This radical restructuring of the employment contract comes at a time when businesses arc facing a whirlwind of challenges. The nature and scope of changes such as downsizing, re-engineering, and new competitive rules suggest that they are in fact part of a larger trend toward an emerging new model of corporate organization. But what will be the role of workers and management in this new organization? The current upheaval offers the perfect opportunity to create not just another contract, but a new covenant for employment — one based on the concept of stewardship rather than patriarchy.

A New Employment Covenant

Peter Block, author of the book Stewardship (Berrett-Koehler, 1993), describes stewardship as “the willingness to be accountable for the well-being of the larger organization by operating in service, rather than in control, of those around us. Stated simply, it is accountability without control or compliance.” In Stewardship, Block offers a vision of a new type of organization based on a fundamental belief that all employees should be treated as mature adults who can be held responsible for themselves and their actions.

This new model strives to create an environment in which people can fully participate and contribute to the goals of the larger organization. Such a commitment goes beyond the traditional concept of an employment “contract” — it would be more accurately called a “covenant.” While a contract tends to focus one’s efforts on keeping within the letter of the law and preventing what we do not want (patriarchy), a covenant emphasizes operating in the spirit of the law and focusing on creating what we do want (stewardship).

At first blush, the new employment covenant sounds almost utopian — after all, who can argue with people taking their future into their own hands, finding or creating interesting work for themselves, and becoming responsible for their own careers? These ideas have the makings of a great vision, but there are fundamental questions that need to be addressed: What will the new covenant look like, how will it be implemented, and perhaps most importantly, who has the power and responsibility to make it a reality?

Leadership and Governance

At the heart of the new employment covenant is the issue of governance—how we distribute power, privilege, and control. If we are truly committed to bringing about this new covenant, we need to work to create fundamental structural changes to support it.

The governance structures in most organizations still treat people as if they need to be taken care of and “controlled,” either because they are incapable—for reasons of both individual maturity and organizational complexity—or simply untrustworthy. The old employment contract had at its foundation an implicit assumption that our leaders somehow knew more than we did, so we could trust them to make the right choices and take care of us. In return we gave them the authority to make decisions on our behalf. But, as Block points out, “When you ask someone to take care of you, you give them at that moment the right to make claims on you.”

By following this implied contract, we have colluded in sustaining a system in which we give up individual initiative, responsibility, and accountability in exchange for “guaranteed” rewards. But the new covenant challenges this basic belief. According to Fortune, “For some companies and some workers, [the new covenant] is exhilarating and liberating. It requires companies to relinquish much of the control they have held over employees and give genuine authority to work teams…. Employees become far more responsible for their work and careers: No more parent-child relationships, say the consultants, but adult to adult.”

°Shifting the Burden° in Reverse

From a systemic viewpoint, the new covenant has the potential to reverse an entrenched “Shifting the Burden” structure. In most companies, management-imposed systems and policies have been the predominant way of dealing with organizational crises (BI in “When Policies Turn into Parenting”). This has led to the continual underdevelopment of individual initiative and responsibility (B2), which, over time, leads to more organizational crises and further justifies the need to develop more systems and policies to help “tend the flock.”

Through this process, the belief among employees that “the system takes care of me” increases (R3), which further undermines individual development. The burden of responsibility is “shifted” to those in higher positions through well-intentioned, seemingly progressive human resources policies. It is a simple extension of the familiar parenting model.

Recognizing that we are caught in this structure is one thing; reversing the dynamic, however, is a more difficult challenge. If the new covenant is to take hold, managers must be willing to reflect on their own role in the system and consider alternative roles beyond that of caretaker and controller. Otherwise, the new employment covenant will become (or will be interpreted as) simply another exercise of power, with those at the top of the organization imposing rules on everyone except themselves. If that is the case, then the changes are likely to be neither effective nor deep. As Block states, “unless there is also a shift in governance… [change] efforts will be more cosmetic than enduring.”

Fear of Losing Control

One of the particular issues managers must face is the fear associated with letting go of control. This may not stem from a lack of trust in people, per se, but from a mistrust of our own understanding of the complexities that we manage. That is, because we don’t trust the overall capability of the enterprise as a system, we act in ways that treat people as if they are themselves untrustworthy. This insecurity drives us to over control, rather than allow individuals to exercise their best judgment.

According to Block, stewardship requires the belief “that with good information and good will, people can make responsible decisions about what controls they require and whom they want to implement them.” Having good information and good will may not be enough to make intelligent decisions, however, if we are not aware of the larger context in which they are being made.

