Introduction
Systemic thinking comprises certain core components, including innovation to improve the system, data-based decision-making, and collaborating effectively within a system. It is defined as a holistic viewpoint, which recognizes that relationships between system components and between the environment and the components are imperative (Mirnezhada, 2022).
As far as innovation to improve the system is concerned, it entails restructuring economic, technological, and social systems to deliver an improved or new approach to delivery or production (Hossain et al., 2020). Data decision-making is the utilization of metrics, data, and facts to inform strategic business choices that align with systemic thinking objectives, initiatives, and goals (Parra et al., 2022). Lastly, collaborating effectively within a system entails linking with others, bettering relationships, and getting feedback to achieve increased performance and productivity.
The Burke and Litwin model is suitable for implementing systemic thinking among multinational organizations with immense dynamics and huge cultural variances (Hossain et al., 2020). On the other hand, the Nadler–Tushman’s Congruence Model is used in performance-related problem identification and to address the difficulties so as to enhance performance (Linneusson et al., 2022). The models explain associations that theorize how overall efficiency and organizational performance are influenced and how efficiency and deliberate change can be inclined (Hayes, 2022). TechPros Company Limited is a multinational technology company known for its quality software products.
Successful Application of Systems Thinking by TechPros and Its Benefits
TechPros HR has instigated a policy implementing a Goals-Behaviors-Metrics Rewards system (GBMR). The GBMR feedback system positively supports employees in encouraging desirable organizational behavior and avoiding undesirable behavior (Monat et al., 2020). This agrees with the Burke and Litwin model, which asserts that interferences focused on the organization’s mission, organizational culture, strategy, and leadership to achieve fundamental or transformational change are key (Sharma, 2021). The GBMR system also follows the Nadler–Tushman’s Congruence Model as it seeks to use reward to address non-performance by advocating for desirable behavior.
This GBMR system seeks to attain the productivity of cross-cultural employees in the company’s various departments globally. It will achieve this by setting reasonable and clear employee goals based on a hierarchy among people practice teams that include HR employees and supervisors (Anku et al., 2018). Employees and their supervisors will establish behaviors, and when realized, rewards aimed at motivating will be offered to departments and specific employees (Ike et al., 2022). There will be a metric for measuring behaviors that are key to goal attainment and determining when to offer the rewards (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). The organizational goals of Techpros aim to ensure the company increases its profits.
HR has set a policy that touches on all the company’s staff hierarchically, from the CEO to the President to the board of directors, permeating the organization’s structure (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). At each hierarchal level, there are different goals. For example, top management is responsible for implementing policies highlighting what junior employees get in return when the goals are met (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). An example of a goal is ensuring increased profits and sales without compromising quality.
On the other hand, lower-level managers, including departmental managers, will communicate this reward system to the junior employees, who have the duty of effecting. When the junior employees can achieve the goals, they are awarded, and the GBMR system achieves its aim of enforcing this positive behavior (Anku et al., 2018). On the other hand, if they fail to meet the goal, there is no reward, thus discouraging it. The Burke-Litwin model is two-sided, highlighting two separate organizational dynamic sets.
The first one is linked with human behavior at a transactional level and is what the reward system seeks to achieve positive change through (Anku et al., 2018). The second level concerns human transformation processes as abrupt behavior systems: this is anticipated to happen in the organization’s culture (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). In this second level, HR aims to achieve organizational goals using a metric system through the external environment (Anku et al., 2018). The GBMR metric system seeks to assess the achievement of the company’s goal, such as realizing set profits by comparing with external factors, including competitors and the financial market.
If the employees say the salespeople have attained the set mark through this indicator, the employees are rewarded, further reinforcing their positive behaviors and enhancing performance, as reflected in the Nadler–Tushman’s Congruence Model (French et al., 2022). The benefit of the people’s practice team’s successful application of systems thinking is that the company can attain its objectives. Another benefit is that the company’s workforce is also motivated.
Failed Application of Systems Thinking and Its Drawbacks
TechPros introduced a new software product into the market, and HR implemented the GBMR metric system to this product. The metric here requires departments and employees in each of the company’s branches globally to attain a set number of sales (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). While the company has fantastic salespersons throughout its global branches, the new software product is more expensive, complicated to use, and harder to sell (French et al., 2022). The sales department communicates to HR that it cannot use an identical metric system to other easier to sell the new products.
The HR insists and thinks the sales departmental managers and employees are insubordinate. On the part of employees who think that HR is unreasonable and insubordinate, eventually, the introduction of the new product fails (Hossain et al., 2020). According to the Burke and Litwin model, transactional and transformational factors reciprocate, eventually impacting the company’s and individuals’ performance (French et al., 2022). In the applications of the GBMR metric system on the new product, the unreasonable nature of HR reciprocated on both the company and HR, the sales target was not met, and the new product introduction failed (French et al., 2022). The drawback is that the company fails to meet its objective and has an overall demotivated workforce.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the most persuasive reason for using systematic thinking by people’s practice teams in a company is to ensure that a scientific mind habit is inspired. Thus, beyond the contribution of the mentioned model or core components, commitment to principle and avoidance of ignorance can be reinforced through systems thinking. Through system thinking practice, teams in companies can devise ways to attain the company’s goals. However, it is essential to ensure that system thinking is applied prudently because, as illustrated in our organization, its application can succeed and sometimes fail. People practice teams, including HR, should be prudent to ensure they apply it to the extent that it will be effective. The key to this is listening to feedback among the teams and departments.
Reference List
Anku, J. S., Amewugah, B. K., & Glover, M. K. (2018) ‘Concept of Reward Management, Reward System and Corporate Efficiency’, International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 6(2), 621-625. Web.
Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021) ‘The Determinants of Organizational Change Management Success: Literature Review and Case Study’, Sage Journals, 5-10. Web.
French, R., Mahat, M., Kvan, T., & Imms, W. (2022) ‘Viewing The Transition to Innovative Learning Environments Through The Lens of The Burke-Litwin Model for Organizational Performance and Change’, Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 2-16. Web.
Hayes, J. (2022) The Theory and Practice of Change Management (5th ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Hossain, N. U., Dayarathna, V., Nagahi, M., & Jaradat, R. M. (2020) ‘Systems Thinking: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis’, Systems, 8(23), 2-24. Web.
Ike, C. O., Onyeka, A. R., Success, A. C., & Ijeoma, E. O. (2022) ‘Effect of Reward on Employee Performance: A Study Of Oyi Local Government Area’, Journal of Policy and Development Studies, 13(2), 145-157. Web.
Linneusson, G., Andersson, T., Kjellsdotter, A., & Holmen, M. (2022) ‘Using Systems Thinking to Increase Understanding of The Innovation System of Healthcare Organizations’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 36(9), 181-183. Web.
Mirnezhada, R. (2022) ‘Assessing the Barriers to Implementing Systems Thinking inOrganizations Using Interpretive Structural Modeling’, Journal of Systems Thinking in Practice, 1(1), 107-110. Web.
Monat, J., Amissah, M., & Gannon, T. (2020) ‘Practical Applications of Systems Thinking’, MDPI Systems, 8(14), 2-17. Web.
Parra, X., Tort-Martorell, X., Alvarez-Gomez, F., & Ruiz-Viñals, C. (2022) ‘Chronological Evolution of the Information-Driven Decision-Making Process (1950–2020)’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5-10. Web.
Sharma, D. (2021) ‘A Systems Thinking Framework for Knowledge Management’, Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 27(3), 1094-1097. Web.