of the Caribbean, Kingston.
& Infrastructure Development, 16(1), 97-105.

355
View publication stats