This article will explore the manifestation of generations in the workplace through the lens of a compelling model that considers generational “personas” throughout history and their cyclical relationship to each other. By examining the dynamics of the generations present in today’s organizations, including their collective strengths, limitations, and the generational biases they may hold, I hope to provide a fresh perspective on workplace conflicts, leadership blind spots, and the promise of intergenerational collaboration as a means to elevate organizational potential and future success.

Generations Theory

There are a number of research studies, articles, and books that describe the historical and socioeconomic trends that influence the traits of different generations. Foremost, however, is the research conducted by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe. Strauss and Howe’s seminal book, Generations: A History of America’s Future 1584 to 2069 (William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991), examines the socioeconomic, cultural, and political conditions throughout American history and their impact on the formation of distinct generational characterizations, or “peer personalities.” A number of factors influence peer personalities, including the cultural norms for childrearing at the time, the perception of the world as members of the generation start to come of age, and the common experiences the generation encounters as it enters the adult world. In this way, a generational identity is formed that has distinct effects on the environment and, in turn, younger generations.

After examining the history of the United States, Strauss and Howe maintain that each generation falls into one of four archetypes that repeat in a fixed, cyclical pattern, roughly every 80 years. The archetypes are Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist (see “Generational Archetypes”). At a macro level, generations in each archetype tend to share similar experiences and have comparable impacts on the culture as they move through the four stages of maturity: childhood, young adult, midlife leader, and elder. For instance, Prophet generations tend to be indulged as children, immersed in spiritual self-discovery as young adults, preoccupied with moral principles as midlife leaders, and vision-driven as elders. Artist generations, on the other hand, are inclined to be smothered and overprotected as children, sensitive and conforming as young adults, tolerant and indecisive as midlife leaders, and empathetic to younger generations as elders. These archetypal tendencies impact the culture as they surface in social activism, leadership styles, organizational priorities, and national policy.

Each generation overcorrects what it perceives to be the excesses of its predecessors. Accordingly, at any given time in history, each archetype’s collective reaction to the social climate of the times, together with its related influence on those times, creates a predictable and repetitive pattern of both generational personas and social phases (see “Generational Cycles,” p. 2). In essence, the cyclical recurrence of the four archetypes serves as a natural balancing process that manages the inevitable tension between two powerful and polar social forces — civic order and personal fulfillment. The effect of this loop is to impel the evolution of society forward in a spiral process not unlike the seasonal changes of nature: from summer’s heat to autumn’s harvest, followed by the cold of winter and the eventual germination of spring (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_ Howe).

The Strauss and Howe model asserts the possibility that, at some level, we as a society have been here before. If history repeats itself, it does so because of the complex tensions and ongoing negotiations between the equally important human precepts of order and freedom, secular stability and spiritual fulfillment, communal good and individual rights. If our relationship to these core principles is informed by our generational experience, then many of our own mental models, biases, and behaviors will, to some degree, be tied to our place in time and reinforced by our peers. In addition, this model suggests that each generation has a crucial place in this evolutionary cycle, a particular contribution to make, one that may not be obvious to those blinded by their generation’s limited perspective. Generational theory and the data that supports it can expose the intergenerational biases that covertly occupy our workplace and illuminate the cooperative potential that exists in our current place in time, as we confront the future and strive to tackle the looming issues of our day.

With the implications of this theory in mind, let’s take a closer look at the four generations currently in the workforce.

The Generations of Today’s Workplace

The landscape in today’s workplace includes four different generations, each with a distinct set of defining experiences and attributes — both strengths and limitations — that characterize its overall leadership and cultural impact. There are of course individual exceptions to and variations from this big-picture model; nonetheless, I invite you to consider how your generation’s collective characteristics might, in some respects, be true for you, and whether that insight can inform the way you perceive and interact with others.

There are differing opinions on the birth years that define the generations; however, the dates given below reflect those published by Strauss and Howe, who present strong justification and sociological relevance for the ranges they cite.

