Your reflection notes should be organized to present:

1. Key learning points from the three readings of your choice (a summary)
2. Your reflections
3. References

Reflections is underlined as this is considered one of the most important parts of the learning process. Based on the readings, you must consider your unique experiences and perspectives.

Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory in Human Resource DevelopmentA Myth or Reality?

Robert M.Yawson1 Abstract

Human Resource Development Review 12(1) 53-85 2012 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1534484312461634 hrd.sagepub.com

This study reviews systems theory and thinking (ST&T) as a foundational discipline or theory in human resource development (HRD) research and practice.Using systematic evidence review (SER) of the literature and mapping analysis of HRD curricula across some leading U.S. universities, disconnect between theory and practice of ST&T is discussed.The use of SER of the literature in HRD research is an important aspect of this study.The study recommended the incorporation of more ST&T courses into the HRD undergraduate and graduate curricula. Recommendations of how systems thinking can become more relevant to HRD research and practice are offered.

Keywords

curricula, systems dynamics, complexity theory, systems thinking, learning, epistemology

The Importance of Systems Theory in Practice

There seems to be a broad agreement in the field of human resource development (HRD) that systems theory and thinking (ST&T) is a crucial component of the research and practice in HRD (e.g., Ardichvili, 2008; Hartshorn, 1989; Iles & Yolles, 2003; Lee, 2003; McLagan, 1989; Swanson, 2001; Swanson & Holton III, 2008). Practice as used in this study encompasses scholarly practice (research and teaching)

1University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:

Robert M. Yawson, Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Email: y..3@umn.edu

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

54 Human Resource Development Review 12(1)

and practice in terms of working with organizations. However, the apparent lack of applications of systems thinking by HRD practitioners, professionals, researchers, and students raises the question why a theory generally accepted as a foundational theory is not seen in practice and in learning as it should.

Iles and Yolles (2003) have attributed the apparent lack of applications of ST&T in HRD practice and research to the several limitations of current HRD as a field of study due to its over reliance on simple systems model of input-output transformation. Jayanti (2011) has also contended that "linear epistemology is the dominant episte- mology in the field of HRD and as such undergirds a majority of HRD models" (p. 101) and argues further that these models have served HRD well but can no longer be the dominant epistemology.

In an editorial in Human Resource Development Review, Yorks and Nicolaides (2006) made an important observation that much HRD theory and research treat orga- nizational systems as complicated linear systems instead of nonlinear dynamic, inter- dependent systems. If ST&T is generally acknowledged as a foundational discipline or theory in HRD then it is quite paradoxical to have linear epistemology as the dominant epistemology. This paradox may be due to how HRD professionals view ST&T. Gene L. Roth as president of the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) acknowledged that systems theory has been proposed as a logical starting point for examining HRD (Roth, 2004). Roth (2004), however, contended that like the field of HRD, lack of consensus regarding the boundaries of ST&T might also influence how HRD professionals may use ST&T in research and practice based on the competing contentions that reside in the literature on the parameters of ST&T. For example, HRD has several formulas such as analysis, diagnosis, intervention development, imple- mentation, and evaluation (ADDIE); learning models; action research; planned change; field theory; performance improvement; and learning organization models, for addressing individual and organization change, but has little to show on how the discipline addresses the intricacies of power, politics, and culture in organizations (Bierema & Eraut, 2004).

Vakili, Izadi, and Moteabbed (2007), in discussing the understanding of barriers to ST&T, indicated that researchers and professionals who articulate the concept do not seem to apply it in practice and decision-making. In any field of practice, "formal theoretical explorations are much more likely to be attended to if their relevance to, and implications for, practice are clearly established" (Brookfield, 1992, p. 85). A persuasive argument can thus be made that for ST&T to be accepted as a foundational theory in HRD, its relevance and application in HRD practice must be unambiguous. As Brookfield (1992) clearly articulated:

