Hard systems thinking is an approach used to solve real-world problems. Accordingly, the name was generically formed by Checkland in 1981, and the approach was developed during and immediately after World War II. This approach is affiliated with systems engineering, operational research and systems analyses. Consequential variants from hard systems thinking emanated, namely policy analysis, cost–benefit analysis, plan–programme–budget systems and decision science.

The hard systems thinking approach struggles to deal with highly complex problems that managers face. These problems refer to the conduciveness of varying interpretations; therefore, the approach does not bode well in objectivity. Typically, mathematical modelling is needed; however, the problem of bias remains prevalent, which makes the approach difficult to use as the hard systems thinking approach relies on the goal to be established before the actual use thereof (Jackson 2016:60).

Systems dynamics is an approach used to solve strategic problems using a digital computer to unlock complex secrets of nonlinear systems. This systems thinking approach can also be used liberally by manually drawing elements that feedback to each other by virtue of causal-to-effect multiloops visualisation. Accordingly, this approach, which was developed in 1958 by Forrester and called ‘industrial dynamics’, eventually became popularised by Senge in 1990, who called it ‘the fifth discipline’.

Systems dynamics models are claimed to be imprecise, which hinders the ability to provide accurate predictions of system states. The impreciseness renders decision-making limited; hence, it does not attract managers to use the approach. Moreover, the model is understood to be unfavoured especially when initial conditions are not grasped or when variables are not analysed to predetermine the impacts that they have on each other (Jackson 2016:79).

Organisational cybernetics is an approach used to solve for viability. This approach was formulated by Stafford Beer in 1974 by using cybernetics in the organisational domain. The viable system model (VSM) introduced by Stafford Beer uses the concepts of a black box, variety and negative feedback in organisations delineated by complexity, probability and internal regulation.

Although there is minor criticism about organisational cybernetics, the approach has been considered inopportune, as it offers increasing control and consolidation of positions for the user to misuse. However, the matter of control, consolidation and power can also be considered a matter of advantage, as the use of the approach will be dependent on the actual situation. Organisational cybernetics is a systems thinking approach that extends generality in any type of organisation, system and systems of varying hierarchical levels in a business. Through its generality, management scientists and managers are attracted to the approach (Jackson 2016:107).

Complexity theory is an approach used to solve complex situations comprising chaos. Complexity theory, which was developed by Gleick in 1987, was profound in systems thinking in the field of management and subsequently was popularised during that era. The primary focus of the model is on randomness, disorder and irregularity. The model accepts aspects affiliated with unpredictability, change and instability to provide a solution that was thought of as neither available nor even a possibility.

The model is used for short-term planning but simply lacks the long-term approach that managers need to maintain sustainability. The chaos and complexity theory is believed to require improvement to establish its validity and scope in systems that occur in natural settings. In addition, the cardinal problem with the application of the complexity theory to management is that there is a difference between social and natural systems. It is understood that in natural systems it is easier to determine the arising of strange attractors, while social systems are affected by probabilistic elements and innumerable variables manifesting themselves. These complications make the approach undesirable for the long term (Jackson 2016:129).

Strategic assumption surfacing and testing (SAST) solves problems related to planning, policies and decision-making. This approach was concluded by Mason and Mitroff in 1981 to solve ‘wicked problems’ encountered by managers. It was further deemed that the wicked problems featured unstructured factors, which lack clarity about environmental uncertainty, societal limitations, conflict and purpose. The SAST’s prerogative is to ensure problem-solving is performed in a structured manner.

The SAST’s drawback involves the lack of empirical evidence when compared with other conventional methods, as claimed by Jackson in 1989 and 2016, respectively. The approach has been criticised for focusing on clarifying purposes and finding sophisticated ways rather than finding the best solution possible for the existing problems. Moreover, SAST is only successful in its execution if the participants are willing to have their assumptions exposed and put forth to the test (Jackson 2016:151).

Interactive planning deals with complexity, diversity and change that managers contend with presently. This approach was proposed by Ackoff in 1974 in the world of management sciences (Ackoff 1974:22). Interactive planning was asserted to be an overarching cause of social systems and operational research. The approach is used by managers in the systems’ age and for those seeking improvement in social systems.