°Tragedy of the Commons° Lessons

Without a global perspective, it is easy to make decisions that are beneficial to certain parts but that sub-optimize the whole. The “Tragedy of the Commons” structure offers many examples of this situation. The main lesson of this archetype is that the leverage does not lie at the individual level.

“Tragedy of the Commons” plays itself out wherever there is a common resource (people, physical space, budgeted dollars, etc.) that must be shared by equivalent players (those with equal power in the organization). Each person or department tries to maximize their use of the resource. When the sum of their requirements exceeds the resources that are available, there is no incentive for anyone to give up their piece. In this case, good information and good will alone are not enough to make the best decisions for the organization; a higher authority is needed.

This does not automatically mean that a “boss” steps in and makes the decisions for the teams. Instead, what is needed is an appropriate governance structure that everyone agrees to follow in advance of any specific decision having to be made. This could take the form of a set of criteria against which individual needs are weighed, a review board that is charged with maximizing the organizational use of a resource, or a system of checks and balances that recognizes when divisional needs must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole company. The role of a leader, in these cases, is not to dictate from the top, but to help identify and create the appropriate governance structures.

Changes at Multiple Levels

So how can we make the new employment covenant a sustainable reality? The first step in this process is to be vigilant about how day-to-day decisions are being made. We cannot, in the name of efficiency, override the spirit of partnership and drive the process without full participation. All those being affected by the new covenant must be involved in mapping out the new structures and policies from the start. Getting everyone involved will require significantly more time than a traditional top-down “roll out,” but in the end, it may be more efficient and effective. If everyone’s participation is important to achieving the goal (which is the purpose of shifting responsibility back to the individuals), then anything that bypasses anyone’s involvement will be less than effective.

The second step is to examine the structures that are embedded in our organizations as a product of patriarchy (such as “Shifting the Burden” dynamics) and begin to clarify the challenges of moving to a structure that is based on partnership. After decades of living with patriarchy, people may require some adjustment time before they can fully step into the new model.

Most importantly, changes must happen at multiple levels simultaneously in order to be significant and enduring (see “New Model for Leadership”). The vision of stewardship is rooted in a shared sense of purpose that is based on choosing service over self-interest. This vision and its underlying values and beliefs will, in turn, guide the understanding of current reality and the creation of new systemic structures that will help translate the ideals into reality.

When Policies Turn into Parenting

The new employment covenant is working to reverse an entrenched “Shifting the Burden” structure, in which the burden of responsibility has “shifted” to those in higher positions.

But it is at the level of everyday events and patterns of behavior that we will demonstrate whether we are serious about making fundamental changes. The congruence between daily actions and shared vision will answer the question, “How serious are we about walking the talk?” If daily actions are governed by efforts to maintain safety, then everyone will hedge their bets and the dynamics of entitlement and patriarchy will likely continue. If, on the other hand, there is a sense of adventure and risk-taking, then empowerment will be a natural reinforcing by-product of such actions.

The Stewardship Challenge

Stewardship can spring up anywhere in an organization. Stewardship is leadership in the moment, not leadership by position. This means that we should not only look up the organizational chart for leaders, but across and down as well. Hierarchy then becomes less of a system of power and control and more of what it should be — a system of organization that makes distinctions between different types of work and responsibilities. Stewardship ultimately challenges us as individuals to make those choices and then live by them, as we acknowledge that the responsibility for leadership lies squarely on everyone’s shoulders.

Stewardship (Berreu-Koehler, 1993) is available through Pegasus Communications, Inc. (617) 576-1231.

The post Stewardship: A New Employment Covenant appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Using the Archetype Family Tree

The Systems Archetype Family Tree is based on two principles: that the systems archetypes are related strategically to each other, and that many situations can be described by progressing through several archetypes as they are linked on the tree (see “The Archetype Family Tree”). The tool is intended to help you use the relationships between archetypes to figure out how to begin looking at a new situation, and to gain increasing understanding of a problem as you work through the tree.

For example, suppose you were one of the proprietors of that lawn care company. You would start at the top of the chart, thinking about the nature of your situation. Is the phenomenon you want to understand something that used to be growing, whose growth you would like to reinstate, or something that is growing too quickly and you are worried about where it might lead? Then wind your way through the statements on the reinforcing (left-hand) trunk of the tree to see if they apply to your situation.

