Introduction
People possess diverse views in different situations. They differ in the manner they communicate, forge relationships, conduct themselves, interrelate and cooperate with each other. Many individuals have diverse viewpoints of the world, likewise leaders and managers. Managers have myriad ways they deal with everyday situations at the workplace, how they do business, and how they lead their organizations to achieve the goals and targets set. They formulate different strategies at different times and circumstances in order to stay afloat or become a market leader.
Due to the fast changing economic environment, most companies aim to achieve sustained competitive advantage over their rivals so as to remain viable and profitable. Hence management is constantly seeking new strategies through the use of different strategic tools in a bid to improve on performance.
A common feature of an organization is groups of people acting out social roles and trying to take purposeful action (Human Activity Systems). These Human Activity Systems must act based on some interpretation of the world. They will contain several different viewpoints because individuals will interpret the world differently. In order to be able to consider the toolkit offered by Soft Systems Thinking, a human activity inevitable needs to provide the context for thinking. It's important to consider the process of activities as a whole. Alternative definitions are interpretations of how different people view a situation. They are attempts to capture the essence of a system that might be useful in the given situations.
Approaches to Strategic Thinking
Unlike the deliberate strategy school of thought, the emergent strategy I took was borne out of uncertainty in a complex environment which necessitated me to be dynamic and adaptive by looking for a contingency (USW, 2016).
Systems Thinking
“A system is a whole which cannot be divided into independent parts'' (Ackoff, 2010).
“A system is a set of resources – personnel, materials, facilities, and/or information–organized to perform designated functions, in order to achieve desired results” (Reisman, 1979).
Senge (1993) as cited by the University of South Wales, describes systems thinking as "a way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems.” Systems thinking is therefore a thought process that promotes consideration of the interdependence and interaction of various components within an organisation that assist in ensuring that the organisation as a whole, achieves its objectives. This means that if different functions within an organisation operate individually, they are not able to effectively achieve the objectives of the business which can only be done if there is coordination and communication between the various functions.
Systems thinking is defined by Arnold and Wade (2015), as
“a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects”.
The above definition takes into consideration three key elements of system thinking namely characteristics, interconnections and purpose. These elements can also be identified in the speech by Ackoff (2015).
Fundamentally, ST is requires thinking meticulously and being attentive to the haphazard or stochastic manner of communication among elements and the environment within which the system functions. So it's about thinking and learning.
Systems thinking is way of seeing things from the perspective of a whole which is made up of a series of interconnected parts that interacts to bring out the functionality of the whole (Ackoff, 2015). Thus, no single part of the system can by itself produce the overall property of the whole system. Let's take for instance the air or water molecule of the weather system. None can by itself produce the property of a weather.
Soft Systems Methodology plays the greater role in identifying, defining, and solving the right problem, and HSM plays the greater role in solving that problem the right Soft Systems Methodology “concentrates on learning from organizational and contextual ambiguity and appreciating socially conditioned problem situations with a view to changing relationships and making improvements.” (Jacobs 2004)
The users of SSM aim for improvement in 'areas of social concern' (Chapman, 2002: 61), where they think about problem situations through model building and qualitative analysis (Checkland and Holwell, 1998: 48; Wilson, 2001).
SSM is a learning process. It is a set of principles rather than a precise method. In embracing SSM, members of organisations adopt a mode of thinking that challenges many of the cherished conventions of traditional 'hard' systems thinking (Jacobs, 2005). SSM plays the greater role in identifying, defining, and solving the right problem, and HSM plays the greater role in solving that problem the right way (Jacobs, 2005).
The SSM methodology developed by Checkland and his associates (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990) draws on Jenkins (1969) and Churchman (1971) by placing emphasis on social context and the subjectivity of 'appreciative systems' (Vickers, 1965). Checkland (1999: 11) maintains that the 'soft' methodology differs from 'hard' systems approaches that involve the observer perceiving a 'real world' where there exist systems that can be 'engineered'.
It enables managers and others to enhance their control and understanding of change by:
• approaching issues holistically
• viewing organisational change coherently
• recognizing and exploring problem situations
• surfacing discourses and meanings
• regarding strategy as multidimensional
• modelling purposeful activity systems with a view to improvement
• aiding strategic thinking
In the same way, bringing the best individuals, technology, ideas and environment does not necessarily mean that the organization will work perfectly as they may not “fit” well with each other. It is not just a group of interacting parts. (Mitleton-Kelly, 2001). High connectivity implies a high degree of interdependence. This means that the greater the interdependence between related systems or entities the wider the 'ripples' of perturbation or disturbance of a move or action by any one entity on all the other related entities.