This systems thinking approach is known for its abilities to solve conflicts; however, the critics of Ackoff posit that there remain random cases of irresolvable conflicts, which deems the approach unfavourable to managers. In general, managers seek models that provide easy solutions for complex problems. Furthermore, Jackson mentioned that critics believed the approach is regulative (Jackson 2016:175).

Soft systems methodology (SSM) aims to solve a complex problem from diverging views of its definition. The approach was founded by Checkland in 1972 and has evolved since, concentrating on soft issues related to the definition of the problem (Checkland 1972:92). Soft issues aiming to solve ‘what should be performed’ and ‘how to do it’ remain the key focus in SSM.

Soft systems methodology is deemed to be subjective because the approach ignores restrictions on discussions. Soft systems methodology is known to operate at the idea level by changing people’s worldviews; however, the approach is condemned because it ignores organisational, economic and political structures, which are the primary foundations for worldviews (Jackson 2016:206).

Critical systems heuristics (CSH) shows and challenges the actual and proposed system designs. The approach was developed by Werner Ulrich in 1983, which is an emancipatory approach that ensures decision-making and planning is performed robustly (Ulrich 1983:20). This approach can also enable designs from soft and hard system thinking to produce the result desired.

The CSH is understood to be a powerful approach; however, there is a limitation involving material conditions related to beliefs and values. In relation, political and economic factors determine the beliefs and values that give rise to contradiction. Another issue identified is the lack of engagement of society and organisation of the approach to engage associated forces within that prevents participative decision-making and rational arguments (Jackson 2016:227).

Team syntegrity was designed on the premise of, and after, organisational cybernetics by Stafford Beer in 1990 (Wheeler 1990:893). This approach entailed the provision of a protocol and theory for people working in a group who share common knowledge related to a specific topic. Team syntegrity supports nonhierarchical decision-making, which is decomposed into effective and participative forms.

Jackson (2016:248) stated that the approach was unable to guarantee its efficacy in practice in the real world. In addition, Jackson explained that other critics did not believe that the approach was viable, simply because of the time taken out of team members’ daily activities to collaborate and put problem-solving at the forefront of their job duties.

Postmodern systems thinking involves the perusal of all systems thinking approaches discussed thus far, namely goal-seeking and viability, exploring purposes and ensuring fairness. However, the difference that distinguishes postmodern systems thinking is the term ‘postmodernist’. This involves systemic modernism and critical modernism, which among the discourse where the former is responsible for increasing systems performance and the latter ensures that any consensus or result is performed rationally without encountering distortions (Jackson 2016:44).

As explained here, the various types of systems thinking approaches were discussed. Table 2 shows the summarised characteristics of the types of systems thinking methodologies, namely functionalist, interpretive, emancipatory and postmodern (Jackson 2016:44) under which the system thinking approaches lie.

The consensus for the choice of the appropriate systems thinking approach is explained further. With reference to Table 2, the functionalist methodology related to systems thinking was developed by Frederick Taylor in 1914. This methodology is known to operationalise a system by contending with complex and linear mechanisms comprising starting points, boundaries and finishing points (Porter & Gordoba 2009:326). Ultimately, being characteristically goal-oriented, the functionalist paradigm in particular organisational cybernetics is considered the most suited systems thinking methodology for this research study (Jackson 2016:85). It is therefore imperative to primarily understand cybernetics, which will then fuse into the concepts of management cybernetics and organisational cybernetics, respectively. The sections that follow explain these concepts further.

Cybernetics originates from ‘kybernates’, a Greek word meaning ‘the art of steermanship’. This implies the control of a ship, which invariably refers to control of a machine (Jackson 1991:92). Similar to systems analysis, systems engineering and operational research, cybernetics has an equally long history dating back to 1947, where Wiener first used the method in a field study (Jackson 1991:91). Cybernetics commenced by adopting physics as its foundation; however, it does not have any dependence on the laws of physics nor the properties of matter (Ashby 1961:1). It was asserted that cybernetics deals with all forms of behaviour which are reproducible, determinate and regular (Ashby 1961:1).

