3

SYSTEMS-THINKING THEORY
Decision-making for sustainable
workplace transformations

Renuka Thakore*, Aino Kavantera and Graeme Whitehall

1 Background
The idea of ‘systems’ has been discussed in almost all disciplines since its origin in the 17th
century including physics, biology and chemistry, and was eventually used for explanations in
ecology, engineering, economics, anthropology, geography, sociology, cybernetics and so on. It
has emerged as a meta-discipline and as a meta-language (Checkland & Scholes, 1999). Using
the idea of systems, Checkland (1981 to date) provides the seminal work on ‘systems-think-
ing’. ‘Systems-thinking’ is about consciously organised thinking processes (Arnold & Wade,
2015; Checkland, 1981). Systems-thinking is a world view which allows appreciation of holis-
tic systems, having interconnections between the elements of which systems-thinking is made
of, called system-components. This includes human and non-human elements of the system,
encompassing physical, natural, social, economic, cultural and cognitive attributes, established
in the form of the wider, linked processes between the users (human) and technologies or
structures (non-human) of the system (Clegg, 2000). These system-components contribute to
properties such as drivers, outcomes and feedbacks, and can be applied to problems of multiple
disciplines (Cerar, 2012; Forrester, 1994; Voinov & Farley, 2007). As a core concept, systems-
thinking is an idea of the ‘adaptive whole’. As a whole, a system has its own emergent proper-
ties, layered structure and processes of communication and control (Arnold & Wade, 2015;
Checkland, 1981).
Systems-thinking involves several principles, which on their own are looked upon as dis-
ciplines of systems-thinking. Anderson and Johnson (1997) provide the basic principles of
systems-thinking:

1 The ‘Big Picture’ principle demands widening one’s perspective to find a more effective
solution (e.g. in stressful times, one tends to focus on the immediate, most pressing prob-
lem and this perceives only the effects of changes elsewhere in the system). Therefore, one
should step back to look at the bigger picture and investigate the source of the problem,
which would more likely identify a more effective solution.
2 The ‘Long Term, Short Term’ principle suggests that the best approach to strike a balance
about any decision is to consider short-term (e.g., a week, a quarter, a year) and long-term
*corresponding author. r.thakore@ucem.ac.uk

25 DOI: 10.1201/9781003128786-3
 Renuka Thakore et al.

(e.g., strategic changes impacting on better overall performance of the business) options
and to look for the course of action that encompasses both.
3 The ‘Dynamic, Complex, and Interdependent’ principle stresses the fact that things change
all the time, life is messy, and everything is connected. Essentially, this points out that the
world is dynamic, complex and interdependent. The principle also advocates that simpli-
fication, structure and linear thinking have their own limitations and thus consideration
should be given to a system’s relationships both within the system and with the external
environment.
4 The ‘Measurable vs Non-measurable Data’ principle encourages organisations to value
both quantitative (measurable, e.g., sales figures and costs) and qualitative (non-measurable,
e.g., morale and attitudes) data and challenges the tendency to ‘see’ only what can be
measured.
5 The ‘We Are Part of the System’ principle highlights that the decision makers are often
the contributor to their problems (e.g. a current problem can be the result of unintended
consequences of a decision made or a solution implemented previously, including decisions
made based on some kinds of mental assumptions, values and beliefs).

Systems-thinking is uniquely placed to use as a language for discussing complex systemic