In this particular case, growth was not an issue; they had a debt problem to consider. If you, like the lawn care company owners, are trying to fix a chronic problem that persists despite your efforts to fix it, you want to work through the balancing (right-hand) trunk. Again, follow the chain of logical relationships, continuing to identify elements of your story.

For example, the lawn care proprietors’ fix” was to borrow whenever their cash flow was low (BI in “A Diagnostic Journey through the Archetype Family Tree”). As they serviced their mounting debt, however, the fix came back to haunt them in a “Fixes that Fail” structure (R2).

A Diganostic Journey Through The Archetype Family Tree

Working through the family tree reveals that what began as a simple balancing process(borrowing to meet cash needs) becoming a “Shifting the Burden” structure, in which the real leverage is to tighten financial control.

The lawn care proprietors sensed they were trapped in a “Shifting the Burden” process because they were not addressing the more fundamental issue of weak financial controls (B3). The borrowing fix was making matters worse by reinforcing a “loose” spending mentality (R4). Having diagnosed the situation, they could take effective action by focusing more attention on the root causes of their problems — low income and high spending — by tightening their budget and investing in better financial management tools.

Experimenting

Experimentation is key to using the archetypes most effectively. It is probably most useful to look at a particular situation or problem through the lens of several different archetypes, moving through the “tree” as needed. You may find yourself combining archetypes, adding loops and links to adapt them more completely to your story. By the time you have gleaned what you can from them, the loops may be five or six generations removed from the original archetype with which you began.

Michael Goodman is vice president of Innovation Associates (Framingham, MA). Art Kleiner has a long-standing background writing about business, environment, and systemic issues. This material will appear, in a different form, in the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (Doubleday, forthcoming Spring 1994) .

The post Using the Archetype Family Tree as a Diagnostic Tool appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

We’ve been bench-marking the Japanese, particularly Toyota. Their capabilities are tremendous; and yet, on a technological basis, there’s no difference. Our engineers are as good if not better. The difference is that they’ve developed a different process of communication and behavior — how they think, vision, and interconnect. Once you get the behavior right, you can take the engineering tools and apply them more effectively.

At Ford, the Lincoln Continental team has been trying to do something dramatically different with product development. The program consists of a cross-functional team of approximately 200-300 engineers, planners, manufacturing and finance people, etc. We’re talking about a major program — the responsibilities are very heavy, and the expectations are very high. A core team of six to eight people decided to apply systems thinking and the discipline of mental models to help us think differently about problem articulation — about how we create our own problems and how we can resolve them. So we began to have meetings with the MIT Organizational Learning Center to put together a project. Daniel Kim from the Organizational Learning Center became our facilitator, teacher, and mentor, and with a cross functional group of managers on our team, we began our journey (see “Pilot Project Plan”).

Importance of Changing Behavior

Keep in mind that many people at Ford are engineers. We were taught in the Cartesian/Newtonian paradigm — nonlinear systems thinking is not in our vocabulary. Our language is one of certainty, prediction, and results. Complexity is to be eliminated; the unknown is unacceptable.

In the 1980s going into 1990, I was responsible for several programs that were very successful. But we had huge armies of engineers and manufacturing people to deliver those programs, and every time we went into the implementation of a program, we were in trouble. The prototypes were late, we had too many engineering changes, there was confusion on the assumptions. We were missing our objectives, we were missing timing, and we had to allocate incredible resources to recover. We recognized that it just wasn’t the way to manage a program, so we began to look for better ways.

Through our work with MIT, we’re beginning to realize that certainty is not possible. The world is more complex than it used to be. Competition forces us to realize that some people do things better than we do, and the reason they do things better is not because they have more technical knowledge, but because they have better behavior.

Organizational and Mental Barriers

Our organization is not any different from most product development organizations in North America. They tend to be very control-oriented, risk-averse, authoritarian, and hierarchical. There’s a tendency for line management to walk into a situation and think they have the answer. They’re very hesitant to admit that they don’t know. To turn that around and to get people talking to each other and thinking together — developing shared mental models — is very difficult.

In most organizations there’s a tendency to advocate individual positions rather than inquire into other people’s thinking, which creates barriers to real communication. We wanted to eliminate the barriers we had created in our own minds about how we should communicate and what our belief systems are about one another. To help, we used a tool called the Ladder of Inference (see “Ladder of Inference” diagram). It’s very simple. When you have a conversation, or if you’re articulating what you think is a problem or issue, the ladder gives you a way of questioning at what level of thinking are you discussing those issues. Is it at the level of beliefs, inferences, conclusions, cultural meaning or directly observable data We found most of our discussions were somewhere up at the level of beliefs.

