58
Benefit sustainability pertains to whether the organisation can ensure that the benefit society accrues from its projects continues even after the projects have being implemented. For example, NPOs that help poor communities to establish farming schemes to enable them to grow their own produce must ensure that these communities, once equipped with the necessary resources, will be able to support themselves. If the non-profit is unable to ensure this, then its reputation will be affected, thus negatively impacting the sustainability of the NPO itself.
Therefore, it is apparent from the above discussions that there is a degree of similarity in terms of the factors that contribute to or influence non-profit sustainability. For example, Lewis’
(2003a) idea of financial sustainability is congruent with Schuh & Leviton’s (2006)idea of the organisation being sustainable if it possesses adequate financial resources. In addition, while Lewis uses the term organizational sustainability to refer to the presence of organisational mechanisms that facilitate the accomplishment of the NPO’s social mission, Schuh & Leviton’s understanding of governance, internal operations and organization development all contribute to organizational sustainability as well. Benefit sustainability (Lewis, 2003a) will depend on the core services offered by the organisation, and the quality thereof, thus drawing a further parallel between these authors conceptions of sustainability.
This points to the appropriateness of utilizing these constructs and terms in understanding sustainability among NPOs in general, as these constructs exist in all types of NPOs. This is especially relevant since there does not exist much research on the issue of the sustainability of NPOs and the existing literature is fragmented and insufficiently developed (Weerawardena et al., 2010).
59 Kashf al-Mahjub of Hujwiri and the Risala of Qushayri), ancient Greek philosophy (particularly Hericles and Aristotle), as well as being prevalent through the oral traditions of many indigenous tribal spiritual traditions which have existed for tens of thousands of years.”
Clearly then, the philosophies of the systems thinking tradition have persisted over time. What is apparent is that these principles are being transferred from the philosophical and religious domains to become the foundation of a variety of systems thinking tools and methodologies which are now being applied to a myriad of social contexts, issues and problems, with largely positive results. The emphasis in including the above quote then, is not only to indicate the sustained usefulness of the principles underlying the systems thinking approach, but rather to also attract attention to the possibility and usefulness of applying such ancient principles to the problems and complex issues that we are faced with in the here-and-now, and in doing so, to provide a means of testing the relevance and strength of the systems thinking approaches for dealing with modern day complexity and turbulence. Thus, whichever systems thinking tool or method is utilized, while being utilized for its perceived strengths is also being tested so as to reveal its underlying weakness or weaknesses in the very same process. This should be an aim of every application of any systems thinking tool so as to ensure that these tools are adapted continuously to deal with the ever-changing nature of the world in which we are embedded, thus ensuring their continued validity and robustness.
Hunt, Timoshkina, Baudains, and Bishop (2012, p. 324) define systems as:
“…a collection of discrete entities within real or conceptual boundaries that are linked by interrelationships and function as a whole.”
Inherent in this definition, is the recognition of systems as being not only products of the real, physical world, but as a means of conceptually representing the world as well. Also, explicit in this definition, is the idea that systems are made up of elements or agents that while being separate from each other, still interact with one another in a manner that creates the feedback influences which underlie and sustain such systems. Within the ambit of the systems thinking philosophies, these interconnected networks of feedback influences are referred to as the system’s “structure”. This lends itself to one of the fundamental principles in understanding social systems which is the belief that the structure of the system determines its overall behavior.
However, this will be explored in more detail as the discussion proceeds.
60 The above definition also emphasizes “interrelationships” which is a pivotal aspect of the systems thinking approach. Not only is it about recognizing the embeddedness of various systems within other systems, but it is more significantly about recognizing the effect they have on each other (Reynolds & Holwell, 2010). This requires one to step back from the details of a particular issue in order to identify the effect such details have on each other- a perception which can only be uncovered by looking at the bigger picture, as facilitated by systems thinking. For this reason, systems thinking represents a shift in mindset from a preoccupation with the details of a problem issue to a more holistic examination of the various feedback influences that contribute to the complexities and continued existence of such problem issues (Senge, 1990).
Systems thinking practitioners make sense of an issue by making use of fundamental systems thinking tools, one of which is causal loop diagramming. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are graphical representations of the issue being explored which are based on an awareness of the elements comprising the system as being fundamentally interconnected and in continuous interaction with one another. CLDs are utilized in the initial stages of the SD process to assist stakeholders to make their perceptions and beliefs with regard to their issue of concern explicit, so as to generate meaningful discussion pertaining to the problem issue. The tools generated by proponents of systems thinking are many, but most of them aim at generating a graphic or visual representation of the issue being investigated which fosters a holistic understanding of how the underlying structure of the system gives rise to its behavior. Thereafter, points in the system can be identified which can be adapted, improved or corrected to allow for more effective or productive system behaviours to emerge (Hjorth & Bagheri, 2006). For this reason,Chapman (1998) declares the ability of systems thinking to reveal the component elements of a system or issue, and the manner in which they interact as being at the center of the recent gravitation toward a systemic manner of perceiving the world.Chapman (1998, p. 237) adds to the above definition by stating that the elements that comprise a system “function together for a common objective”.
The tendency of a systems thinking approach to examine phenomena in a holistic fashion is vastly different from the prevailing scientific tendency to understand phenomena by breaking them up into their constituent pieces and examining the parts in isolation (Hjorth & Bagheri, 2006). Although this approach is beneficial in understanding physical systems such as cars and computers, it is more of challenge when examining living or social systems such as organisations, political systems, societies, etc. Cars and computers can be easily deconstructed,
61 their parts examined and investigated and “repairs” to the parts that constitute either of these physical products will lead to their effective functioning once they are reassembled. However, with social and natural systems, it is simply impossible to “break them apart” and put the parts together again to produce more effective behavior in the overall system.
For this reason, systems thinking as a field continues to expand rapidly and its proponents have produced a number of systems thinking “tools” that can be utilized to gain a holistic understanding of any phenomena, issue or system being investigated which aim to overcome the reductionist and linear-thinking tendencies that have prevailed thus far. Recognizing how the elements that comprise a system interact through the use of such tools, enables not only a holistic understanding of the issue being investigated, but also enables those engaging in such investigations to understand why previous policies or interventions that were applied may not have produced the results originally anticipated, or may have had no impact within the system (Hirsch, Levine, & Miller, 2007).
The systems thinking assertion of viewing phenomena in a more holistic fashion may present a more difficult task for problem solvers and stakeholders as it requires a commitment to uncovering the deeper issues feeding a problem situation. It also calls upon the courage to move away from the more commonly accepted fragmented approach to problem solving. However, this approach, while presenting a more simplified approach to problem solving, is becoming less and less suited to dealing with the complexity inherent in social systems. As Gharajedaghi (2006, p. 26) asserts:
“But, somehow, something is missing with the way we think about our lives. What has become the dominant language of our time produces only a partial understanding of our reality and relates only to parts of our being, not the whole of it. We need a holistic language, a language of systems, which will enable us to see through chaos and understand complexity.”
Thus, systems thinking is proposed as a more beneficial lens through which to view, analyse and understand the social world and the social and natural systems embedded in it (Hjorth &
Bagheri, 2006). However, the importance of a reductionist approach should not be ignored as, thus far, it has made important contributions to the fields of science, technology and medicine. In this way, both holistic and reductionist ways of viewing the world have their own unique contributions to make in the understanding of particular phenomena, with system thinking’s
62 holistic approach more suited to social systems which demonstrate complexity, non-linearity and causal ambiguity.