issues. Most importantly, it emphasises that professionals look at the project as a whole, rather
than deal with their own familiar confined parts of the system. This essentially brings manag-
ers and engineers, emanating from different professions with differing terminology, functions
and responsibilities, together. However, the professionals coming from divergent and com-
partmentalised backgrounds, and comfortable in using the language of their respective subject
terminology, can inhibit those involved in the project to think of the project as a system and
consequently can fail to ‘engineer’ or ‘transform’ the system for improvements in performance.
This illustrates a fundamental set of barriers to understanding and applying systems-thinking in
a complex multidisciplinary project (Checkland & Scholes, 1999).
Previous studies on decision-making have focused on ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ (CAS)
framing and made significant contributions to understanding dynamics of decision-making at
the organisational level (see also Chapter 8 on decision-making theory). The main properties
exhibited by CAS are the ‘interaction between the system-components and their environment’
in addition to ‘adaptive capabilities’ and ‘responsiveness to feedback’ (Choi et al., 2001). CAS
systems exhibit properties like self-organisation, emergence and adaptation demonstrating stra-
tegic importance of the CAS framework particularly applicable for analysing complex problems
in the organisational context (Campbell, 1960; Rhodes, 2008). These properties are important
in analysing existing relationships per se, the outcome of which can inform decision makers on
how to address a problem (Boston, 2000; Chapman, 2004).
Scholarship on sustainable transformations have focused on the socio-technical systems (see
also Chapter 5 on socio-technical transitions theory). The socio-technical system is comprised
of three operational levels: macro-, meso- and micro-levels, corresponding to three analytical
concepts: landscape, regimes and niches (Geels, 2002). This ‘multi-level perspective’ of the
socio-technical system (Geels, 2002, 2011) provides a framework for analysing institutional
(system) innovations and changes (transitions) (Kemp & Rotmans, 2005; Loorbach, 2010), con-
sequentially actualising the potential of transition (Berkhout et al., 2004; see also Chapter 8 on
decision-making theory). Equally important, the institutional innovations and changes in core
values, policies and practices, occurring at both inter-organisational (landscape or macro) and
organisational (regime or meso) levels, must align their context to the individual level (niche or

26
 Systems-thinking theory

micro) to allow successful transition. Therefore, governance engaging with dynamic and rela-
tional changes occurring at all three levels can contribute significantly to effective sustainable
transformations.
Equally important, the emerging theory of sustainability requires organisations to drive their
workplace strategies based on the principle of resource efficiency and resilience, using valuable
human resources effectively to the path of making a resilient organisation, requiring conservation
and management (Pelling, 2010; see also Chapter 6 on resilience). The theory of sustainability
also considers the balance between various contextual themes and processes, such as economic
activities, ecological constraints, social behaviour and influences, organisational behaviour and
growth, cultural influences and the political environment, to move towards a full and effective
participation of various organisational system-components in decision-making processes (Men-
sah & Casadevall, 2019; United Nations, 2012). This requires a holistic approach, and therefore,
systems-thinking that is adept in assessing interconnection and multiple mutual relationships
between system-components can be pragmatic. However, theories of applying systems-thinking
and analyses of workplace performance are not readily available. Therefore, given that both
CAS and socio-technical systems can contribute to strategic and dynamic decision-making, the
‘Integrated Complex Adaptive and Socio-technical Framing’ (Figure 3.1), backed with sustain-
ability science, system innovations and system-transformations, can be adopted to assess both
responses at individual and collective levels, and how these collaboratively impact on sustainable
transformation (Thakore, 2016). This is explained further in Section 2.

2 Applicability to workplace studies

In a ‘traditional (office) workplace’ environment, all employees have an assigned desk. Tradi-
tional workplace practices are unsustainable, due to cumulative environmental impact on the
production process, or as a direct function of consumption levels, having detrimental impacts
on the human quality of life (UNEP, 2010). For example, energy use and consumption of
resources at the workplace contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases, priority air pollutants,
chemical emissions, ozone-depleting emissions and radioactive emissions. These in turn have
health impacts such as relatively higher temperature, higher humidity, poor indoor air quality,
poor illumination and poor ventilation (Piasecki et al., 2020). Sustainable economic growth
therefore depends on how technological advances, inventions and digital innovations – such
as technological software, project management systems and various communication devices
and channels – are adopted to make both work and workplace practices sustainable (Hansen &
Hoffman, 2011; see also Chapter 14 on radical innovation). For example, technology such
as connectivity and laptops allow working from anywhere, and there is no longer a need of
a fixed desk for each person. Agile workplace concepts often use desk ratios and enable the
team to work in the office (at site) or off-site, including at home. This impacts on the organisa-
tion’s environmental impact and sustainability, importantly, reducing energy consumption per
employee (Holbeche, 2015).
Over the last three decades, there have been repeated calls for increasing resource efficiency
and sustainability within the development activities of the built environment – particularly
in work environments (Harrison et al., 2003; Schmidt-Bleek, 1998; Weizsäcker et al., 1998).
Resource efficiency and sustainability policies are promoted at various levels, globally, at the
European regional level (European Commission, 2014), nationally, regionally and municipally
(Giljum & Polzin, 2009). This is to sustain economic growth while improving environmental
performance (Huber, 2000). Nevertheless, increased resource use remains a nascent problem.