For example, we had some serious arguments with our finance office regarding what we wanted this car to be. The finance office wanted to achieve certain financial objectives, and we wanted to achieve certain product objectives. In the midst of an argument, one of the core team members said, “You want a Lexus at an Escort cost, that’s what you want! That’s an oxymoron.” A heated debate ensued, but there was insight when we suddenly realized we were talking at a belief system: as a finance person, my job is to control you and get certain financial results; as an engineer, my job is to get a product that’s competitive, and I need to get the kind of costs into that car to make it competitive!

In retrospect, this seems very simple. But at the time, we were trapped by our own vision of what our jobs were. Instead of thinking of what we wanted the car to be, we were thinking about our positions—my job is to be the controller, my job is to be the engineer, my job is to build the car. And we couldn’t communicate because we were operating at the level of beliefs.

In addition to the Ladder of Inference, we also used systems archetypes such as “Fixes that Fail,” “Shifting the Burden,” and “Tragedy of the Commons” to see our product development process more systemically (see “Tragedy of the Commons” for a systems archetype example). We struggled with them, but as a result of our work with archetypes, we were able to identify the leverage in managing change on our program. And because we’re able to manage change more effectively (and earlier in the program), we will save millions of dollars in tooling.

The learning Lab

We, the management group, needed to go through literally seven to eight months of working together to become a cohesive core group, before we could think about how to intervene in the rest of the organization. Throughout the project, the line managers were responsible for learning and applying the tools to our own issues. The MIT people assisted us, providing the knowledge and the tools, but we were the ones who had to conduct our own interviews, analyze our own data, and learn to see and think differently. We changed as a result. We began to realize that the role of manager is not to boss and to direct, but to also become a teacher, a facilitator, and a coach.

We put together a two-day learning lab in order to share what we had learned with some of the other members of the Continental team (see “Learning Laboratories: Practicing Between Performances,” October 1992 for a typical learning lab design). I was a co-facilitator with Dan Kim because I was being trained to ultimately train others.

We started with a short introduction to tell them what this was all about and how we got where we did. We then went through some exercises on the way we think and the way we create our current reality, but we were very careful not to abstract this too much. We talked a little bit about deconstructing problems; how problems are very frequently created by the way we look at them. We also introduced them to the five disciplines of the learning organization—shared vision, personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and systems thinking (from The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, by Peter Senge).

Throughout the day, I brought up specific problems we were having on the program to help ground the issues in our current reality. On the second day, we used a management flight simulator for the product development process and challenged the participants to balance three objectives: timing, cost, and quality. It was a big hit. By practicing with the simulator they discovered how difficult it is to balance the three and how little changes in the beginning can dramatically affect the final outcome.

A Measure of Success

The success of that first learning lab was really surprising. I asked the participants to go hack and start using these techniques and tell us about their experiences by keeping journals. When attending meetings with other learning lab participants, they’ve found that they understand each other when someone tends to respond in classic behavior. In other words, they’re beginning to see the tools helping to surface their mental models.

For example, I was concerned about one of my younger engineers because he was working extremely long hours. One of the managers said the guy was going to bum himself out and I’d better go talk to him. So I walked up to him and started fishing for stuff, asking how he was doing. After a few minutes he said, “Nick! What are you trying to say? What’s on the left-hand column of your mind? Why don’t you just come right out and tell me?” I did, and the issue was resolved. I was impressed! I’m beginning to see that type of exchange happen more in meetings. Now someone will say, “John, where are you on the ladder of inference? We’re not going to get anywhere if we’re going to discuss this at a belief system level.”

The real test is going to be taking these 20 engineers and cross-functional leaders and going through another couple of pilot programs, training them to be trainers. In the next pilot program, Dan is going to watch and I’m going to teach. One or two after that, I’m going to watch and they’re going to teach, and then their team members are going to teach other team members. I want to be able to take this to the whole team of approximately 200 people in the next six months or so.

Learnings

There are four main lessons I’ve learned through this project. One is the role of the manager—it is critical. The best place to start with a project like this is to find some people who are willing to experiment, and work with them first. You have to have a champion, someone who’s committed. It’s best if this role is assumed by the line manager.

Next, we need to work on getting rid of this obsession with problem solving. It becomes a barrier to more effective, learning. We need to start thinking about re-articulating issues—to get people to redefine what they think is the problem. Many people have heard the story that we actually create most of the problems in our own mind. They’re not out there; they’re in our minds.