Silent Generation (Artist Archetype) Born: 1925–1942

The Silent Generation still maintains a small presence in the workforce, although most make up today’s senior citizen demographic. Silents were children during the Great Depression and World War II. Largely overprotected by their parents, they were quiet and obedient, living with food rationing and the daily fear of bad news, be it a foreclosure, a layoff, or a war casualty. Outflanked in both numbers and stature on one end by the great sacrificing war heroes of the older G. I. generation, and on the other end by the indulged new generation of postwar “victory babies,” Silents were expected to do little more than tow the line of progress. As a generation, they married early, had children quickly, and subsequently endured the highest divorce rate in history. Nonetheless, many Silents went from penniless children to affluent elders. Committed to public interest advocacy, the Silent Generation produced Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, and while they still hold approximately 25 percent of national leadership positions in state and federal government, they have yet to produce a U. S. president.

As leaders, Silents tend to focus on process and protocol, endlessly refining approaches, mediating differences, and seeking elegant ways to build compromise. They were the fine-tuning engineers who put Neil Armstrong on the moon, the expert proponents of Total Quality Management, and the tolerant designers of integrated school systems. Often viewed by other generations as timid, unconfident, and ineffective, the Silent generation nonetheless exhibits the kind of modesty and poise that serves as a quiet reminder of the enduring virtues of respectful process, genteel behavior, and inclusive conduct, standards that will likely have a crucial role in our global future.

Baby Boom Generation (Prophet Archetype) Born: 1943–1960

Both in size and prowess, the Baby Boom is the dominant generation of our time. Boomers grew up in an era of indulgent parenting and prosperous times. As “Leave It to Beaver” youth, they were expected to follow in the G. I.s’ footsteps and build the next golden age. Confident and filled with the potential of creative independence, Boomers have not, however, embraced the grand civic destiny that their parents envisioned for them. Rather, the “Me” generation has rebelled against authority, resisted conforming to the status quo, and taken the notions of individualism and generational identity to a new level. From the “consciousness revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, to the “yuppies” of the 1980s, to the polarized culture wars of today, the Baby Boomers as a generation are known for their fixation on self, youth, individual expression, and intractable moral convictions about right and wrong. Communal and well-networked, their collective passions and values have become a mainstay in our culture and are squarely reflected in our nation’s consumer, corporate, and leadership trends.

Baby Boomers inhabit the most powerful leadership positions throughout the United States — including the presidency — and hold much of the experiential, institutional, and political knowledge in the workplace. As leaders, Boomers tend to be vision- and mission-focused, sometimes to the point of being unwilling to move ahead without a highly principled course of action in place. As transformers, they frequently seek to reorganize, redefine, or overhaul their organizations. In every sector, Boomers often want to make their mark through an improvement, distinction, or change. Many lack the discipline, however, to see transitions through or are intolerant to the resistance that comes with change.

Often married to their work, Boomers have embraced the 24/7, driven, competitive work ethic and, as a result, tend to remain short-term focused — be it the end of the quarter, the budget cycle, or their term. For many, this pressure-driven mentality can trigger reactive decision-making, trumping more systemic, long-term strategic thinking. As they retire, the Baby Boom generation will enter their Elderhood — the phase of life during which past Prophet generations have made their most potent leadership contributions.

X Generation (Nomad Archetype) Born: 1961–1981

Xers came of age in the 1970s and 1980s, when the prevailing message of the day was to grow up fast. Primarily children to working, in many cases divorced parents from the Silent generation, Xers were deemed “latch-key kids” for the adult-centric childrearing practices that left many youngsters largely unsupervised by today’s standards. Self-reliant and street-wise at an early age, leading-edge Xers graduated from college in greater debt than any previous generation. Many were forced to take low-level, low-paying “McJobs” as they sought entry into the Boomer dominated, “leaner and meaner,” competitive marketplace. Criticized as “slackers” by the media, Xers learned to rely on their finely honed survival skills and comfort with the fast-paced, changing landscape of the Information Age. Independent, pragmatic, and technologically resourceful, Xers are currently some of the most sought-after employees in the workforce.

As casualties of the era of corporate downsizing, Xers tend to be skeptical of promises and grand policy visions and, hence, demonstrate little organizational loyalty. Their pragmatism leads them to measure their success on their most recent accomplishments or acquired skills versus contributions to a greater vision. There are relatively few Xers in leadership positions today, with the exception of the high-tech industry and entrepreneurial ventures. Xers tend to be highly pragmatic, no-nonsense, action-oriented, good at learning on the fly, and opportunistic (which can appear to Boomers as unprincipled). They can be good team collaborators when not bogged down with idealistic debates and tend to be proficient with deliverables and project management. Accustomed to fending for themselves, most Xers prefer to focus on their own sphere of influence — family and friends. Many aren’t willing to embrace the 24/7 work ethic, and often put work-life balance over income and career advancement. Xers have little awareness of their greater collective force as a generation, and as such often lack the networks and connections needed to influence institutions and the power to make beneficial changes.

