Peter Senge has developed 'systems thinking' as a unique concept and an original contribution in his treateise 'fifth discipline. The concept attracted such wide recognition that Brian Dumaine named Peter M. Senge: "MR. LEARNING ORGANIZATION." Peter Senge was also referred to as the "intellectual and spiritual champion?" (Dumaine, 1992, p. 147)

Traditionally the acquisition of scientific knowledge is through the process of analytical methods. A system is broken into its component parts, as a method of breaking complexity and attributes each individual components are gathered in isolation and through this analysis knowledge about the whole is derived. This is termed as a method 'linear causation' by Peter Senge. To the credit of this system it should be recognized that scientists have been able to make great strides and mankind cannot have made the progress in the modern world, but for the original contribution of a few scientists.

However is not always effective in understanding problems in life, which are inter-related in a way that defies 'linear causation'.

According to Senge, this sort of linear and mechanistic thinking is becoming increasingly ineffective to address modern problems.

"The defining characteristic of a system is that it cannot be understood as a function of its isolated components. First, the behavior of the system doesn't depend on what each part is doing but on how each part is interacting with the rest ... Second, to understand a system we need to understand how it fits into the larger system of which it is a part ... Third, and most important, what we call the parts need not be taken as primary. In fact, how we define the parts is fundamentally a matter of perspective and purpose, not intrinsic in the nature of the 'real thing' we are looking at."

" It is commonly recognized that the power of statistical models is limited to explaining past behavior, or to predict future trends (as long as there is no significant change in the pattern of behavior observed in the past). These models have little to say about changes made in a system until new data can be collected and a new model is constructed. Thus, basing problem-solving upon past events is, at best, a reactive effort."

"On the other hand, systems modeling is fundamentally different. Once the behavior of a system is understood to be a function of the structure and of the relationships between the elements of the system, the system can be artificially modified and, through simulation, we can observe whether the changes made result in the desired behaviors. Therefore, systems thinking, coupled with modeling, constitutes a generative --rather than adaptive-- learning instrument."

"Alternatively, circular causation-where a variable is both the cause and effect of another-has become the norm, rather than the exception. Truly exogenous (originating externally) forces are rare. For example, the state of the economy affects unemployment, which in turn affects the economy. The world has become increasingly interconnected, and endogenous feedback causal loops now dominate the behavior of the important variables in our social and economic systems."
[ Source: http://home.nycap.rr.com/klarsen/learnorg/ ]

According to Senge, fragmentation has forced people to focus on snapshots to distinguish patterns of behaviour in order to explain past phenomena or to predict future behavior. This is essentially the treatment used in statistical analysis and econometrics, when trying to decipher patterns of relationship and behavior. However, this is not how the world really works: events do not dictate behavior; instead, they are the product of behavior.

Thus, according to Senge:
Generative learning cannot be sustained in an organization if people's thinking is dominated by short-term events. If we focus on events, the best we can ever do is predict an event before it happens so that we can react optimally. But we cannot learn to create.

Once we embrace the idea that systems thinking can improve Individual Learning by inducing people to focus on the whole system, and by providing individuals with skills and tools to enable them to derive observable Pattern of Behaviour from the systems they see at work, the next step is to justify why systems thinking is even more important to organizations of people. Here, the discipline of systems thinking is most clearly interrelated with the other disciplines, especially with Mental Models, Shared Vision, and team learning.

Patterns of relationships (or systems) are derived from people's Mental Models--their perceptions about how the relevant parts of a system interact with one another. Naturally, different people have different perceptions about what the relevant parts of any one system are, and how they interact with one another. In order for organizational learning to occur, individuals in the organization must be willing and prepared to reveal their individual mental models, contrast them to one another, discuss the differences, and come to a unified perception of what that system really is.

This alignment of Mental Models can be referred to as developing a Shared Vision, as is discussed in a separate web page. It is possible that mere discussion among individuals may lead them to a Shared Vision but, because problems are often too complex, usually this exercise requires the aid of some skills and tools developed by systems thinkers. Whether simple or complex frameworks are used (such as word-and-arrow diagrams or computer simulation), they are essential instruments to developing a shared vision.

When groups of individuals who share a system also share a Vision about how the components of that system interact with one another, then Team Learning (or organizational learning) is possible. First, they learn from one another in the process of sharing their different perspectives. There are many organizational problems that can be solved simply by creating alignment. For example, cooperation is a lesson that is often learned by people who recognize that they belong to different interdependent parts of the same system.

"Second, people learn together by submitting their shared Vision to testing. When complex dynamics exist, a robust shared vision allows organizational members to examine assumptions, search for Leverage points, and test different policy alternatives. This level of learning often requires simulation, which is a much more specialized systems technique. However, if the problems faced by the organization are among commonly observed patterns which have been previously studied, archetypal solutions may be available to deal with them. Later in this paper, we will discuss an example using an archetype commonly referred to as "growth and under-investment."

"Systems thinking represents a major leap in the way people are used to thinking. It requires the adoption of a new paradigm. Although there is no such a thing as a learning organization, we can articulate a view of what it would stand for. In this sense, a learning organization would be an entity which individuals "would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a world of increasing interdependency and change."

And according to Senge, systems thinking is critical to the learning organization, because it represents a new perception of the individual and his/her world:

"At the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind --from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something 'out there' to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality. And how they can change it."

"But, as we shall see next, systems thinking requires skills and tools which can only be developed through lifelong commitment. Plus, it requires that not just one, but many organizational members acquire them. Thus, some of the authors refer to learning organizations as 'communities of commitment.'"

"Sound systems thinking requires the utilization of a combination of reinforcing and balancing feedback loops, and the accurate identification of delays. Complex systems are composed of multiple feedback loops laid upon one another."

SYSTEM ARCHETYPE

"A number of system structures or patterns of relationships are commonly found in a variety of settings. Some of these have been carefully studied, and their pattern of behavior and leverage points have been identified. Senge discusses them in The Fifth Discipline, Appendix 2 (pp. 378-390):

• "Balancing process with delay"

• "Limits to growth"

• "Shifting the burden"

• "Eroding goals"

• "Escalation"

• "Success to the successful"

• "Tragedy of the commons"

• "Fixes that fail"

• "Growth and under-investment"

"The management principle derived from it is to look for a way for both sides to win, since their continued competition will lead to great costs and inefficiencies. Cooperation or mutual understanding is called for."

"When system archetypes apply, it becomes easy to focus on high leverage points, and to identify and avoid symptomatic solutions to real problems. This is because the analysis which serves as the foundation for the archetypes has already been done. On the other hand, when the systems under study are more complex because they are composed of a combination of structures, it becomes important to build models and to simulate to confirm assumptions about behavior."

The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the long-term view. That's why delays and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; they're inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long term.

Peter Senge advocates the use of 'systems maps' - diagrams that show the key elements of systems and how they connect. However, people often have a problem 'seeing' systems, and it takes work to acquire the basic building blocks of systems theory, and to apply them to your organization. On the other hand, failure to understand system dynamics can lead us into 'cycles of blaming and self-defense: the enemy is always out there, and problems are always caused by someone else' - (Bolam and Deal 1997: 27;).