The Systems Thinking Role in Team Learning

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The main problem and the factors contributing to the problem
“What is really going on?”
The archetype in the problem
The leverage
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The systems thinking as a concept aims to alleviate obstacles hindering growth in an organization. Therefore, it is an appropriate problem-solving model when it comes to developing a firm into a learning organization. Peter Senge developed this model in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1990). Systems thinking enables leaders or individuals to see and understand the connections between parts and events.

Such interrelations include structural organization, customer relations, sales, decision-making process, among other procedures. However, this article will borrow from the fundamental discipline that Senge refers to as a learning organization. Consequently, this will help to unearth the shortcomings within the business world, particularly the motor manufacturing industry. This article seeks to analyze the perceptions of the workers towards team learning since it forms the integral part of a successful organization.

The main problem and the factors contributing to the problem

In the business world today, everyone aspires to remain competitive to survive in the market. However, to achieve visible results has proved to be costly in terms of planning and management. In a bid to achieve efficacy in an organization, it is necessary to evaluate the drawbacks curtailing growth within the organization. In this case, the problem is lack of coordination due to the hierarchy within the organization. Thus, it presents the management of such industry the challenge to come up with the best policies that promote teamwork as a way to improve coordination. Poor decision-making results from the lack of team coordination, which in turn requires team learning (Meadows & Wright, 2008).

The main themes leading to poor coordination include the bureaucratic structure and poor leadership. The bureaucratic system embraces a situation whereby workers receive orders from their leaders thus restricting them from performing fully within the organization. According to Senge (2014), systems thinking in business works in a similar way as the human body system whereby the coordination of various body organs results in functioning of the whole. Handling a complex situation requires from one to identify where the leverage lies. Leverage is an action that can lead to a sustainable and profound change. The main problem in the motor industry is that the leverage changes often appear insignificant to most of the team members.

“What is really going on?”

Identifying the central connection underlying an issue enables one to identify what is going on and sheds light on what might be the solution. In the case of the motor industry, balancing industry growth and capacity building are an evolving problem. Thus, team learning should be a regular process. From a systems perspective, one can see the trends that are repeated lead to growth or decline (Meadows & Wright, 2008). Some of the patterns that repeat include production of low-quality products resulted from poor management. The leverage, in this case, might involve unearthing the sources of stability without necessarily having to cut on costs.

In the motor industry, managers tend to put the blame about poor production on budget constraints. In the process of finding leverage, managers often lay off staff, only to realize that the remaining staff lacks the capacity to handle the workload. Leaders who want to keep their firms competitive mostly find themselves rambling in the balancing process. For an organization to evade this unexpected behavior, it should come up with better ways of thinking and embrace teamwork to establish leverage (Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2011). For example, the American manufacturers happen to be more individualistic and cherish personal mastery, while their Chinese counterparts are more team aligned. The latter eliminates delays and increases diversity hence putting forth a much more successful process.

The archetype in the problem

In the business realm, for instance, in the motor manufacturing industry, there are various archetypes that managers seem to have little understanding about them. Producing a quality product can be costly and time-consuming because it involves more deep controls as opposed to those involved in a low-quality production. When assessed from a systems perspective, such manufacturers fail to acknowledge that given time, high-quality processes will eliminate rework, improve customer satisfaction and reduce rejects. Thus, this approach minimizes the overall costs in the long term (Erjavec, 2010). Therefore, working as a team to generate inclusive ideas helps achieve both goals. When workers focus on quality production with a shared vision, the cost goes down with time. Just as human systems rely on each other, the same case applies to manufacturing.

In a bid to establish the areas where learning is highly needed, one has to consider the entire system that generates the issues (Senge 2014). It is easy to identify the barriers at departmental levels, but most of the heads lack the knowledge on how their departments should liaise with the rest. An immediate leverage to this problem is incorporating cross-functional teams to ensure openness and a steady flow of information without distortion. For instance, consider cases where duplication or omission might occur. Duplication of efforts occurs because of the failure to account for various parts of the system. Learning should come in to create awareness about the missed opportunity for saving human efforts. Viewing parts broadly, helps see the bonds between factors previously considered as divergent variables (Erjavec, 2010).

The leverage

The cross-functional structure in an organization offers a stabilizing aspect that encourages growth. Often, in the motor industry there is bureaucracy when handling classified information. Following this, the rate of growth might diminish or even stop. However, understanding how to manage the structure becomes inevitable. Reinforcing the indicators of growth requires continued learning to ensure that as products saturate in the market, a firm can stay relevant (Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2011).

Some managers respond or find leverage through investing more in a bid to sustain growth. Contrarily, this approach may not necessarily work, instead if the market is saturated, as is the case in the motor industry, it is advisable to innovate new products. Managers need smart ideas to know when the time is due to act and reinvent procedures rather than settling for lesser goals (Senge 2014). In this case, lack of coordination becomes a limiting factor. To increase coordination, the behavior of the team has to change. For example, appreciating workers better through salary increase is an effective way to promote desirable team behavior. Besides, maintaining morale through equal treatment of employees and awarding pay based on production increases growth. When this ceases, the growth slows down tremendously implying that the factors leading to improvement are weak.

Conclusion

As aforementioned, systems thinking suggests that there are no external generators of organizational issues. The root of the problem is within, and the whole network is to be blamed for any failures. Therefore, the solution should be creating the team’s ability to learn how to alleviate barriers to growth. The systems thinking framework provides diverse approaches concerning how to learn in a more inclusive way and why it is essential. Such analysis and consideration of the whole enhances careful uncovering of issues that might end up being misunderstood. Ultimately, working as a team helps to map out the comprehensive process of leadership and training.

References

Erjavec, J. (2010). Automotive technology: A systems approach. Australia: Delmar Cengage Learning. Web.

Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub. Web.

Senge, P. M. (2014). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. In Exploring your own story (pp. 46-71). S.I: Crown Publishing Group. Web.

Williams, B., & Hummelbrunner, R. (2011). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner’s toolkit. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!