Most organizations have failed to recognize the need to prepare Xers to take the lead in the coming generational shift. Lacking much formal leadership training or mentoring, Xers often struggle with the subtle nuances of leadership and can appear draconian when making decisions. History, however, holds a promise to leaders who strive to earn the trust of this talented generation. The X generation’s collective life skills and deep devotion to the future welfare of their children will arouse for many the courage to commit to meaningful challenges and the endurance to see through hard times.

Millennial (Y) Generation (Hero Archetype) Born: 1982–2002

The oldest Millennials (or “Gen Y,” as some call them) are just now entering the workforce. They have a different set of childhood experiences than the other three generations, and while they are still quite young, they are nonetheless making themselves known. Largely children of Baby Boomers, Millennials were born at a time when there was a tremendous social investment in children and childhood programming. From “baby on board” stickers announcing their presence to fully scheduled days being bustled from one adult-led activity to another, Millennials have led highly protected and programmed lives. They were indoctrinated into the paradigm of standardized testing and are byproducts of the self-esteem movement that infiltrated school curricula in the 1990s, proclaiming all children to be “winners.” As such, Millennials are accustomed to frequent praise for all activities and accomplishments. The digital communication age is their birth right, and they are technologically superior to older generations, including Xers. Because of the on demand capability to access information, many Millennials have a global understanding of the world and value diverse cultures, experiences, and environments. They tend to be accepting of differences and measure people on the quality of their talent and output, rather than on physical or cultural characteristics (for additional details, see Managing Generation Y by Carolyn A. Martin and Bruce Tulgan, HRD Press, 2001).

As they enter the workplace, Millennials bring enthusiasm along with a sense of entitlement. Many expect career-track guidance, supervisory oversight, and regular, appreciative acknowledgement. They are confident, bold, and willing to speak up for what they want. As employees, they will seek environments that address their needs for structure and adequate direction, balance between personal and professional pursuits, up-to-date technology, and a socially conscious mission.

The challenge of this generation lies in their heavy reliance on external stimuli and direction from above. They tend to lack the self-reliant skills of the Xers, and have little internal aptitude to process and effectively learn from failure. Given the demographic reality of the workforce over the next 20 years — according to the American Society of Training and Development, 76 million retiring and 46 million entering — skilled Millennials will have their choice of employers. Optimistic, technologically masterful, and civically focused, the Millennial generation promises to be a competent and highly productive workforce; however, they will need sufficient oversight, on-the-job training, and clear direction from older leaders—and they have the demographic power to demand it!

Intergenerational Conflicts in the Workplace

When considering the diverse perspectives, values, and competencies that exist in our multigenerational workforce, it becomes easier to glimpse the many possibilities for collaboration and cooperation that may be present. But collaboration of this magnitude will require some changes in the status quo. Before we can move into a productive future of shared vision for an intergenerational workplace, the two groups with the greatest leadership leverage— Boomers and Xers — must each take stock of the biases and mental models they hold in order to discover their intergenerational synergy.

Generational Biases. Intergenerational conflicts arise primarily from the biases that each peer group has about the others. Individually, we may be unaware of the insidiousness of these biases. Left unacknowledged, they have a profound effect on our ability to recognize areas of compatibility and work toward common purposes. Focusing on the Boom and X generations, “Boomer and Xer Biases” gives examples of commonly held biases each has of the other.

In essence, the biases each group has of the other reflect a generation centric perspective, one that fuels a belief that “my way is the right way” and “your way doesn’t measure up to my values.” These biases are further substantiated by peer reinforcement, as members of each generation talk among themselves about the way they see others. This dynamic interferes with the capacity of individuals to listen to and respect the perspectives and contributions of others, thereby blocking meaningful collaboration in teams, supervisory relationships, and between colleagues. Conducting candid discussions in mixed generational groups about the biases that exist can be an effective way to disarm the negative impacts they may have on collaborative thinking. Exposing biases can also illuminate important social issues that need to be addressed.

Generational Mental Models and Blind Spots. Our generational perspective contributes to the mental models we hold about ourselves, the world, and the way things “should” be. These beliefs create blind spots that can become our undoing as we pursue our values and seek to accomplish our goals. Likewise, they can have a powerful effect on our culture.

