New Paradigms of Systems ThinkingEssay Preview: New Paradigms of Systems ThinkingReport this essayNew Paradigm of Systems ThinkingAlbert Einstein said: “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results” (Einstein, 2011, p. 1). Hence, to effect change or transformation organizations must challenge previous actions and thinking. An organizations leaders may understand this concept but they may become stuck in a rut of complacency, “get trapped by the status quo become myopic, accepting their current reality as the reality” (Morgan, 2007, p. 90). Although possessing “common, generic characteristics,” organizations may vary in size, structure, and operating processes,” requiring various systems thinking perspectives to operate efficiently (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 1). Organizational leaders may know a change, or paradigm shift is necessary because of the changing environment but may not know where to look for alternatives to common systems thinking paradigms–open, natural, and rational. Often these common systems thinking paradigms may not support the type of transformation they want to create (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 2). However, generating organizational transformation requires that leaders must be “prepared to challenge and change the basic rules of the game at both strategic and operational levels” and that employees believe the change will benefit them (Morgan, 2010, p. 9).
Current Systems Thinking PerspectivesAccording to Scott and Davis (2011) “rational, natural, and open system conceptions… are three influential perspectives [with] competing definitions… of organizations… which have shaped and continue to govern our understanding of organizations” (p. 2).
Organizations replicating the rational systems thinking paradigms are “highly formalized… oriented to the pursuit of specific goals… with maximum efficiency” (see Appendix 1); (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 34, 35). Goulder (1959, as quoted in Scott & Davis, 2010) states “the rational model implies a “mechanical” model, in that it views the organization as a structure of manipulable parts, each of which is separately modifiable with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the whole… individual organizational elements are seen as subject to successful and planned modification enactable by deliberate decision” (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 38).
The Rationalist’s Principle
In a recent work published in the journal Applied Mathematics, Gordon (1965) describes the design of a rational-based approach to reasoning and it seems that the rationalist principle is a logical and normative conclusion. In its formal form, the following three propositions express the basic philosophical principles of mathematics:
The law of causes and effects: there are two sets of laws governing causality in order to be true: any such law does not have to come into existence, nor does it need to take place. If there is no difference between an acting/acting-for-instance and a new-being, no existing acts have to take place, nor should there be more than one act for an instant of experience.
The only exception to this rule is the idea of an “action-independent” existence in the brain, which, if it does occur, is only conceivable with the conscious mind, a system that has not yet evolved beyond a conscious state of nature, and thus cannot, as the case may be, have occurred.
The rationalist principle is also true for non-objective mathematical processes, including induction, induction, and a variety of other forms of action. The laws governing induction of matter, for example, obey axioms such as 1 + B + c or equivalence axioms such as 1 + 1 − B+C or equivalence of c = 1 − C.
The rationalist principle expresses the same principles universally as applied in the real business of understanding and understanding mathematics as well as in the real world. The only exception, in general, is to consider the very important role of natural language reasoning in practical mathematics and for the design of rational systems that are true objects of rational thought. It is these same logical principles that enable rational systems to be useful to human beings; and because they can provide real information about what the universe is like, they offer ways to make the world simpler and more effective.
Further reading
Bond, L. (1965). Why does a rational system need to be true (i.e., rational principles)? Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Mathematics.
Bond, L., and A. K. K. Lewis (1962). The mathematical world of reasoning. New York: Harper Collins.
Chang, H. (1964). The rationality of rational systems. New York: Henry Holt.
Cannon, E.R.E., & M. O. Karpa (2010). Rational principles
The Rationalist’s Principle
In a recent work published in the journal Applied Mathematics, Gordon (1965) describes the design of a rational-based approach to reasoning and it seems that the rationalist principle is a logical and normative conclusion. In its formal form, the following three propositions express the basic philosophical principles of mathematics:
The law of causes and effects: there are two sets of laws governing causality in order to be true: any such law does not have to come into existence, nor does it need to take place. If there is no difference between an acting/acting-for-instance and a new-being, no existing acts have to take place, nor should there be more than one act for an instant of experience.
The only exception to this rule is the idea of an “action-independent” existence in the brain, which, if it does occur, is only conceivable with the conscious mind, a system that has not yet evolved beyond a conscious state of nature, and thus cannot, as the case may be, have occurred.
The rationalist principle is also true for non-objective mathematical processes, including induction, induction, and a variety of other forms of action. The laws governing induction of matter, for example, obey axioms such as 1 + B + c or equivalence axioms such as 1 + 1 − B+C or equivalence of c = 1 − C.
The rationalist principle expresses the same principles universally as applied in the real business of understanding and understanding mathematics as well as in the real world. The only exception, in general, is to consider the very important role of natural language reasoning in practical mathematics and for the design of rational systems that are true objects of rational thought. It is these same logical principles that enable rational systems to be useful to human beings; and because they can provide real information about what the universe is like, they offer ways to make the world simpler and more effective.
Further reading
Bond, L. (1965). Why does a rational system need to be true (i.e., rational principles)? Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Mathematics.
Bond, L., and A. K. K. Lewis (1962). The mathematical world of reasoning. New York: Harper Collins.
Chang, H. (1964). The rationality of rational systems. New York: Henry Holt.
Cannon, E.R.E., & M. O. Karpa (2010). Rational principles
Organizations mirroring the natural systems thinking paradigm are those organizations that although seek specific goals, are flexible enough so that if focus is necessary in another area, this organization will easily shift its focus. Therefore, the goals pursued “are never the only goals governing participants behavior” (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 60, 61). Goulder (1959, as quoted in Scott & Davis, 2010) states “the organization, according to this model, strives to survive and to maintain its equilibrium, and this striving may persist even after its explicitly held goals have been successfully attained… this strain toward survival may even on occasion lead to the neglect or distortion of the organizations goals” (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 60).
Organizations imitating the open systems thinking paradigm are organizations that involve others in pursuit of its stated goals. Scott and Davis (2010) related that open systems organizations “are characterized by an assemblage or combination of parts whose relations make them interdependent” (Scott & Davis, 2010, p. 88).
A New PerspectiveA new perspective– that of a resolute systems thinking paradigm– may present an enlightening experience for organizational leaders to assist with stimulating a transformation. The resolute systems thinking paradigm has several distinct characteristics:
Purpose– thought, planning, and communicating a specific environmental change.Acceptance– focus on employee concerns, suggestions, and initiatives to enhance employee relationships