A system must fit, and that its indivisible, and can't function independently. Reductionism sees the parts as paramount and seeks to identify the parts, understand the parts and work up from an understanding of the parts to an understanding of the whole (Jackson, M.C., 2003). Holism is more interested in the interactions and networks of relationships between the parts, which give rise to the existence of a new entity, which often seems to take on a form that is not recognizable from the individual parts (Jackson, M.C., 2003). This made me realize that, it is the whole that is seen as important, not the individual parts and gives purpose to the study of systems thinking. The holistic thinking about a system as a structure with interacting elements (e.g. social structure, organization, etc) offers a means of a deeper understanding of the system and its underlying dynamics. This remarkably leads us to acknowledge the importance of systems thinking in organizational design and performance. The overall performance (behavior) of the organization is impacted by the interconnectedness of its departments and functions. Therefore, improving the performance of departments separately does not necessarily improve the performance of the whole organization (Ackoff, 2015). Just like in life, where no part can function or live on its own, rather they all work together to be alive. It is the way the part fits that determines the systems performance.
I therefore think that he is trying to bring out the idea of organizational complexity where these individuals, technology and ideas among other elements have to have an interrelationship so that they are able to work well as one system. (Mitleton-Kelly, 2001)
Complexity Perspective: New Ways of Thinking About Strategy?
In their article, Jarratt and Stiles (2010) employed an activity theory framework – activity system – to study strategizing practices by senior executives in various UK industries. The implementation of an activity system frame work allows the investigation of strategy as a practice (s-as-p) with emphasis on activity, human actors, the tacit knowledge of how strategizing works, knowledge creation and re-creation, and the interactions within the organization activity system. These practices are shaped by the leader's view of the operating context and by his/her competitive strategy perspective, and could be described by the interaction between the strategic leader, the strategizing practice, the collective organizational structure and the strategy mediation tools, methodologies and frameworks. Consequently, their study identifies three models of strategy practices, shortly labelled: routinized, reflective and imposed. Briefly described,
(a) the routinized behavior practice is characterized by aligning the organization with its environment, where the future is considered predictable and an extension of the current environment. A combination of design and positioning strategy methodologies are applied such as SWOT, PEST, BCG, portfolio and risk analysis, Ansoff's matrices, and Porter's five forces of competitive advantage.
(b) for reflective practice, competitive strategy is centered around influencing the possible futures, and treating the complex and dynamic environment, by embodying learning and creativity to drive stakeholder initiatives. This type of practice fosters a bidirectional interaction between the strategist, practitioners, practices, and praxis.
(c) in the imposed practice, competitive strategy is formally implemented as an incremental change where the operational environment is assessed as stable and less complex. The engagement with strategizing methodologies and tools bypasses the collective structure of the organization (i.e. strategy history, culture, systems and processes, normative strategizing behavior, etc).
Such strategizing practices are largely influenced by internal learning processes and external environmental factors. The practices emerge or incrementally improve while reacting or adapting to complexity, uncertainty and predictability of the future, stakeholders, technology and globalization (Hitt et al., 2010), and industry restructuring, to mention few.
In this research, activity theory enabled a humanized approach to studying strategy as practice. It incorporates emotions, motivation, and human interaction, yet not at all organizational levels. Therefore, the use of an activity framework in Jarratt and Stiles (2010) has been advantageous in capturing the influence of complexity on strategizing and adaptive practices, which becomes more important to understand how emotions and motivation affect human thinking about resolving complex problems (Metcalf and Benn, 2013).
Lastly, the study was merely focused on CEOs which poses a limitation on the understanding of s-as-p. Extending the study to individual or group actors, in the organizational hierarchy and outside the upper management class (Jarzabkowski and Paul Spee, 2009) would add valuable insights to the flow of social interactive activities in strategizing.
Complex Adaptive Systems: Modelling Complexity
The Practice Perspective:
Strategy is a term widely used across organizations and is an activity strategists engage in; whether planned or emergent using available resources to provide direction and scope for organizations, groups, industries etc. Jarzabkowski et al (2007 pp. 4). Strategy according to (Ackoff, 2010) should not be something an organization has tucked away in a warehouse that management is aware of but should be an activity that an organization is actively engaged in, hence the emergence of strategy as practice (SAP).
First of all According to Michael E. Porter (1996) ''strategy is about organizational change, an action is strategic when it allows a firm to become better than its competitors”.
According to its official website, Strategy-as-practice or SAP is defined as "a community of scholars interested in the practice of strategy.” (Carter, Clegg and Kornberger, 2008). The purpose of SAP is perfectly outlined in Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) as "a research topic [that] is concerned with the doing of strategy; who does it, what they do, how they do it, what they use, and what implications this has for shaping strategy.”
Strategy as practice according to Downs (2006), seeks to understand the function of strategy from the strategist perspective rather than that of the organization; how do strategist go about making strategy and how these strategies contribute to the organization overall. Jarratt and Stiles (2010 pp. 32) highlighted three ways in which managers (strategists) differ in in the way they use strategic tools, these were: routinized practices, reflective practices and imposed practices.
Some of the strategic tools used in this regard are deliberate and emergent models, whereby deliberate model is a traditional model based on simple strategies while emergent model focuses on development strategy and its environment. The first is formal and process-based, structured and imposed, and developed through consultation within the organization, with various stakeholders and through examining environmental data so different managers use strategic tools based on different approaches that surrounds their environment setting, work atmosphere and structural design in order to determine the best competitive advantage against other companies. Jarratte and Stiles (2010).