27
 Renuka Thakore et al.

Figure 3.1 Integrated complex adaptive and socio-technical framing

Source: Thakore (2016)

Absolute reduction in resource use is essential (Giljum & Polzin, 2009; PROVIA, 2013). It
is important to note however, that only achieving resource efficiency is not enough. ‘Despite
gains in material efficiency, the global use of materials, and the accompanying impacts of
extraction, processing and disposal, continues to increase’ (Urban Sustainability Directors Net-
work, 2016). Therefore, sustainable consumption is needed ( Jackson, 2016). This should be
integrated with ecological consistency and achieving sufficiency in performance levels, pri-
marily with individual action with efforts to advance at the organisational and societal levels
(Alcott, 2008).
The integrated complex adaptive and socio-technical framing (see Figure 3.1) offers three
main mechanisms: driving, decision-making and evaluation. Boxes A, B, C and D represent
non-human elements of the system, Boxes E, F, G and H represent human elements of the sys-
tem and Box I represents the results of interlinked human and non-human elements. Strategic
systems-agents (Boxes A and E) are responsible for the ‘driving’; the strategic governing-rules
(Boxes B and F) are the basis for ‘decision-making’; and other strategic processes such as inter-
actions (double-headed arrows), feedbacks (Boxes D and H), and inputs and outputs (single
headed arrows) are responsible for the ‘evaluation’ process. These mechanisms are interdepend-
ent in such a way that the strategic outputs depend on the effective coordination between
all mechanisms whilst having every system-component operative in these mechanisms. For
example, strategic systems-agents would take actions under the influence/pressure of strategic
governing-rules and contribute to the strategic outputs/objectives (see also Chapter 10 on
principal-agent theory).
Strategic outputs that are positive could strengthen the overall capability of the system to
achieve its objectives (system-objectives) and reduce ‘uncertainty’ in its functional pathways.
Likewise, strategic outputs that are negative could weaken the overall capability of the system
to achieve system-objectives and increase ‘uncertainty’ within the system. These uncertainties
are reported or fed back to the strategic system-agent(s) in the form of challenges (Rhodes &