The generational mental models held by the Baby Boomers are clouded by the assumption that others see the world as they do. This is a typical perspective of powerful and dominant generations who, having had such a massive impact on the culture, are often unaware of how that impact is experienced by other generations. A prominent mental model shared by many Boomers is the tendency to view the rebellious era of their youth as their generation’s greatest contribution. This belief is reflected by Boomer obsessions with 1960s nostalgia, retro fashion, classic rock, and youthful enhancements like Botox and Viagra. There is a sense in which Boomers still view themselves as children, rather than the adult leaders and authorities that they are.

This self-immersion in the glories of the past — in which many Boomers “Questioned Authority” and waged adolescent wars against “The Man” — stands in stark contrast to the fact that, today, they are the establishment. The systemic impact of this reality is profound: If the collective attention of the leading generation appears to be focused on youthful notions of a time long gone, then who is attending to the present reality and the responsibilities of leading for the future? Certainly some individuals are doing so, but at the macro level, from the perspective of younger and older generations looking on, Boomers have all the positional and cultural power to affect change for the future. Yet as a generation, they appear fixated on preserving their youth, focused on competitive one-upmanship, mired in intractable positions, and inattentive to what is required for long-term sustainability. Such a perspective has eroded trust, respect, and confidence in Boomer leadership and colors the mental models of younger generations.

Accordingly, the mental models held by the X Generation are clouded by distrust and pessimism. As a less dominant and younger generation, they are naturally attuned to hypocrisy, and use any evidence of it to justify their cynicism and detachment. Disconnected from their own collective power, a mental model common to many Xers is the perception of themselves as loners who are on their own and have little in common with those outside of their intimate circles. As a result, most Xers see no point to activism and the spurring of institutional change. Rather, they prefer private solutions to public issues and seek to improve the quality of life within their own small sphere of influence. Practical and perhaps initially effective, the systemic impact of this perspective has its dysfunctional qualities. If this generation indeed has a deep commitment to family and the future of their children, yet remains apathetic about influencing the vision and direction of the institutions that affect them (employers, public schools, national agenda), then how will that bode for the future of their children? If Xers continue to opt out, they will in effect be leaving that future to chance.

Thinking Systemically About Workforce Demographics: A Case Study

Five years ago, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) at the U. S. Food and Drug Administration surveyed its workforce and discovered that most employees had been there for more than 25 or less than 5 years, and that the Center would be facing large numbers of retirements in the near future. This data impelled CFSAN leadership to prioritize the task of preparing their organization for the future. A high-level task force was appointed to study the situation and come up with concrete recommendations for a credible succession plan. After a year of investigation and with strong commitment from the entire organization, CFSAN created a Leadership Legacy Steering Committee. This group became responsible for designing a leadership development program that accounted for the needed skill sets and demographic reality of the Center’s workforce.

Rather than starting at the top (as is more typical), CFSAN began training first-line supervisors in the art and skills of leading people. Not only did this decision address the greatest need, it also signaled to more junior employees that they mattered and that this initiative was not just another perk for top management. As well as a solid training component, the program features mentoring and shadowing opportunities with senior leaders, promoting deeper intergenerational relationships and increasing the transfer of vital institutional knowledge. In addition, participants have opportunities for developmental assignments in different units and special team projects, both of which enhance collaborative relationships across Center departments.

The second level, for middle managers, which began last year, is aimed at emerging leaders who demonstrate the savvy and potential to lead at an organizational level. The third level focuses on senior managers and will emphasize strategic leadership skills.

CFSAN is accomplishing this effort despite severe budget cuts and increasing workloads. The organization continues to be led by Baby Boomer administrators who have committed to securing the future of the organization. They recognize that the best hope for ongoing success will come from younger employees who are motivated to take on larger responsibilities and feel empowered by the earnest attention paid to their development.

History’s Promise: Intergenerational Collaboration?

Historical trends show that major secular crises recur every 80 years or so, the last one beginning with the Great Depression in 1928. The leadership combination of an elder Prophet generation, providing vision and a strong moral compass, together with a mid-life Nomad generation, fortified with sturdy persistence and expertise, was ideally suited for enduring the crisis and forging a new order. The Prophet and Nomad generations of that time were able to face the extreme difficulty through collaboration and generational cooperation. Their leaders found the courage to tell the truth, call forth needed sacrifice, and provide the hope that led the nation through the ordeal.