Some criticisms have raised by using the deliberate model as it's based on traditional approach but the importance is to understand how management engages with its environment to develop competitive strategy. The first tool is surrounded by routinized behaviour methodologies which emphasizes the future as predictable, the second model poses an approach on reflective interaction between strategies and organizational processes, culture and relationships the third tool is imposed engagement and is based on collective structures. These practice model suggest strategy activities interactions with the current operating environment. Jarratte and Stiles (2010).
Strategy development has been presented in two broad models; the deliberate strategy which is a result of top management's deliberations and given to others to implement (Johnson, Whittington and Scholes (2011) on the one hand. This has also been termed as linear model (Chaffee, 1985), design and positioning schools (Mintzberg, 1990), Classical perspective (Whittington, 2001) and planning/synoptic formal model (Brews and Hutt, 1999) and Emergent strategies which are not a result of long term planning but rather a series of decisions that become clear over time (Johnson et al 2011). Other names that have been come up with for this model are; logical incremental (Quinn, 1980), adaptive (Chaffee, 1985), proccesual (Whittington 2001) or learning school (Brews and Hutt, 1999). This model suggests that organisations improve their strategies using new information or opportunities.
While Strategizing, managers use various tools and methodologies (practices) derived from the two broad models above. The choice of which is influenced by what each manager perceives what his/her environment to be. There are three methodologies; routinized practice, reflective practice and imposed practice, each of which applies a particular set of tools. In the findings of Jarratt and Stiles, the authors state that "routinized practice is generally observed where the work setting is perceived as predictable and the strategy point of view is focused on alignment and/or asset reconfiguration” Jarratt and Stiles (2010, pp. 38). Reckwitz defines Routinized practice as "routinized types of behavior which consist of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities , forms of mental activities, 'are things' and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge” (2002: 249). Routinized practices as describes by (Hodgson and Knudsen, (2004) as cited by Belmond 2014 pp.10) are collective habits and practices embodied to carry out a sequence of strategic action.
Furthermore, this practice calls for Managers to employ SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis early in strategizing; including information produced through the utilization of apparatuses, for example, PEST (political, economic, social and technological), McKinsey's 7Ss, Ansoff's framework, esteem spilling, diversion analogies, or potentially asset and execution benchmarking to create a learning base to distinguish potential alternatives; and then employing risk analysis and portfolio analysis to potential alternatives, this is in accordance to Jarratt and Stiles (2010, pp. 37).
This is to guide strategizing because they are viewed as uncomplicated, focusing on key issues and thus providing a structure for analysis and a framework for strategizing and strategy decision making (Gunn and Williams, 2007; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998; Pickton and Wright, 1998).
Reflective practice is used where practitioners view the environment as complex, not static and the future unpredictable. This entails a lot of innovation and taking advantage of the technology and knowledge gained from the lived strategy. In their research, Denise Jarratt and David Stiles (2010) found that under this practice, "strategizing was enveloped in a culture of creativity, cooperation and trust, with 'respect of brand' central to the process”.
Practitioners apply the imposed practice where they perceive the environment as stable and only make incremental adjustment suit the strategy.
The research by Denise Jarratt and David Stiles (2010) confirmed that "there is not one single strategizing practice model adopted by successful leaders but rather a combination of all, depending on their assumptions of the business environment and the structures of their organisations”.
Conclusion
Educational background greatly affects the use of strategic tools by managers as more educated managers tend to use a grouping of strategic tools as opposed to less educated managers (Gunn &Williams, 2007). Legge, Sullivan Taylor and Wilson (2007) however, emphasized that learning management in schools mainly offers individual career benefits, with limited knowledge and skills transfer in the work place. Differences in the political, economic, socio-cultural, technological environment, organization size and, sector and country level development, all influence the use of strategic tools by managers (Qehaja, A.B., Kutllovci, E. and Pula, J.S., 2017). Changes in markets, increased globalization and innovation, competitive labor markets, organizational focus (short-term returns versus long-term returns), influence of shareholders, almost to the exclusion of other stakeholders and personal greed all drive the strategic direction taken by organizations(Hitt, M.A., Haynes, K.T. and Serpa, R., 2010).
Therefore, the defining property of a system is not in its individual parts but rather the system as a whole. By individually improving the parts does not improve the system as a whole but makes it worse since the entire system relies on all the interacting parts and thus it's how they fit together to result in an effective and efficient result or objective.
With this foundation, it is worth noting that in whichever existing system, it is very cardinal to improve the system by understanding the interactions of the systems parts unlike individually address a part of a problem. Thus getting the best parts won't essentially give you the best system. They need to work together.
In conclusion, systems thinking is strategic for every organisation in improving its process dynamics, problem solving skills, flexibility and adaptability to change and effectiveness in achieving its desired purpose.