Slide 26

When facing problems in contemporary world, one usually thinks that they these problems are not
possible or easy to resolve. The reason for this lies in a fact that problems we encounter are complex
and they cannot be resolved with a help of conventional or linear thinking. Analysis and linear (dual)
thinking play an important role in human consciousness.

Linear thinking is an analytic, methodic, rational and logical thinking style. A linear process moves
forward like a line with a starting point and an ending point, and our brains often want to make
simple straight connections in sequential order. In many situations, this style of thinking benefits us,
especially if we need to deliver accurate information succinctly.

From a childhood, a man is taught to break apart problems in order to make complex tasks and
subjects easier to deal with. But this creates a bigger problem, since he loses the ability to see the
consequences of his actions, and he loses a sense of connection to a larger whole. (Senge, 2006)

When service industry took larger part in a world business of the last two centuries, people started to
travel, tourism became one of the fragmental industries as well. Nowadays travelling is possible for a
majority of population, which made tourism industry the largest complex system in the world of the
business systems. Tourism is closely connected to many social, economic, political and other systems.

Slide 27

To understand its importance one should think in a mode of connectivity, synergy in a mode of
interdependence among tourism elements and influences among each other.

Understanding interdependency requires a way of thinking different from analysis; it requires

Systems approach uses a different process. It puts the system in the context of the larger
environment of it is a part and studies the role it plays in the larger whole. Systems approach
requires an excellent knowledge about a whole, yet it must take into concern analytical thinking.
Both will come to be thought of as twin components of scientific thinking.

Slide 28

Beyond simply fostering better leadership skills in just the CEO-type person at the helm of the
company, systems thinking reminds us that businesses do not grow magically or simply based on one
personality. From the person answering the phone to the comptroller to the leader, all are part of
the overall system and together create a thriving and responsive business.

Systems thinking makes a more effective leader by focusing how and when he use particular skill set,
empower his team and staff to do their jobs competently and keep everyone focused on the business
goals.

Systems thinking is no panacea. There is no checklist to work through that will guarantee someone is
thinking in a way that will capture the big picture or identify root causes of difficult problems. There
are some concepts and approaches embedded in the systems thinking literature, however, that can
be very helpful when considering why a situation seems to be immune to intervention, or why a
problem thought to be solved has returned with a vengeance. Here are some of the concepts:
• Focus on the purpose for which a system was created over the processes and procedures of the
system.

• Simple cause-and-effect relationships are insufficient to understand or explain a complex social

• Think in terms of synthesis over analysis; the whole over the parts.

• Busyness and excessive focus on short term gains interferes with our ability to use a systems
approach.

• Leaders must see what is actually happening over what they want to see happen.

• Thinking about systems and their dynamics suggests alternative approaches and attunes leaders to
important aspects of organizational behavior, especially in military organizations that value tradition
and standardization.

Slide 29

People who practice systems thinking often report that it sharpens and clarifies their understanding
of interrelationships within systems, helping them find the opportunities or “leverage points” that
can take the performance of the entire system to a higher level. Though “habit” is defined as a usual
way of doing things, the Habits of a Systems Thinker do not suggest that systems thinkers are limited
by routine ways of thinking. Rather, the Habits encourage flexible thinking and appreciation of new,
emerging insights and multiple perspectives. The following slides will present the habits of the
system thinker:

Seeks to understand the big picture

Question to ask: How can I maintain balance between the big picture and important details?

Slide 30

Identifies the circular nature of complex cause and effect relationships

Question to ask: “Where does circular causality/feedback emerge?”

Slide 31

Considers an issue fully and resists the urge to come to a quick conclusion

Question to ask: “How can I manage the tension that exists when issues are not resolved
immediately?”

Slide 32

Observes how elements within systems change over time, generating patterns and trends

Question to ask: “What changing elements represent amounts and how quickly/slowly are they
increasing or decreasing?”

Slide 33

Changes perspectives to increase understanding

Question to ask: “As I learn about new perspectives, am I willing to change my mind?”
Slide 34

Considers how mental models affect current reality and the future

Question to ask: “How am I helping others see the influence that mental models have on our
decision-making?”

Slide 35

Recognizes that a system’s structure generates its behaviour

Question to ask: “When things go wrong, how can I focus on internal causes rather than dwell on
external blame?”

Slide 35

Surfaces and tests assumptions

Question to ask: “When considering a possible action, do I and those I work with ask ‘What if’
questions?”

Slide 36

Uses understanding of system structure to identify possible leverage actions

Question to ask: “Where might a small change – even those not yet considered – have a long-lasting,
desired effect?”

Slide 37

Considers both short and longterm consequences of actions

Question to ask: “Are we examining the effects of actions within a logical time frame?”

Slide 38

Finds where unintended consequences emerge

Question to ask: “What are the possible consequences of the proposed actions?”

Slide 39

Checks results and changes actions if needed: “successive approximation”

Question to ask: “What indicators will we expect to see as we look for progress?”

Slide 40

Recognizes the impact of time delays when exploring cause and effect relationships

Question to ask: “If we make a change to the system, how long before we see the results that we
desire?”

Slide 41

Surfaces and tests assumptions

“How do my past experiences influence the development of my theories and assumptions?”

Slide 42
As an example, systems scholar Daniel Aronson suggests that we imagine a farmer who determines
that an insect infestation is eating his crop. The conventional approach

is to apply a pesticide designed to kill the insect. Our example at this point depicts the lowest level of
the thinking hierarchy—reaction. In response to the appearance of insects, the farmer applies a
pesticide because he assumes that what has worked in the past will work in this instance. As
additional insects appear, the farmer applies more pesticide. While the farmer’s goal is to produce a
crop, his activity is increasingly consumed by recurring applications of the chemical. He is surely busy,
but he may not necessarily be productive.

A systems thinker might step back from the problem, take a broader view, and consider what is
happening over time. For example, he might think about whether there are any patterns that appear
over weeks or months and attempt to depict what is actually occurring. Recognizing the pattern of a
system over time is a higher-order level of thinking. The systems thinker might notice that insect
infestation did decrease after applying pesticide, but only for a short time. Insects that were eating
the crop were actually controlling a second species of insect not affected by the pesticide.
Elimination of the first species resulted in a growth explosion in the second that caused even more
damage than the first. The obvious solution caused unintended consequences that worsened the
situation.

An accomplished systems thinker would model the above example using a series of feedback and
reinforcing loops. The specifics of the modeling technique are less important at this point than the
observation that systems thinking tends to see things in terms of loops and patterns aided by
constant assessment of what is happening, rather than flow charts and reliance on what should be
happening. At the highest level of thinking, the farmer would try to identify root causes or possible
points of intervention suggested by these observations.