The challenges that face the nation’s institutions and communities today are deeply complex. No single generation can adequately address these issues without the cooperation and contributions of the others. The best hope for the future of our organizations and our culture rests on our capacity to form a shared vision that encompasses the best of what each generation values and has to offer. Whether Boomers and Xers can overcome the self-serving biases and limiting mental models that keep the two generations from collaborating for the future is unknown. It may require that external conditions worsen so that the stakes become higher. And perhaps the young Millennials — in seeking clear direction and oversight from leadership — will call the others to task, necessitating Boomers and Xers to come together to effectively lead this emboldened and demographically powerful workforce.

We have seen the systemic opportunities that can come from collaboration in communities, businesses, government offices, and nonprofits. By seeking to build the intergenerational connections that will lead to shared understanding, knowledge, and vision, we can elevate the potential of our organizations by harnessing the natural balancing forces inherent within the generational mix. This process, however, starts with a leader’s willingness to ask important questions about the future, questions that seek to understand the complexity and truth arising from diverse perspectives. In this way, the path forward will be much clearer and the solutions more promising.

Deborah Gilburg is a principle of Gilburg Leadership Institute, a leadership development firm specializing in generational dynamics and organizational succession planning. For more information, visit www.gilburgleadership.com. Deb will be presenting a concurrent session at this year’s Pegasus Conference.

The post Empowering Multigenerational Collaboration in the Workplace appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Most likely, you have focused on the other person’s familiar set of behavior or words. You know what is coming. Your certainty is not based on any omniscient ability to predict the future, but on a careful selection of past behavior. You anticipate a simple repetition of the past. Often there is a quick flash of resignation or a girding of your will to take on the person’s behavior once again. It is all so predictable, at least when it comes to the other person’s behavior. What you may not be aware of is your own response, which is equally predictable.

The phrase “Here he/she goes again” communicates a message that the problem lies with the other person’s behavior. Yet, what is taking place is actually within the sphere of interpersonal interactions. Certain ways of thinking about and relating to others are reinforced, creating predictable, vicious cycles of behavior called defensive routines. Defensive routines come about through a combination of human behavior and the limits of awareness, where we fail to see how our interactions are part of a system of unproductive behavior.

Chris Argyris has extensively researched and written about how well-meaning, smart people create vicious cycles of defensive behavior. In the 17 years since the publication of his book, Overcoming Organizational Defenses, this pervasive and insidious reality has been well documented by scholarly research. Defensive routines exist in all organizations, and people feel disempowered and helpless to change them. Every day, defensive routines cripple organizations, resulting in the loss of productivity, a dispirited work force, and a cultural malaise of dissatisfaction.

What Is a Defensive Routine?

Defensive routines are patterns of interpersonal interactions people create to protect themselves from embarrassment and threat. The conditions of threat and embarrassment arise when our abilities are negatively evaluated by a colleague or authority figure. It could be that our reputation is on the line and we find ourselves in a situation where we think we have been set up to fail or where we are getting grilled over a perceived or actual mistake. There are many situations in which whether either potential threats or embarrassments, minor or major, exist. They can be unexpected or anticipated.

Whether actual or perceived, what is under attack is our sense of competence. Competence is the requisite or adequate ability to get done what needs to be done and to do it well. We operate best when feeling competent. What happens when our sense of competency is threatened? According to Arygris, we engage in a characteristic mode of defensive reasoning and behavior.

While we would not think of ourselves as being unreasonable or ill intended, we readily concoct private explanations about why others do or say something that creates difficulty for us. We make attributions about each other’s motives and intentions and hold other parties accountable for the difficulty when we find ourselves at odds with one another. In the privacy of our own minds, we hold our positions with a high degree of certainty. It is hard to listen when you think the other person is dead wrong. Yet, we will be the first to call “unfair” if we don’t think the other person is listening to us.

None of what we are thinking is spoken directly to the person involved. In fact, when and if we share our emotionally charged assessments, theories, and explanations, we generally do so only with those individuals whom we feel will be sympathetic to our views. These private conversations are held behind closed doors, in hallways, and in break rooms. Nothing is discussed in public meetings and rarely, if ever, do the targets of those third-party conversations find out what we really think. The result is “open secrets,”, “undiscussables,” or the “elephant in the room.”