28
 Systems-thinking theory

MacKechnie, 2003). These challenges increase ‘complexity’ in the functional pathways. This sit-
uation may require evaluating governing-rules and transforming them for the system to deliver
desired objectives. Therefore, iterative visits to these processes could increase capacities for
dealing with challenges and increasing the knowledge of ‘complexity’ in the system. Princi-
pally, this framework captures characteristics of systems-thinking and highlights that multi-level
system-components need to work in coordination in a long timeframe in order to deliver multi-
dimensional sustainability (McCormick et al., 2013).
Box A and Box E represent a range of workplace-related strategies and roles respectively,
especially related to improving organisational productivity (performance), energy efficiency and
sustainability at all three levels: the objectives of organisational performance associated with the
best practices at inter-organisational level (international level or sectoral association level) such
as enabling competitiveness and market, attracting talent and conveying brand values (see also
Chapter 11 on branding), and associated personal objectives of the employees, such as involve-
ment, satisfaction and wellness. Boxes B and F represent a range of strategic governing-rules that
define strategic interventions to achieve strategic outcomes. Strategic governing-rules direct
strategic systems-agents to take actions and deliver on productivity (performance), energy effi-
ciency and sustainability. Emerging governing-rules could be both top-down and bottom-up
as against the traditional top-down nature of governing-rules. For example, at organisational
and individual levels, agile workplace strategies could involve working from home. This can be
associated with diverting the time and energy spent in travel and space occupancy to implement
more productivity, social and well-being measures, especially beneficial for those struggling
with multiple duties of work and home at the same time. At the individual level, it can attract
young talent, and better wellness, without having employers invest in extra spaces (Harris, 2015;
Skogland, 2017).
Boxes C and G represent strategic outcomes resulting from the interactions between sys-
tems-agents and the governing-rules. The outcomes are evident through the change in organi-
sational performance levels including productivity, health and well-being, energy use, and
energy security. Boxes D and H represent strategic challenges that constrain the delivery of
strategic outcomes – for example, ‘cost’ could be the most important strategic challenge. Other
strategic challenges could include communication, funds/grants and priority. These challenges
bring uncertainties at each level. These must be addressed through consultation, awareness and
training and eventually embedded into the culture. The role of a workplace strategic leader is
very important. Workplace strategies are more likely to succeed with the strategic leadership of
senior management (Brunia et al., 2016), yet the senior colleagues can sometimes be resistant to
such change (Kavantera et al., 2020). Every effort should be made not only to hit targets, but
also to make sure that principles of workplace strategies, organisational productivity, employees’
health and well-being, energy efficiency and sustainability are adopted to create a hospitable
workplace experience for employees (see also Chapter 17 on hospitality).
Kavantera et al. (2020) analysed Hong Kong workplace practices using systems-thinking
theory. This exploratory research investigated the corporate drivers and individual preferences
associated with the agile workplace. The study assessed workplace competence and individual
and collective outcomes of the agile workplace. It revealed that the changing nature of work,
productivity and employee wellness were some of the key drivers for implementation of agile
workplace strategies at a corporate level. The preferences at the individual level, on the other
hand, were found to be positively associated with an individual’s exposure level to agile work-
places (Kavantera et al., 2020). This introductory research provided an early exploration of
workplace practices, behaviours and patterns in Asian cities such as Hong Kong, while high-
lighting the need to carry out further research to study these topics in closer detail.

29
 Renuka Thakore et al.

3 Methodology/research approach
Workplaces involve employees, those holding dignity (meaning) for the work (Hodson, 2001)
and significance of the workplace (Eraut & Hirsh, 2010). Therefore, it is important to capture
employees’ perspectives (Campbell, 2000; O’Connell et al., 2004). A qualitative research tech-
nique can be used to uncover the realities lying in participants’ experiences – and individual
agency. Different patterns of human behaviour are observed in different times and places. The
participant’s experiences are expressed to the researcher who interprets these experiences based
on his/her abilities and perceptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Adopted by constructivist and
interpretivists, this technique helps gain holistic knowledge (Candy, 1991), understanding of
the phenomenon in its ‘natural settings’ (Denzin, 2001) and of the ‘native’ viewpoints of the
research participants, applying a wide- and deep-angle lens (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
The qualitative research technique applies inductive reasoning for deeper understanding of
the context (Tolley et al., 2016) and attempts to answer ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions while
conceptualising complex processes contributing to theories (Gray, 2019). Qualitative analysis
is used to improve understanding of individual agency, mutual interactions and influences, and
to explicate realities based on a reliable database and convincing arguments (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). Qualitative data collection techniques include interviews, observations, documents,
focus group discussion, themes and concepts, etc. The purposive sampling technique has the
potential to collect a rich information data set and provide a valuable outcome (Patton, 2014).
The data analysis includes extraction of important data (data reduction), organisation of data for
meaningful constructs (data display) and constructing sensible outcomes (data findings) (Huber-
man & Miles, 2002).
The workplace can have unique features, such as progressive work practices, productive
workplace or appreciated workplace, that promote greater employee involvement in the organi-
sation of work. Training, incentivised reward systems and workplace innovation have all been
invoked as potential levers for pursuing high-level organisational policy objectives. The work-
place can be a place for private experiences such as job enrichment, participation, empower-
ment, transformational leadership and many more positive initiatives/practices to expand the
employee role. While qualitative research provides a basis for generating theories and concepts
belonging to the workplace processes, structures and strategies, objective evidence is needed to
support the constructs.
The quantitative research techniques use deductive reasoning to identify social reality and
integrate objectivism (Tolley et al., 2016). Commonly based on statistical probability and apply-
ing cause-and-effect principles, general patterns of human behaviour are identified (Marczyk &
DeMatteo, 2005). Surveys, questionnaires and experiments are used to collect large numerical
data which normally measure relationships between two or more variables (van Alphen et al.,
1994). The use of Likert scales (Likert, 1932) satisfies the requirement of the scientific reason-
ing and allows interpretation of the results in a specific context for qualitative researchers (Göb
et al., 2007). Further, a range of statistical analytic approaches can be employed in analysing
numerical data; for example, descriptive analysis and multivariate analysis (Ngai et al., 2009).
These could be useful in making connections between different stakeholders’ priorities and
perspectives working within the same workplace environment.
Given the complex nature of workplace research, there is a need to incorporate multiple
perspectives (individual and collective) to understand workplace processes, challenges of sustain-
able transformation and multidimensional sustainability, in addition to general organisational
functions. An explicit mixed-method design (focal literature review, online survey, interviews)
can be used for research to maximise engagement and participation of all relevant stakeholders

