System Thinking: A Case Study

System thinking has its foundations in the field of system dynamics, founded in 1956 by MIT Professor Jay Forrestor recognized the need for a better way of testing new ideas about social systems, in the same way we can test ideas in engineering. Systems thinking allows people to make their understanding of social systems explicit and improve their understanding of mechanical systems. Too often, today’s problems are solved by utilizing easy and comfortable approaches to obtain simple solutions. In reality as many discover simplicity and common approaches are far from effective in dealing with complex, dynamic and diverse problems. Despite the initial apparent ease and comfort, focus tends to be on the elements of the problem,

Secondly, motivation can be defined as a catalyst that fuels progress or being in a motion to achieve set goals in an organization. Motivation is a crucial element in an organization because it acts as a catalyst that enables business owners and employees to be inspired towards achieving the company’s goals and objectives. Secondly, motivation is significant for a business because it affects positively on the physical and psychology of employees. Consequently, highly motivated employees show the willingness to be productive and effective in their job posting. As a result, employees’ productivity is enhanced resulting in increased business

This is because system-thinking approach helps managers to see the bigger picture of the conflict rather than the smaller one. This enables managers to deal with a conflict holistically and prevent recurrent of the same (Batra, Kaushik, & Kalia, 2010). The nature of system thinking ensures that it is easier to tackle most of conflicts that are perceived to be difficult in nature. Consequently, certain laws that ensure that conflicts are well understood and solved in an efficient manner govern system thinking. These involve understanding that the current problems arise from yesterday’s solutions. Secondly, behavior gets better prior to growing worse. Thirdly, the easy way of solving conflict results leads to failure. Fourthly, small ways used to deal with a conflict can produce favorable results. Additionally, avoiding solving conflicts can have serious ramification to an organization. In addition, conflicts should be solved amicably without rash. Notably, paying attention to all details of the conflict is crucial. Lastly, as shown by Batra, Kaushik & Kalia (2010), system thinking employs a set of defined indicators that help solve conflicts in a better way. For instance by defining the situation, developing behavioral patterns, evolving the underlying structure, examining the factors that contribute to the fundamental of the structure, examining the leverage points, developing substitute structure, and