I’ve also found the systems archetypes are very useful, but I have this fear that they will become an obsession in themselves. I think many people believe the more complex they are, the better they are. That’s wrong. In my opinion, the simpler we can make the archetype, the better. The archetype is a convenient tool to hang our thoughts on, and that’s all it is. If you can do without them, fine, but I think they’re very useful. When people start saying things like “that’s a ‘Shifting the Bunten!”‘ Or, “those are ‘Fixes that Fail!” Or, “this is a ‘Tragedy of the Commons!”‘ everyone instantly understands what you’re talking about. They all have the same picture, and that is a basis for communicating.

The fourth insight is the importance of the individual and of personal transformation. One of my engineers said, “Okay, I’m enlightened. I know what to do, I know how to do it. But what about THEM? I have to go hack to that place, and it’s awful! I’ve learned so much, but then I have to go back there!” I told her not to worry about that; just worry about herself. It starts with personal transformation. Start using these tools yourself, and let others watch. They’ll ask; they’ll wonder.

The Ladder of Inference

The ladder of inference gives you a way of asking, “Atcwhat level of thinking are you discussing those issues: the level of beliefs, assumptions and conclusions, cultural meaning or directly observable data?”

I believe the most powerful point is that in the end it’s really up to the individual. We have to stop trying to be advocates and fighting the system. We have to start realizing that if we fix ourselves, then even if we can’t fix that other person, it’ll be easier to deal with the situation. The point to remember as we proceed in the direction toward change and becoming enlightened, is that conventional wisdom is also present, and when situations get a little tough, there’s a tendency to go back to conventional ways. We need to realize that this is our work. It’s how we can become better and more effective at our behavior.

Nick Zeniuk is a leader for organizational and behavioral change in Ford’s product development process. He has extensive multifunctional experience in planning, finance, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing. Nick was the Planning Manager for several key products, including the Brazilian Del Ray (1981 Car of the Year Award), Mark VII and Lincoln Town Car (1990 Car of the Year Award).

Further Reading: Chris Argyris. Overcoming Organizational Defenses (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1990) . Available through Pegasus Communications.

The post Learning to Learn: A New Look at Product Development appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

In such a situation, the complex interaction of individual actions produces an undesirable collective effect (see “Tragedy of the Commons Archetype”). To paraphrase David Bohm, each player contributes to the problem, but then says “I did not do it.” Recognizing when you are operating in a “Tragedy of the Commons” archetype is important for understanding the long-term effects of individual actions, connecting those actions to the collective outcome, and finding the leverage for effective intervention.

Lack of Empowerment

The strategy behind employee empowerment programs is to step back and allow individuals to solve problems at the local level without interference from above. But telling individuals to solve a problem themselves can be demotivating when the solution does not lie at the individual level. This can create the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma that many people feel in organizations. The long-term effect can be a sense of powerlessness and futility among employees.

Becoming aware of “Tragedy of the Commons” structures in your organization can be the first step toward empowerment. Instead of being forced to react or rebuild the commons later, the greatest leverage lies in identifying the structures in advance. The seven-step process outlined below provides a blueprint for using the “Tragedy of the Commons” archetype to discover these potential leverage points.

The process of using the archetype can be broken down into two stages: assessing the current situation and highlighting potential problems (steps 1–4); and identifying leverage points for action (steps 5–7).

Diagnosing the Problem

1. Identify the Commons
The first step in using the “Tragedy of the Commons” archetype is to identify the commons—the resource (broadly defined) that is being shared by a group of people. To pinpoint the commons, try looking for shared resources that are considered to be fixed for the time horizon of interest.

For example, in a car development program, the power output of an alternator is considered fixed, even though it may be later redesigned. The potential for a “Tragedy of the Commons” lies in the fact that the component design teams are vying for that fixed alternator capacity to power each of their respective parts.

2. Determine Incentives
Next, identify the reinforcing processes or incentives driving the individual use of the resource. These can be both personal motivators as well as incentive systems that exist within the company (e.g., sales quotas and contests). Bear in mind that sometimes the incentives are not that explicit (personal motivations are often involved).

TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS ARCHETYPE

In “Tragedy of the Commons,” each person pursues actions that are individually beneficial (R1 and R2), but eventually result in a worse situation for everyone (B1 and B2).