In a field of practice formal theoretical elaborations gain credibility (or come to be seen as irrelevant) through a process by which practitioners judge the accu- racy and validity of these elaborations in a range of practical contexts. To pro- pose formal theoretical insights without exploring their connections to practice

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

Yawson 55 effectively renders them closed to the majority . . . working across the varied

contexts in the field (p. 86)

The issue of relevance in practice of ST&T as a foundational theory in HRD is therefore critically important. Raelin (2007) stated that "we may not realize that one of theory's main purposes is to inform practice, nor may we be aware that theory loses much of its vitality if uninformed by reflection on practice" (p. 495), what Raelin (2007) referred to as epistemology of practice.

The questions arising are: Has ST&T had an impact on how HRD is studied and practiced? Have the contributions to scholarly research in ST&T in HRD any way shaped the way HRD has evolved and continues to evolve as discipline, in both research and practice? Why the disconnect between theory and practice of ST&T in HRD if it is seen as one of the foundational theories or disciplines? Are future HRD professionals being adequately trained to understand the importance and role of ST&T in the research and practice of HRD? Finally, is ST&T as a foundational theory in HRD a myth or reality? This article attempts to answer these questions and also set the tone for future research.

The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze the disconnect between the theory and practice of ST&T in HRD. An attempt is also made to understand whether ST&T as a foundational discipline or theory in HRD is a myth or reality? Recommendations of how systems thinking can become more relevant to HRD research and practice are offered.

The study follows a logical expository approach including the following:

A narrative review of the literature on ST&T to place it in the realm as a dis- cipline of study on its own (Sterman, 2000).

Systematic evidence review (SER) of "ST&T in HRD" literature is con- ducted to understand the epistemology of ST&T in HRD to ascertain why it is generally accepted as a foundational theory.

The study then identifies and offers explanations of the reasons for discon- nect between theory and practice.

The study maps and analyzes courses offered in several of the leading HRD departments in U.S. universities to critique whether the course offerings are the true reflections of how researchers and professionals articulate the con- cept; and also to answer the question as to whether future HRD professionals are being adequately trained to understand the importance and role of ST&T in the research and practice of HRD.

In a way this study is also motivated by Kuchinke's (2007) admonition that "HRD should be encouraged to become increasingly self-critical by investigating and dis- cussing to a greater extent the aims and means, explicit and implicit, of the curricu- lum" (p. 123) and this study attempts to do just that.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

56 Human Resource Development Review 12(1) Systems, Systems Theory, and Systems Thinking

Systems theory has been variously defined in the literature. It is however, important that before systems theory is discussed the word "systems" is defined. It is one of the most loosely used words both in everyday discourse and in academic literatures. It is defined as "a group of interacting components that conserves some identifiable set of relations with the sum of their components plus their relationships (i.e., the system itself), conserving some identifiable set of relationships to other entities (including other systems)" (Straussfogel & Schilling, 2009, p. 151). All occurrences are intercon- nections of relationships among component parts of a system.

Systems Theory

Systems theory, also referred to as general systems theory or systemics, is the theory underlying the study of systems. Systems theory has a very long history, but as the core theory underlying an academic discipline, its foundation is generally accredited to Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an Austrian-born biologist with his development of General Systems Theory (GST). It is important to note that systems theory does not represent just a single theory, but a set of constructs that coevolved with a set of related intellectual streams concerned with the nature and characteristics of systems (Straussfogel & Schilling, 2009). These include information and game theory, cyber- netics and chaos theory, theory of autopoiesis, complexity theory, and dynamic sys- tems theory (Straussfogel & Schilling, 2009). It is a trans- and interdisciplinary theory that underlies studies of complex systems in nature, society, organizations, and sci- ence. Systems theory is therefore a theoretical framework by which elements that act in concert to produce some result are studied. Principia Cibernetica Web defines systems theory as the "transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenom- ena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence. It investigates both the principles common to all complex entities, and the (usually mathematical) models which can be used to describe them" (Heylighen, 2000, web- page). Systems theory can be classified into three broad categories.