Most everyone can think of an example of this behavior, often accompanied by a juicy story. What is often left out of the story is the teller’s complicit participation in it. There is no awareness around how he or she might be involved in creating the secret, the undiscussable, or the elephant. These dynamics become a routine part of the workplace culture. Whole departments become encased in assumptions and expectations that feed predictable, vicious cycles of human behavior. As defensive routines take hold of a company’s culture, the consequences are increasingly troubling. I have observed companies in which defensive routines proliferate to the point where the organizational culture becomes so toxic to working relationships that an organization’s productivity suffers dramatically.

Defensive routines become so ingrained in our social behavior that they become an accepted “way for how things work around here.” What is more apparent is the realization that the organization, project, or team isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. No one is walking the talk, and everyone knows it. When this realization dawns on us, our first reaction is usually sadness, disappointment, or a physical sensation of being let down. People talk of being deflated and dispirited. There is a loss of animation. Animation, by the way, is a word that comes from the Latin word animus (m.) or anima (f.), meaning soul. That definition holds true here. There is a loss of soul.

But even that isn’t the whole story. Along with the loss comes a sense of helplessness. Organizational defensive routines are experienced and reported as being external to anyone’s control or influence. We distance ourselves from any sense of personal responsibility. We don’t realize that we might be as much a part of the problem as the next person. No one knows how to break the cycle and start afresh. This self-fueling, counterproductive process exists in all organizations and plays out in one-to-one interactions and groups and across organizational divisions, time and again, to the detriment of all.

These situations are depressing, to put it mildly. They are also much more common than we’d like to think, in organizations of all sizes, shapes, and geographies. But there is a way to break the cycle. And although the process is difficult, it is doable and very much worth the effort.

In my book, Discussing the Undiscussable: A Guide to Overcoming Defensive Routines in the Workplace (Jossey-Bass, 2007), I provide a practical guide for detecting, diagnosing, and dealing with defensive routines. These include:

• looking beyond the parts to the interdependency among the parts,
• reevaluating underlying mental models,
• thinking in loops, and
• addressing generic patterns.

It Is Not About the Part

I have heard many senior leaders complain that they are unable to have tough and difficult conversations because of the “egos” around the table. Of course, the conflict exhibited in defensive routines is a result of people coming together with different views and contexts to discuss complex issues. Yet, the excuse of big egos as a justification for not engaging the conflict is not a satisfying explanation. The phrases like “There is a personality conflict” or “It is all about egos” are an example of “causal explanations” used to sanction the feeling of helplessness and justify inaction. It is too easy to write off defensive routines as personality conflicts and leave them alone. This is a surface explanation, and it fails to take into account how all parties are interacting together to create a negative result no one intends or desires.

The dysfunctional teams, strained working relationships, and toxic environments are not a result of company policy and procedure, but come about through human design. By design, I mean that there is a thought behind the action that creates these negative results. The thought is a particular kind of defensive reasoning that serves to protect us from potential threat and embarrassment. In other words, we have been schooled in a socially learned mental model.

The Operative Mental Model

The mental model designed to protect individuals from threat or embarrassment is referred to by Chris Argyris as “Model I” thinking. I prefer the more descriptive term, “Unilateral Control Model,” coined by Action Design. This mindset is primarily responsible for setting a defensive routine in motion. It is activated as a means to keep us in control of a situation where we sense ourselves under threat or facing embarrassment (see “The Unilateral Control Model”).

When a person is in control, there is a consistency between his or her perception of reality and all incoming information. There is no interference or static. The sense is, “Things are going as I hoped and intended. Things are going my way when I feel in control. I know what I am doing. I feel competent.”

When subjected to the conditions of threat or potential embarrassment, however, a person can quickly feel that control gets away from them. Think about what happens when we suspect that our words have been misinterpreted. When we realize that we don’t have any control over how another person interprets our words, we immediately go on the offensive, insisting that what the other person heard is not what we meant. If the other person counters with “It is what you said,” then the exchange can escalate into a “No, I didn’t,” “Yes, you did” scenario.

Any time the unexpected triumphs over the expected, there is a good chance that someone will start losing their grip on control. When a conversation goes to a place I hadn’t intended or desire, it feels like the rug is being pulled out from under me. For example, I go into a meeting eager to garnish support for my plan, and before I know it, opposition to my brilliant idea takes the center stage of the team discussion. I scrabble to disarm the opposition, but to no avail. My mind sends out the “Mayday, Mayday” emergency call as my idea is shot down.