30
 Systems-thinking theory

as demonstrated by Kavantera et al. (2020). Moreover, a ‘grounded theory’ approach can be

employed to capture the essence of the outcome, evaluate multiple perspectives and contribute
to interpretive theories for emergent properties in the workplace.
Workplaces are complicated and dynamic environments. Therefore, they are required to
have pragmatic approaches to achieve collective and individual engagement and success. In con-
temporary workplaces, the workplace leaders are required to have close coordination between
internal stakeholders such as employees and external stakeholders, clients and regulators. Eve-
ryone engaged needs to be in the same plane of understanding to deliver the organisational (i.e.
system’s) objectives. This highlights that workplaces are complex, and each component is inter-
related and represents a structure that can be investigated applying systems-thinking.
Systems-thinking is a pragmatic approach to deal with problems of societal systems – problems
which cannot be solved without considering complexity and interdependence (da Costa Junior
et al., 2019). Therefore, integrated research methods such as interdisciplinary and transdiscipli-
nary methods that facilitate transcendence to a new common understanding, whilst consider-
ing diverse perspectives and integrating them based on commonality, could be useful for future
systems-thinking research (Clarke, 2012; Repko & Szostak, 2020). However, the challenges
of integrated research design include ensuring a balance between (a) the participants (elite
and ordinary) taking part in the research process; (b) consensus building between different
perspectives of participants for a given set of values; and (c) objectivity and subjectivity. These
challenges can be addressed by integrating various knowledge domains, including theories,
perspectives and practices (Schneider & Rist, 2014). ‘Identifying the hidden collective perspec-
tive in the relationships’ (for example, correlation, regressions, etc.) attached to the hypotheses
can help integrate objectivity (Harding, 1992). An equally significant aspect of collective per-
spective in the new knowledge acquired by the participants is that it engages self-reflexivity
(Azeiteiro et al., 2014), where participants reconsider their own values and opinions (Rosen-
dahl et al., 2015).

4 Limitations
Several implications of systems-thinking for sustainable transformational processes are advanta-
geous, such as appreciation of a holistic system or ‘adaptive whole’ and having interconnections
between system-components. The properties of systems-thinking such as drivers, outcomes and
feedbacks are applicable to problems of multiple disciplines and possess capacity to transform
theoretical framing for sustainable transformations. A number of benefits for sustainable trans-
formations in the workplace can be unveiled through systems-thinking: such as understanding
multi-perspectives of the stakeholders, gaining deeper understanding of mutual interactions and
influences, impacting on desired outcomes including productivity (performance) and energy
efficiency, means to achieve multidimensional sustainability by aligning different levels: indi-
vidual, organisational and inter-organisational levels (that do not always align; see also Chapter 9
on alignment).
The systems-thinking, however, applied in the context of workplace currently describes only
an exploration and observations of workplace strategies and changes, which misses out on the
advantages discussed earlier. The reason for this is that systems-thinking has not been able to cap-
ture the language/discourse in the workplace. These challenges point to the narrow world view
that the managers or senior-level management team held for their workplace or organisation. For
systems-thinking to have a greater impact, there is a need to look beyond the external environ-
ment and immediate concerns of the internal environment. The principles of systems-thinking
must be relayed through different channels, and a common vocabulary should be developed