Hard systems: This is the category of systems theory that uses simulations, and takes a narrow view at the conversion of inputs into outputs for attainment of particu- lar goals and objectives (Engel, 1997) based on the use of computers and the tech- niques of operation research. A typical example that is still used currently by most international development agencies is that of the logical framework analysis approach, which was popularized in the 1970s (Morgan, 2005). It is also the predominant sys- tems approach in HRD scholarship (Iles & Yolles, 2003). Hard systems are valuable for problems that can reasonably be quantified. The most important drawback of its use is that it is not applicable to important concepts such as culture, politics, and opin- ions that cannot be easily quantified.

Soft systems: In contrast to hard systems, soft systems approach is used for systems that cannot easily be quantified (Checkland & Scholes, 1990). It has found very useful

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

Yawson 57

applications in cases involving people with various and conflicting frames of refer- ence. It is used for understanding motivations, opinions, and interactions, and takes account of both qualitative and quantitative dimensions of problem situations (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).

Dynamic systems: It is the systems approach for understanding the design of com- plex social systems. Dynamic systems incorporate critical systems inquiry with soft system methodologies (Banathy, 1996). Dynamic systems as evolutionary systems are open and complex systems, with inherent nature of changing or evolving with time (Banathy, 2000). Dynamic systems include chaos, complexity, and cybernetics.

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is predicated on the principles of systems theory in that the con- stituent parts of a system will exhibit different behavior and properties when it is viewed in isolation from the whole. To understand a system, is therefore to study the systems relationships that exist between the various parts that work in concert to determine the behavior of the system. The primary concern of systems thinking is, therefore, how the "whole" is seen and its fit and relationship to its environment. A secondary emphasis is placed on the component parts of the system.

Dimensions of systems thinking: Four dimensions of systems thinking have been described (Ossimitz, 2000; Raymond, 2003; Sterman, 2000):

Thinking in models and interrelated structures using Causal Loop Diagrams to transfer the gained knowledge to real situations.

Dynamic thinking that mostly uses behavior over time graphs to anticipate future behavior of systems with delays, oscillations, and feedback loops.

Integrated thinking using stock and flows to consider complex linkages as opposed to linear thinking, where one cause is thought to have only one effect.

Systems actionsuccessful acting in complex situations by finding right

leverage points for action, using systems archetypes.

Features of systems thinking: The characteristics, features, and properties of any system emanate from the multitude of interrelationships that exist between the compo- nent parts. Little about the whole system can be inferred from studying the workings of individual elements. The focus is on the behavior of the inseparable whole.

Complex Systems

One important aspect of a systems research is the complexity of systems. A complex system is defined as a system which is made up of interconnected parts that exhibit concerted properties as a whole which are different from the properties exhibited by the individual constituent parts when acting alone. A complex system is either a dis- organized or organized complexity.

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

58 Human Resource Development Review 12(1)

Yorks and Nicolaides (2006) in discussing the notion of centrality of ST&T to HRD theory, made a clear distinction between systems that are complicated and those that are complex. "Complicated systems may appear complex but can be deconstructed and usually function in a linear way; complex systems may seem simple but are dynamic, ever interacting as they evolve in a nonlinear way" (Yorks & Nicolaides, 2006, p. 145). Systems with huge number of parts are mostly disorganized whereas organized complexity normally has limited components and a subject system that exhibit emergent properties.

There are different types of complex systems: chaos theory and its offshoots com- plexity theory and complex adaptive systems (CAS) are underlined by the features of systems theory, although they may represent a new and distinct generation of thought. These theories maintain that "relationships in complex systems, like organizations, are non-linear, made up of interconnections and branching choices that produce unintended consequences and render the universe unpredictable" (Tetenbaum, 1998, p. 21). Complexity theory posits "that some events, given our knowledge and technology, are unknowable until they occur, and may indeed be unknowable in advance" (Schneider & Somers, 2006, p. 354). Complexity theory includes three interrelated elements that are not accounted for in GST. These are nonlinear dynamics, in which structures are characterized by high states of energy exchange with the environment and extreme instability (Hickman, 2010); chaos theory which is nonlinear, deterministic (rather than probabilistic), sensitive to initial conditions, and continuous irregularity in the behavior of the system (Taleb, 2007); and adaptation and evolution, in which an ability to modify or change is evidenced through a process of interdependent self-organization among individuals or subsystems (Schneider & Somers, 2006).