Then there are those times when I am carrying on my end of the conversation in a civil manner and I notice the other person has daggers in his or her eyes. Something I said clearly must have triggered a reaction, but I am clueless as to what it was. Or, I can be listening to another person and seize upon a word or phrase that indicates to me that the other person has no understanding of my position. Their potentially innocent comment inadvertently stimulates my response of “What in the ‘blip’ are you talking about?”

My least favorite time for losing control is when I am trying to point out something problematic with what another person said or did, and suddenly, I am being told that I am the problem. I see the other person as being defensive and trying to turn the tables. We both end up clutching our respective sides of the issue and trying to wrestle a confession from each other as to who takes the larger portion of the blame.

When these encounters occur, I feel disoriented, disturbed, and distracted. There is momentary bafflement over what is going on. I am not thinking about mutual benefits or outcomes. I can’t allow myself that luxury. I am being threatened; I am not in control of the situation, and that is an unpleasant experience.

Being out of control is not pleasant for anyone. We all have different tolerance points, triggering situations, and emotions, but we share a common reaction: We try to get a firm grip on the reins of control. When the conditions of threat or embarrassment arise, our need for control shifts into a higher gear. We all exhibit the thinking and actions of the Unilateral Control Model, particularly when our predominant concern is self-interest and preservation. According to Argyris, this socially learned prescription of thoughts and behavior is so ingrained in us that it appears as a default state of mind.

There is nothing wrong with being in control. It’s possible to be in control and, at the same time, work happily with entire teams of people, in which most if not all members also feel in control. Unilateral control is different. The term “unilateral” is what gives this model its distinctive defensive quality. Being “unilateral” means there is a one-sidedness to the thinking, and what one person is thinking is imposed upon others. The aim of the Unilateral Control Model is to win, not lose. In a defensive routine, no one is thinking that “win-win” is an option. In conversations, this aim manifests itself as a desire to assert our views and to “convince the other person that I’m right and you’re wrong.”

Another feature of the model is the aim of remaining rational in order to avoid creating upset. Upsetting situations are breeding grounds for the conditions of threat and embarrassment. It is embarrassing to show too much emotion. Public displays of anger can be intimidating to others. We suppress these negative feelings if they arise within us. In case studies of difficult conversations, people often report thinking things like, “There’s that big smile as he worms his way out yet again. Stay cool, take a deep breath, and try one last time” or “I hope I am not letting on that this is getting really annoying. Take it easy.” These are instructions for how we coach ourselves to remain rational. Remaining rational is a way to get a grip on the situation. The appeal to rationality keeps things cool and away from emotions. We tell ourselves that bringing emotion into a situation where conflict already exists will only make matters worse.

The Unilateral Control Model is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is sometimes necessary. What’s important to understand is that the Unilateral Control Model is not our only option, and it is not generally the best tack to take when trying to resolve or minimize defensive routines.

When we engage in defensive reasoning with others, our working relationships suffer. I imagine defensive routines as a massive knot created by entangled lines of personal relationships, tightly wrapped perceptions, and restrictive cultural norms. From a distance, it seems impossible to figure out where one line begins and the other ends. Any attempt to pull tighter on one end or another only makes matters worse.

My grandfather taught me that about knots. I’d get a firm grip on both ends of the string and pull hard. He would stop me. “That’s not the way to do it,” he would say gently. “It only makes it harder to undo.” He’d take the knot in his big hands and began to massage the bundle of crisscrossed cords with his fingers. His gentle tugs and pulls began to loosen the core of the knot. Soon little loops would appear, giving way to opportunities for disentangling the whole mess. The same approach can work with untangling the knot of defensive routines.

It’s a daunting task to track the multiple layers of loops. There is so much going on that it is hard to sort it all out. The challenge of raising the “undiscussables” makes matters worse. When the stakes are high and issues complex, talking about “undiscussables” can activate the very conditions of threat and embarrassment that create defensive reasoning. A public discussion about organizational defensive routines can quickly deteriorate into fault-finding and assigning blame. People need a way to safely approach defensive routines so that they can mutually acknowledge the interdependent nature of their interactions. They can do so by thinking in loops.

