In systems theory, the systems thinker develops a systems mindset. With this kind of systems mindset, there are systems tools that enable the systems thinker to work with diverse systems.
Senge (2006) describes mental models in terms of the way we think, which is influenced by our assumptions, generalisations and the kind pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we act based on the above mentioned factors. For this study we have cited a few of the systems tools. Buckle Henning, Wilmhurst & Yearworth (2012) argue that systems thinking focuses on the use of systems tools and assigns the name of systems thinker to the person that uses such tools. There are a variety of systems tools as the discipline grows.
a) Leverage point
According to Meadows (1999) leverage points are places within a complex system (e.g. a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, and an ecosystem) ‗where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything. These are places where power is exerted in order to leverage the system. Senge (2006) pointed out that leverage points are the ‗right places in a system where small, well-focused actions can sometimes produce significant, enduring improvements‘ (p.64) . Systems scholars also agree with Meadows and Senge and
116
they cite the above definitions, as they write on leverage points (Trinh, Ha, Bosch & Nguyen, 2015; Fiscus, 2013; Nguyen, Bosch, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2013; Greyson, 2007; Hjorth, &
Bagheri, 2006).
Systems scholars adopted the idea of leverage points and applied it in different fields and contexts (Fiscus, 2013; Nguyen, Bosch, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2013; Greyson, 2007; Hjorth, &
Bagheri, 2006; Stroh, 2009). According to Hargreaves (2001), school leadership has a responsibility of identifying and applying high leverage strategies for school improvement.
Soft systems approaches has sought to readdress this by understanding that people are an integral part of organisations and that these people each bring to the organisation their own worldviews, interests and motivations (Barton, Flood, Selsky & Wolstenholme, 2004; Burns, 2007). Furthermore, soft systems approaches understands the difficulties involved in the predictability of human behaviour. Soft systems techniques invariably employ a researcher whose role it is to ensure the study group contains key stakeholders; to act as a facilitator of the process; to orchestrate discussions; and be seen as open, independent and fair (Heyer, 2004). Soft systems methods seek to help key stakeholders understand the problems they face; the views held by other stakeholders; negotiate the action to take; and agree to a consensus on a course, or courses, of action to be taken ( Heyer, 2004; Daellenbach, 2002).
Based on the developed Systems School Development Framework are identified potential points for systemic intervention as illustrated in Figure 6.5 and Table 6.4 in Chapter Six.
b) Decision Trees
A decision tree is a tool for helping a decision maker to choose between several courses of action. Decision trees provide a highly effective structure within which decision makers can lay out options and investigate the possible outcomes of choosing those options. They also help to form a balanced picture of the risks and rewards associated with each possible course of action (Carter & Price, 2001).
117 c) Influence Diagram
Most scholars concur with the definition sponsored by Howard and Matheson (1981) that an influence diagram is a simple visual representation of a decision problem. It provides an intuitive way to identify and display the essential elements, including decisions, uncertainties, and objectives and how they influence each other (Howard & Matheson, 1981; Heyer, 2004;
Bez, Flores, Fonseca, Maroni, Barros & Vicari, 2012). There is general agreement that the purpose for the development of influence diagram was formulate a tool that will be appropriate to solving real world problems (Howard & Matheson, 1981). Scholars from different fields employ this tool for purposes of measuring risk in organisations (Heyer, 2004;
Bez, et al., 2012). This is the common application of both decision trees and influence diagrams in Operations Research (OR), and comes under the guise of hard OR as they then become problem solving (rather than purely problem structuring) methods.
d) Iceberg Tool
The iceberg model is a systems thinking tool designed to help an individual or group discover the patterns of behaviour, supporting structures, and mental models that underlie a particular event. It can be viewed in terms of the different ways of seeing the world. The world can be viewed as events, patterns, structures, mental models and containers. At the event level we look at routine. We tend to perceive the world at the event level and our solutions are reactive. The pattern level looks at what is observed as repeated events. At this level we can anticipate, plan and forecast. It allows us to adapt to problems so we can react more effectively to them. Scholars in different fields are employing this tool as a way of understanding the systemic issues that prevail in the organisation (Testa & Sipe, 2006; Stroh, 2009; Maani, 2013).
The tool is utilised for questioning at the different levels. At the structure level, a question would inquire about what is the cause of what is being observed. Different questions are formulated for purposes of getting into the bottom of the matter regarding the existing patterns. The ultimate aim at this stage is to reveal what is embedded as the existing mental models. These are what people hold at their attitudes, beliefs, morals, ethics, expectations, values and experiences. By this thinking tool, we get into the deeper issues that in the minds
118
of people. The mental model is a powerful thinking tool which enables us to understand what is beyond the naked eye.
Figure 3.1 portrays the Iceberg tool that is used to depict the level of thinking in organisations.
Figure 3.2: Iceberg Tool (Source: Rethmeier, K.A, 2010)
d) Multi-cause diagram
Multiple-cause diagrams portray the interconnectedness between the elements in a complex system. In doing this they try to depict the multiple-causes within the system. These elements are drawn is such a way that they need to show where is the root of cause and effect and how do these multiple effects affect each other. This is one way of attempting to see beyond the linear chain of causation. Fleyfel (2010) conducted a study which illustrates the multiple causes of the waste of water at Lebanon. He illustrated these by drawing a multi- cause diagram to illustrate how each variable is linked to others.
As part of the systems theoretical framework, I will summarily clarify the systemic leadership, in order to link it with the study which examines principals and their use of systems thinking in school development practice.
119