Chaotic systems (random behavior): Chaos theory is one of the most misconstrued areas in systems theory. This may probably be that the word "chaos" is a misnomer since it connotes disorder. Chaos systems theory is the theory underlying understand- ing the behavior of systems that exist between rigid regularity and randomness based on pure chance (Ditto & Munakata, 1995; Levy, 1994). For any systems to be described as a chaotic system, it must be nonlinear, deterministic (rather than probabilistic), sensitive to initial conditions, and continuous irregularity in the behavior of the system (Ditto & Munakata, 1995; Levy, 1994; Taleb, 2007; Williams, 1997).

Complex adaptive systems (CAS): CAS are special cases of complex systems. The diverse and multiple interconnected elements confer the complexity. The ability to evolve, transform, and learn from experience confers the adaptive nature in such sys- tems. There are several examples that can be listed for CAS, including the stock mar- ket, manufacturing businesses, and any human social group or group-based endeavor in a cultural and social system, among several others including biological systems. There are several tools to study complex systems and these "tools for learning about complexity must also facilitate the process of systems thinking and policy design" (Sterman, 2001, p. 22).

Cybernetics: Like the broader systems theory itself, cybernetics has various defini- tions. Converging the various definitions, it can be described as the study of how

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

Yawson 59

information, communication, feedback, and control specifically functions within and outside a system (Heylighen, Joslyn, & Turchin, 2000). Major emphasis of the field of cybernetics has focused on describing the heterogeneity of interacting parts of a sys- tem such as complexity, mutuality, complementarity, evolvability, constructivity, and reflexivity (Heylighen et al., 2000; Ruona, 2008).

The foregoing illuminates the broadness of ST&T and its emerging branches of study. This offers the opportunity for HRD scholars and practitioners to create "the theoretical discourse that provides guidance for thoughtful practice . . . in the service of enriching the connection between theory and practice" (Yorks & Nicolaides, 2006, p. 147).

SER of ST&T in HRD Literature

The purpose of this SER is to address the question whether ST&T is a foundational theory or discipline in HRD. Since this is the first time SER is being specifically used in any of the mainstream HRD publications, a detailed review of its use is given.

There is a wide array of approaches to literature review and research synthesis. Research synthesis is an umbrella term for the collection of approaches for summariz- ing, integrating and, in some cases, cumulating the findings of different studies on a particular topic or a specific research question (Davies, 2000). This broad range includes narrative reviews, integrative reviews, realist synthesis, vote-counting reviews, meta-analyses, best evidence synthesis, meta-ethnography and SER (Davies, 2000; Davies, 2003; Gasteen, 2010; Petticrew, 2001). The simplest form of research synthesis is the traditional qualitative literature review, often referred to as the narra- tive review (Davies, 2003).

Traditional reviews offer a summary of a number of different studies and some- times draw conclusions about a particular intervention or policy (Boaz, Ashby, & Young, 2002). Narrative reviews are almost always selective, if not arbitrary, in that they do not involve a systematic, rigorous, and exhaustive search of all the relevant literature (Davies, 2000). In most instances, traditional/narrative reviews are opportu- nistic since they review only the literature that is readily available to the reviewer (Davies, 2000). Most narrative literature reviews deal with a broad range of issues related to a given topic rather than addressing a particular issue and usually examine the results of only a small part of the research evidence, and take the claims of authors at face value (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997; EPPI, 2010). "Narrative reviews, pri- marily based on the experience and subjective judgment of the author(s)often expert in the areaare the traditional approach to reviews of any body of knowledge" (Goodwin & Geddes, 2004, p. 249).