According to Geroulanos and Weatherby (2020:3), cybernetics diffuses studies that intend to provide knowledge and intellectual skills. Geroulanos and Weatherby claimed that cybernetics offered a framework for structured thinking, science and technology, and policy formulation for manufacturing and technology, government decision-making and international relations (Geroulanos & Weatherby 2020:4). In addition, cybernetics has proven to be successful in explaining organisational failure, which makes the phenomenon robust and instils confidence in its usage in the business world (Snyder, Olsen & Song 2020:1). Cybernetics is understood to be a powerful tool often used by managers. This concept leads us to explore what management cybernetics entails.

Management cybernetics is the process whereby the manager steers the business in accordance with the desired expectations and goals (Gill 1998:1). The author used two examples of management cybernetics to indicate how a manager executes this process, namely the black box, and Ashby’s law of requisite variety. Gill (1998:1) explained the black box to be a system of complexity where it was accepted that managers of an organisation, regardless of the size, will not be able to understand and will be unaware of each and every process involved. The author further buttressed that the black box consisted of inputs and outputs, which were controlled by the manager to achieve optimal performance. This was performed through monitoring, providing feedback and optimisation.

In addition, disturbances involving either internal factors such as management directives or external factors such as industrial action or climate change exacerbated the complexities (Gill 1998:2). The cardinal advantage of the black box is that it can be decomposed into subprocesses and delegated to subordinates to handle. In this cascading way, middle and lower-level managers of the hierarchical chain will manage their respective departments or divisions, which gives the top management level a strong ability to achieve the desired output levels.

Gill (1998:2) explained Ashby’s law of requisite variety as the process where both the organisation and the manager balance variety. As further explained by the author, variety is the measurement of numerous different states of a system. The balancing of varieties shows the amplification and attenuation of variables in the system. Quite simply put forth, the three segments, namely the marketplace (environment), organisation and management, make up the explanation of Ashby’s law of requisite variety. The management-to-organisation loop is known as the internal controls, while the marketplace-to-organisation loop is regarded as the external controls. Each of these loops works on the methodology of amplification (increase) and attenuation (decrease) to acquire a balance of variety, which Ashby has proven. However, management cybernetics was deemed to be constrained by the machine metaphor. The compelling need to break away from traditional management thinking sparked the concept of the VSM of organisational cybernetics (Jackson 2016:85). The VSM is explained in the next section.

Organisational cybernetics stems from the underpinning of cybernetics (Jackson 2016:85). Accordingly, Stafford Beer introduced the VSM in the Fifties, which is theoretically based on variety, cybernetics, recursive systems and neural networks (Metaphorum 2021). Interestingly, Leonard (2009:229) maintained that the VSM possessed many advantages, which are as follows:

The VSM shown in Figure 2 is based on the functionalities of three components (Jackson 2016:89; Metaphorum 2021), namely:

Upon analysing the VSM in detail, it is evident that five systems are found within (Jackson 2016:93; Metaphorum 2021), which are as follows:

In summary, the methodology of the VSM operates on the operational units, namely system 1a, system 1b and system 1c, being autonomous and the management systems 2, 3, 4 and 5 (the metasystem) ensuring that there is coherence. The VSM is known to be recursive, which essentially means that every system will eventually break itself down into smaller systems until a suitable answer is achieved (Vahidi, Aliahmad & Teimouri 2019:300). Finally, the VSM measurement of performance is defined by three levels of achievement, namely actuality, capability and potentiality (Jackson 2016:99). In addition, latency and productivity are factorised within the calculations to determine the performance.

According to Jackson (2016:99), actuality refers to what is happening at the present moment, using the existing resources and being susceptible to existing constraints; capability refers to what could be achieved under the same resources and constraints, while potentiality refers to what could be achieved by developing resources and minimising constraints but remaining feasible. This is the fundamental and primary prerogative of the VSM to reflect a viable system.

Apart from the multitude advantages of the VSM claimed by Leonard (2009:229), the model was favoured over nonviable system models because of its structured ability to determine interrelationships among parameters and areas for decision-making to occur within controlled limits (Gallego-García, Reschke & García-García 2019:14). In addition, the VSM is posited to additionally possess traits of problem-structuring methods that provide an advantage to the user (Harwood 2019:1198). Structuring a problem provides easy identification and consequently easy solvability by the VSM. Therefore, the VSM has been selected for this study.