31
 Renuka Thakore et al.

among the stakeholders, so that all involved in the change can easily participate and contribute
to its dialogue. Employees, at the same time, should conceptualise this theory and make it feasible
through their workplace objectives or organisational policies. This could be delivered through
making the organisation a learning organisation and studying links between practice and learn-
ing, agency and change. External consultancy, career professional development programmes or
use of master’s courses underpinning systems-thinking theories, or related ways to enhance the
understanding and application of systems-thinking, could be helpful. Future work can focus on
providing an in-depth understanding of each emerging strategic benefit that relate to people
management practices and organisational design – such as supporting a high-performance cul-
ture, providing flexibility, rapid decision-making and execution of strategic goals.

5 Theory relevance to practice

In the face of contemporary real-world problems of organisational workplaces, managers face
difficulties in using traditional management or governance strategies to execute sustainable
transformations. Understanding interconnections between each systems-component at every
level, recognition of roles and responsibilities and long-term planning should become the cen-
tral managerial tasks. Managers should take advantage of the characteristics of ‘Integrated Com-
plex Adaptive and Socio-technical Framing’ (Thakore, 2016).
The ‘Integrated Complex Adaptive and Socio-technical Framing’ underpinning systems-
thinking involves assessing interconnected system-components and multiple mutual relation-
ships between these system-components. Thus, the key creation of this framing is the holistic
approach which allows the recognition of individual and collective roles and responsibility,
which in turn arise from the decision-making of each one involved. Systemic competence
is dependent on stakeholders’ positive practical experience, co-operative behaviour, and the
rationale of systems-thinking (Harrison et al., 2003). Managers must invest heavily in systems to
increase the strategic capacity that the system lacks at individual and collective levels. This could
include optimisation of leadership and workplace strategies at individual and organisational
levels (see also Chapter 18 on service management); and use of sustainable organisational strate-
gies to move workplace strategic sustainability goals from ‘aspirational levels’ to more concrete
‘implementation levels’.
With several elements such as uncertainty and ambiguities in the face of unknowability, the
quality of learning from feedback enables the organisation to take actions that provide a better
degree of certainty and deliver better results balancing the relationships among the systems-
agents in the system. Organisational decision-making for long-term planning should consider
the multi-level system-components’ need to work in coordination over a long timeframe to
deliver multidimensional sustainability. Managers should take initiatives to help employees by
making their tasks as contextual as possible to the changing circumstances. The long-term
planning with iterative cycles of assessing drivers, challenges and opportunities periodically in
accordance with organisational productivity (performance), energy efficiency and sustainabil-
ity, when done in conjunction with the employees’ participation, allows managers to execute
workplace sustainable transformations (see also Chapter 16 on user-centred design thinking).

6 Further reading
Després, C., Vachon, G., & Fortin, A. (2011). Implementing transdisciplinarity: Architecture and urban
planning at work. In Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production in Architecture and Urbanism (pp. 33–49).
Dordrecht: Springer.