Another major limitation of narrative reviews is that "they are almost always selec- tive in that they do not involve a systematic, rigorous and exhaustive search of all the relevant literature using electronic and print media as well as hand-searching and ways of identifying the 'grey' literature" (Davies, 2003). Narrative reviews seldom give full details of the processes and mechanics by which the reviewed literature has been iden- tified and synthesized (Davies, 2003). It is also often not easy to determine how the

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

60 Human Resource Development Review 12(1)

conclusions were derived from the review (Davies, 2003; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). This lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine the selection bias and publication bias of narrative reviews (Davies, 2003; Thomas & Harden, 2003; Wright, Brand, Dunn, & Spindler, 2007).

SERs are different from narrative reviews in that they attempt to deal with all of the limitations of narrative reviews (Cook et al., 1997; Thomas & Harden, 2003). SERs have developed in response to an increasing need for policymakers, researchers, and education practitioners to have access to the latest research evidence when making decisions (Harden & Thomas, 2005). SERs are a rigorous and transparent form of lit- erature review (ODI, 2012) and they incorporate the strengths of integrative reviews, vote-counting reviews, meta-analyses, best evidence synthesis, and meta-ethnography. It has been described as "the most reliable and comprehensive statement about what works if it is done well and with full integrity" (van der Knaap, Leeuw, Bogaerts, & Nijssen, 2008, p. 49). SERs include identifying, gathering, synthesizing, and assessing all available evidence, quantitative, and/or qualitative, in order to generate a robust, empirically derived answer to a specific research question (ODI, 2012).

Key features of an SER or a systematic research synthesis are as follows (Dixon- Woods, 2006; EPPI, 2010; Hemingway & Brereton, 2009):

Explicit and transparent methods/protocol are used

It follows a standard set of stages

It is accountable, replicable and updateable

Prespecified, highly focused question

Explicit methods for searching

Explicit methods for appraisal

Explicit methods for synthesis of studies

The purpose of conducting systematic reviews is to use precise process to find as much as possible of the research relevant to the particular research questions, and be able to reliably collect every relevant information that exist on the subject of study (EPPI, 2010). SER as an approach incorporates integrated literature reviews as have been described by Callahan (2010) and Torraco (2005). SER, which has primarily been used in medical intervention research, follows standard stages as mentioned earlier, and can be replicated to obtain the same results. To the best of my knowledge this is the first attempt at its use in any HRD research, although it has been used in some qualitative studies in other social science research (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). It must, however, be noted here that the full complement of SER as used in medical intervention research (e.g., CRD 2009; Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Pope, Mays, & Popay, 2007; Thomas & Harden, 2008) may not all be applicable to HRD research but can be adapted to suit the needs of HRD and may also serve as alternative literature review and synthesis framework that can be used in HRD research depending on the objectives of the particular study. This article attempts to adapt the medical guidelines to the needs of HRD researchers. There are a number of issues where HRD research

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

Yawson 61

differs from medical research. In particular, HRD research has relatively little empiri- cal research compared with the large quantities of research available on medical issues, and research methods used by HRD are mostly different from those used by medical researchers. Important steps in SER such as the peer review of the research protocol before the start of the study itself was not followed.

The overall approach to the SER for this study is adapted from the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (Higgins & Green, 2009); and guidelines for systematic reviews in the social sciences (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Answering the main research question involved synthesizing quantitative and qualitative evi- dence. The following steps were followed: search for materials, screen studies, extract data, summarize data, perform analyses, and write up results.