In this study, the element of strategy and subelements of change, purpose and leadership were fed into the VSM to ascertain the results of the qualitative aspect of this empirical research. Strategy is explained as the execution of devised operational and tactical plans of an organisation (Skripak et al. 2016:315). This phenomenon comprises numerous elements which vary among organisations. Furthermore, the element ‘strategy’ comprises its components, namely ‘planning’, ‘control’, ‘cost management’, ‘performance management’, ‘performance evaluation’, ‘product differentiation’, ‘competition’, ‘marketing’, ‘financial management’, ‘low price’ and ‘business development’.

Change has been classified by many researchers in a myriad of ways. The most prominent types were those described by Gersick (1991:10) as gradual or revolutionary, by Dunphy and Stace (1988:318) as incremental and transformational, by Levy (1986:6) as either first- or second-degree and lastly, by Miller (1984:1161) as evolutionary or revolutionary. Change in a business environment is implied by internal policies and external regulations. Businesses feel the changes of the macro-economic environment, which are beyond control, and the micro-economic environment, which are controllable.

Purpose is observed as a key element and a necessity for the creation of a meaningful organisation in a competitive environment and collectively in periods of uncertainty and inconsistency (Rey, Bastons & Sotok 2019:4). Interestingly, Henman (2020:1) advocated that both the organisation and the individuals’ purpose must be aligned and synchronised to meet the common objectives.

Leadership is a management function whereby the leader ensures provision of focus, direction and motivation to subordinates to achieve organisational goals (Skripak et al. 2016:169). The reality of leadership is that the phenomenon is practised in a myriad of styles in the economic environment, educational sectors, industrial areas and sports fields (Shao, Feng & Hu 2017:903).

Furthermore, leadership was discovered to boost employee engagement with management, insofar as a positive outcome was realised (Popli & Rizvi 2016:965). Therefore, leadership can be considered a vital component in the running of an organisation. Technically, operationally driven enterprises require leadership. Allio (2015:6) buttressed that strong leadership is required to ensure that elements are used for strategy formulation. The input of the element and subelements into the VSM will ultimately be performed to check for interconnections and interdependencies of the elements within the system. Moreover, the findings will either confirm the literature study or show any incoherence among the elements.

While SPSS and NVivo proved to be valid and reliable in this study, organisational cybernetics VSM software – Vensim™®© Personal Learning Edition version 8.2.0 (Ventana Systems, Inc., Harvard, Massachusetts, United States) – was utilised to check for interconnections and interdependencies of the elements within the system. The findings confirmed the literature study and showed coherence among the elements and subelements. The findings ratified the qualitative aspect of the study.

Figure 3 indicates the element ‘strategy’ and its components, namely: (1) ‘planning’, (2) ‘control’, (3) ‘cost management’, (4) ‘performance management’, (5) ‘performance evaluation’, (6) ‘product differentiation’, (7) ‘competition’, (8) ‘marketing’, (9) ‘financial management’, (10) ‘low price’ and (11) ‘business development’, were inputted into the software along with the subelements ‘change’, ‘purpose’ and ‘leadership’. It must be observed that ‘strategy’ is classified under ‘operations’ while ‘change’, ‘purpose’ and ‘leadership’ are classified under ‘management’.

To determine the appropriate execution of the model, the software must indicate an onscreen notification to confirm the aforementioned. Consequently, Figure 4 indicates that the model was indeed run successfully and that the elements and subelements showed relationships. The next figure shows these interconnections and interdependencies.

The overall result of the Vensim™®© software (Figure 5) indicated that the element ‘strategy’ was related unidirectionally to its associated components. This relationship is defined as a one-way causal effect and a collective comprisal of the element. While the subelements ‘change’, ‘purpose’ and ‘leadership’ were related bidirectionally to ‘strategy’. This relationship is defined as a two-way reliance and dependency on the element and subelements to ascertain its cyclical recurrence to produce a continuous systematic output (Jackson 2016:93; Metaphorum 2021).