32
 Systems-thinking theory

Kaspary, M. C. (2014). Complex thought and systems thinking connecting group process and team man-
agement: New lenses for social transformation in the workplace. Systems Research and Behavioral Sci-
ence, 31(5), 655–665. doi:10.1002/sres.2313
McDaniel, R., Jr (2007). Management strategies for complex adaptive systems sensemaking, learning,
and improvisation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 21–41. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2007.
tb00438.x
Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, S., & Persson, S. (2013). Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 22(4), 230–244. doi:10.1002/bse.1773

7 References
Alcott, B. (2008). The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Eco-
logical Economics, 64(4), 770–786. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.015
Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems Thinking Basics. Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Communications.
Arnold, R., & Wade, J. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer
Science, 44(2015), 669–678. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
Azeiteiro, U., Leal Filho, W., & Caeiro, S. (2014). E-Learning and Education for Sustainability. doi:10.3726/
978-3-653-02460-9
Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2004). Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. In
B. Elzen, F. Geels & K. Green (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evi-
dence and Policy (p. 336). doi:10.4337/9781845423421.00013
Boston, J. (2000). The challenge of evaluating systemic change: The case of public management reform.
International Public Management Journal, 3(1), 23–46. doi:10.1016/S1096-7494(00)00033-7
Brunia, S., De Been, I., & van der Voordt, T. (2016). Accommodating new ways of working: Les-
sons from best practices and worst cases. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18(1), 30–47. doi:10.1108/
JCRE-10-2015-0028
Campbell, D. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge
processes. Psychological Review, 67(6), 380–400. doi:10.1037/h0040373
Campbell, D. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 14(3), 52–66. doi:10.5465/ame.2000.4468066
Candy, P. (1991). Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cerar, J. (2012). Transdisciplinary Sustainable Development (Master thesis). Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska
fakulteta. www.cek.ef.uni-lj.si/magister/cerar773-B.pdf
Chapman, J. (2004). System Failure: Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently. London: Demos.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: J. Wiley.
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective. Chichester: Wiley.
Choi, T., Dooley, K., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks and complex adaptive systems:
Control versus emergence. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 351–366. doi:10.1016/S0272-
6963(00)00068-1
Clarke, S. (2012). Information Systems Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. Oxon: Routledge.
Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463–477.
doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0
da Costa Jr, J., Diehl, J. C., & Snelders, D. (2019). A framework for a systems design approach to complex
societal problems. Design Science, 5. doi:10.1017/dsj.2018.16
Denzin, N. (2001). Interpretive Interactionism (Vol. 16). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2010). The Significance of Workplace Learning for Individuals, Groups and Organisations.
Oxford: SKOPE.
European Commission. (2014). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Policy Framework for
Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&from=EN
Forrester, J. (1994). System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3),
245–256. doi:10.1002/sdr.4260100211
Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level per-
spective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

33
 Renuka Thakore et al.

Geels, F. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
Giljum, S., & Polzin, C. (2009). Resource Efficiency for Sustainable Growth: Global Trends and European Policy Scenar-
ios. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Green Industry in Asia – Managing the Transition
to Resource-Efficient and Low-Carbon Industries, Manila, Philippines. www.academia.edu/190057/
Resource_efficiency_for_sustainable_growth_global_trends_and_European_policy_scenarios
Göb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales.
Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 601–626. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9089-z
Gray, D. (2019). Doing Research in the Business World. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lin-
coln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105–117). California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hansen, L., & Hoffman, J. (2011). Climate savvy: Adapting conservation and resource management to a
changing world. Oryx, 45(3), 456–457. doi:10.1017/S0030605311001232
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity? The Centennial
Review. www.jstor.org/stable/23739232
Harris, R. (2015). The changing nature of the workplace and the future of office space. Journal of Property
Investment & Finance, 33(5), 424–435. doi:10.1108/JPIF-05-2015-0029
Harrison, A., Wheeler, P., & Whitehead, C. (Eds.). (2003). The Distributed Workplace: Sustainable Work
Environments (1st ed.). doi:10.4324/9780203616574
Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holbeche, L. (2015). The Agile Organization: How to Build an Innovative, Sustainable and Resilient Business.
London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Huber, J. (2000). Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a concept of ecological mod-
ernization. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2(4), 269–285. doi:10.1002/1522-7200
(200010/12)2:4<269::AID-JEPP58>3.0.CO;2-U
Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. California: SAGE Publica-
tions, Inc.
Jackson, T. (2016). Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. London: Routledge.
Kavantera, A., Thakore, R., & Whitehall, G. (2020). How do Corporate Drivers and Individual Preferences for
Agile Working Meet? Study of Hong Kong Organisations and Employees. Paper Presented at the The Second
Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, 16th–19th of September 2020, Weimar, Germany.
www.twr2020.org/Conference-Program/Session-4/
Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2005). The management of the co-evolution of technical, environmental
and social systems. In M. Weber & J. Hemmelskamp (Eds.), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems
(pp. 33–55). doi:10.1007/3-540-27298-4_3
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In, Archives of Psychology (Vol. 22, p. 55).
Virginia: The University of Virginia.
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-
based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x
Marczyk, G., & DeMatteo, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transforma-
tion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003
Mensah, J., & Casadevall, S. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and
implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1653531. doi:10.1080/
23311886.2019.1653531
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. California:
John Wiley & Sons.
Ngai, E., Xiu, L., & Chau, D. (2009). Application of data mining techniques in customer relationship
management: A literature review and classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2592–2602.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.021
O’Connell, P., Russell, H., Watson, D., & Byrne, D. (2004). The Changing Workplace: A Survey of Employees’
Views and Experiences. http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/72620/NCPP_Research_2_
2004_nwses_full_report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. California:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pelling, M. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. Oxon: Routledge.