Search for Materials

For the initial search for materials, literature synthesis was done using text mining (process of analyzing text to extract information that is useful for particular purposes; Witten, 2004, p. 137) to extract technical intelligence (the ability to act on technical information flexibly to understand meansend relations and specific subject affor- dances, pertinent to the study of interest, and complemented by suitable tacit knowl- edge of the researcher; Porter, Schoeneck, Frey, Hicks, & Libaers, 2007) from ST&T in HRD research literature. An extensive ST&T in HRD query was applied to the Social Science Citation Index/Arts & Humanities Citation Index (SSCI/A&HCI) data- bases. A variety of terms and phrases were used in the search for materials including systems thinking/systems theory/systems foundations/chaos theory/complex systems/ social systems theory. Each of these keywords and phrases was searched in combina- tion with the search item "human resource."

Cross-referencing and searching of the references of some key articles also occurred to obtain lists for other related studies. In addition to the citation indexes, an expansive search covering several disparate electronic databases, including, Business Source Premier, EconLit, Academic Search Premier, Google scholar, Education Full Text, and ERIC (Access via CSA), were also queried. "Handsearching" of four of the key journals in the field of HRD was done. The journals are Advances in Human Resource Development, Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development International, and Human Resource Development Quarterly. Handsearching involves scanning the content of journals, using the journal's own search tool. In 2007, the AHRD theory committee compiled a Theory Development in Human Resource Development Bibliography, which listed 332 articles (AHRD, 2007); and this bibliography was also included in the initial search. This expansive search resulted in 1,535 articles.

Prioritization and Selection of Literature (Screen Studies)

For the prioritization of materials, the initial searches of all materials were uploaded into Mendeley Citation Software and screened in terms of their relevance to HRD

Downloaded from hrd.sagepub.com at QUINNIPIAC UNIV on March 24, 2014

62 Human Resource Development Review 12(1)

using abstract reviews and then the 453 most pertinent articles were identified. In order to simplify the evidence collection process, each identified source was evaluated using explicit criteria, to include and exclude studies. These criteria were adapted from Yawson and Kuzma (2010), Pope et al. (2007), and CRD's guidance for under- taking reviews, and included: the quality of the sourcepeer review journal publica- tion, edited conference proceedings, report from recognized research centers and universities; the approach to the primary research and the methodology used; study specificity of how the study is situated within HRDST&T studies that are not related to research and practice of HRD are excluded; the level to which the source discussed the broader research question on why ST&T is generally accepted as a foundational theory in HRD. This resulted in a total of 163 articles.

Extraction, Summarization, and Analyses of Data

The 163 selected articles were exported to an EPPI-Reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis (Thomas, Brunton, & Graziosi, 2010). The articles were either imported directly from the search engine or first saved in Refworks/Zotero before exporting to EPPI-Reviewer that was used to help import data on articles and other publications into a database for easy access and manipulation. Using the following key phrases: theory building, underlying theory, foundational theory, career develop- ment, organizational development, training and development, performance improve- ment, and HRD, 38 articles were selected for the evidence review. Out of these 38 articles, 34 are purely theoretical/conceptual, three of the articles are studies reporting ST&T practice, and only one (McGuire & Cseh, 2006) of the articles is actually based on empirical research to contend that ST&T is a foundational theory of HRD. Table 1 is the result of SER and a separate list of references has been provided for SER.

There were however, several articles in allied fields such as organizational and behavioral studies with empirical research in ST&T which were excluded, for exam- ple Houchin and MacLean (2005) and McKelvey (1999). Other data including the most cited papers, authors with most papers, location of authors, etc. were provided by the software but are of no relevance to the objectives of this article and are therefore not discussed.

Evidence Review

From the review it is clear that ST&T is seen as crucial component of epistemology of practice and research in the field of HRD. The major disagreement is about which disciplines constitute the foundational disciplines of HRD. Kuchinke (2001) argues that HRD is derived from five disciplines in the physical and social sciences (namely economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and political science). The main proponents of systems theory as the foundational theory also agree that there are other disciplines that are important to the research and practice of HRD (Holton, 1999; Iles & Yolles, 2003; Passmore, 1997; Swanson, 1999a; Swanson & Holton, 2001; Torraco