In the alternator case above, the engineers’ genuine interest to experiment and continually improve the functionality of each part can end up outstripping the available alternator power. The incentive for each component team, however, is to deliver improved functionality—not to manage the overall load on the alternator (loops R1 and R2 in “Overgrazing the Alternator”).

3. Determine Time Frame for Reaping Benefits
Having listed the incentives, it is important to determine the time frame in which the individuals reap the benefits of using that commons. This helps to estimate how fast the commons could become overgrazed. Generally, the shorter the time frame for reaping benefits, the higher the incentive to use the resource, and the more difficult it may be to get people to give up the short-term benefits for the long-term good.

4. Determine Time Frame for Cumulative Effects
The danger of “Tragedy of the Commons” is that the resource depletion can happen invisibly over a long period of time (due to cumulative effects). When the effects finally hit, you may suddenly find yourself paralyzed, without any lead time to take effective action. Trying to determine upfront how long it may take before the impact of the collective action will be felt can help you gauge the window of opportunity for taking effective action.

In the alternator example, as each team increases the functionality of its component, the electrical load may begin to rise. The collective effect may not be known for weeks, however, due to delays in getting accurate information collected and tabulated. When the total load exceeds capacity, the effect on everyone will be a degradation of component performance (loops B3 and B4).

Finding the Leverage Point

5. Make the Long-Term Effects Real and Present to Individual Actors
Once you have determined the parameters of the problem—the commons, the incentives, and the time frames—you can begin exploring alternatives for creating effective action. One approach is to make the long-term loss more real and present to the individual users. Most likely, in a “Tragedy of the Commons” situation, there is a large gap between how quickly one feels the benefits of an individual action (step 3) versus the pain one will eventually feel from the collective result (step 4).

OVERGRAZING THE ALTERNATOR

The desire of the teams to improve the functionality of their components can lead to an overload of the “commons”—overall alternator capacity

One way of closing the gap is to develop a measurement system that will translate the cost of the future loss into a net present value equivalent. Providing immediate, systemwide feedback on the effects of individual actions and tying them to performance measures can help make the link between local action and global consequences more real and immediate. In the alternator example, we may be able to show in real time the overall system degradation each additional demand for power creates.

6. Reevaluate the Nature of the Commons
In many “Tragedy of the Commons” structures, such as those associated with the ecology of the planet, there is an eventual “collapse” of the commons. Once you reach a certain limit, the commons cannot be replenished.

In most corporate settings, however, there is not a final “collapse.” Most common resources are renewable (eventually). Replacing the resources, however, can take a long time. Another possible leverage point in a “Tragedy of the Commons” situation, therefore, is to remove the constraints imposed on the commons. Reevaluating the limit may produce some alternatives or possibilities that have not been considered.

In the alternator scenario, for example, we may consider other available technologies that could give us more electrical power. The Japanese often prepare for this eventuality by innovating and creating alternative technologies and putting them on the shelf even before they have a use for them.

7. Role of the Final Arbiter to Limit Access to Resources
The highest leverage in a “Tragedy of the Commons” is to find the central focal point around which the whole resource can be managed. That could be either a common shared vision that will guide all individual actions, a measurement system that somehow accounts for the collective effect (and makes it “visible” to each player), or a final arbiter who controls and allocates the resource based on the whole system.

One way of creating an overarching vision to guide a project is to apply Quality Function Deployment, which translates customers’ needs into a matrix that provides a blueprint of what the customer values most. This way, even as each team tries to optimize its part by using the common resource, the matrix shows which ones should get higher priority.

One example of a final arbiter is the heavyweight program manager common in car product development programs in Japanese companies. He or she has a great deal of authority for making decisions about design and resource allocation issues.

Empowerment

How many times have decisions been made at a higher level in an unrecognized “Tragedy of the Commons” where individual morale and empowerment suffer as a result, even though the decision was the “correct” one? Recognizing a “Tragedy of the Commons” at work can be an empowering experience. When people realize a particular problem cannot be “solved” at the individual level, they will feel much more comfortable about the decisions being made at higher levels and also understand at what level the decisions need to be made.

The “Tragedy of the Commons” example used above is based on “Learning to Learn: A New Look at Product Development” in the February 1993 issue of The Systems Thinker®.

Daniel H. Kim is co-founder of Pegasus Communications, founding publisher of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and a consultant, facilitator, teacher, and public speaker committed to helping problem-solving organizations transform into learning organizations.

The post Using “Tragedy of the Commons” to Link Local Action to Global Outcomes appeared first on The Systems Thinker.