34
 Systems-thinking theory

Piasecki, M., Kostyrko, K., Fedorczak-Cisak, M., & Nowak, K. (2020). Air enthalpy as an IAQ indica-
tor in hot and humid environment – experimental evaluation. Energies, 13(6), 1481. doi:10.3390/
en13061481
PROVIA. (2013). PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change. Nai-
robi, Kenya. www.adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/downloads/provia-guidance-nov2013.pdf
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (4th ed.). California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Rhodes, M. (2008). Complexity and emergence in public management: The case of urban regeneration in
Ireland. Public Management Review, 10(3), 361–379. doi:10.1080/14719030802002717
Rhodes, M., & MacKechnie, G. (2003). Understanding public service systems: Is there a role for complex
adaptive systems theory? Emergence, 5(4), 57–85. doi:10.1207/s15327000em0504_6
Rosendahl, J., Zanella, M., Rist, S., & Weigelt, J. (2015). Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity
in transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65, 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1998). The MIPS-Concept. Paper Presented at the Environmental Behaviour and Qual-
ity of Life: Ecological, Sociological, Psychological and Communicational Indicators of Sustainability,
Stadtschlaining, Austria. https://docplayer.net/37642574-Environmental-behaviour-and-quality-of-
life-ecological-sociological-psychological-and-communicational-indicators-of-sustainability.html
Schneider, F., & Rist, S. (2014). Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning pro-
cess: Combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches. Sustainability Science,
9(4), 463–481. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0232-6
Skogland, M. (2017). A spatial approach to transformational change: Strategic alignment of the spatial and
cultural environment. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19(4), 285–299. doi:10.1108/JCRE-09-2016-0030
Thakore, R. (2016). A Strategic Engagement Model for Delivering Energy Efficiency Initiatives in the English
Housing Sector. University of Central Lancashire. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/18647/
Tolley, E., Ulin, P., Mack, N., Robinson, E., & Succop, S. (2016). Qualitative Methods in Public Health:
A Field Guide for Applied Research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
UNEP. (2010). Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production (9280730843). www.
resourcepanel.org/file/171/download?token=p6YPKaxA
United Nations. (2012). Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. https://sustainable
development.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=111&nr=1358&menu=35
Urban Sustainability Directors Network. (2016). Why Efficiency is not Enough. United States and Canada.
https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/concept/why-efficiency-is-not-enough
van Alphen, A., Halfens, R., Hasman, A., & Imbos, T. (1994). Likert or Rasch? Nothing is more applicable
than good theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(1), 196–201. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.200
10196.x
Voinov, A., & Farley, J. (2007). Reconciling sustainability, systems theory and discounting. Ecological Eco-
nomics, 63(1), 104–113. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.005
Weizsäcker, E., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. (1998). Factor Four: Doubling Wealth-Halving Resource Use: The New
Report to the Club of Rome. Oxon: Earthscan.

35