Thinking in Loops

Basic to systems thinking, a loop is the visual representation of the pattern of interrelationships among the parts of a system. An interpersonal interaction loop is the sequence of thinking and action between two parties, be they individuals, teams, or divisions within an organization. Understanding the loop-like nature of human interactions is analogous to riding a bicycle. Recently, I bought a touring bike where my shoes are locked into the pedals. After many miles and a few falls, I got used to being locked in and discovered the result of a more efficient motion that uses the pedal stroke up as well as the stroke down. Now, I ride exerting equal pressure up and down as I make the circle around. The same principle applies to thinking in loops. As a practitioner, I look for how the upward and downward strokes of human interaction propel the players around a predictable pattern of thoughts and behaviors.

Each stroke represents the interpersonal force of action on your thinking. Your thinking exerts a direct influence on your actions, which in turn influence my thinking. My thinking shapes my actions, and the loop repeats itself for the duration of our ride together. In this analogy, the pressure is equal and accounts for the cycle’s motion. Your reaction to what I said has an equivalent impact on me as my actions had on you. I may express it differently, but the effect is the same.

Visually, this kind of loop is represented as a four-box map depicting the interrelation between the thinking and acting of the respective parties. Maps of defensive routines can be comprised of interpersonal, team, and interdivisional loops of interaction. A good map is a neutral and balanced description of a defensive routine. When used effectively, it can reduce the tendency to blame and provide a handle for navigating complexity.

Generic Defensive Routines

Like systems archetypes, there are generic defensive routines common to interpersonal, team, and division interactions. Consider a case study (this example appears on a DVD that accompanies the book). Mark, the operational manager of a company’s plant, and Brenda, the director of sales, appear to be in a personal conflict. The company’s organizational structures provide an arena for their interpersonal drama to play out. Mark and Brenda work for divisions that should be in partnership with each other but are actually “Accidental Adversaries.” “Accidental Adversaries Storyline” is a brief description of this kind of interpersonal defensive routine.

In the scenes leading up to and including the business meeting they attend together, Mark and Brenda act similarly toward each other. Both push their views by arguing hard, loud, and at a high level of abstraction. No attempt is made to inquire into each other’s perspective. As the conversation heats up, they blurt out more emotionally charged assessments.

Although they take opposing views, how Mark and Brenda see themselves and each other is similar. Each sees the other as being wrong and an obstacle to overcome. Each sees their own view as reasonable and obvious. Mark is looking out for his crew, and Brenda shares an equal concern for her sales staff and customers. Both are protecting the company’s interests, yet each one questions the other’s motives. They share the same mindset: The Unilateral Control Model.

How Mark and Brenda triggered each other is mapped out in “Generic Defensive Routine Between Mark and Brenda.” Using neutral and more generic terminology helps to show how they are essentially thinking and acting toward each other in similar ways.

When caught in this kind of defensive routine, the results are predictable. Mark and Brenda’s working relationship suffers, the issue remains unresolved, and the decision-making cycle is delayed.

While the content of Mark and Brenda’s views is unique to them and their business issue, the pattern of their thinking and behavior mirrors a generic defensive routine found in any point-counterpoint conversation. It is the familiar, “yes, but…,” the “common cold” of business conversations. Both parties view their own respective positions as right and the other as wrong. The other person becomes an obstacle to overcome. There is minimal inquiry into each other’s perspective, and each pushes their respective position harder and sometimes louder.

When a visual map or narrative description of this loop is made, the participants have an opportunity for reflection — I am doing to the other person the very thing I accuse the other person of doing to me. This awareness can often be leveraged in the direction of doing something different.

Nevertheless, in the heat of a point-counterpoint debate, it is not easy to pull out and change direction. I keep a simple mnemonic device in mind that helps me turn the conversation around (see “STEP”).

Weeding the Garden

In every organization I visit, I witness defensive routines. I have come to think of them as “weeds” in the garden of modern organizations. Weeds exist in every garden. They grow right alongside the good stuff. Their presence deprives healthy, productive plants of needed nutrients. Because weeds are never as pretty as the plants consciously chosen to be in the garden, our immediate and first reaction is to get rid of them.

The only sure way to get rid of all weeds is to sterilize the soil with strong pesticides. If zero growth is the desired result, then a sterile environment with no beauty, value, or produce is what happens. The alternative is to apply pesticide alongside the nutritional produce and aesthetic beauty growing in the garden. Too little will prove ineffective, and too much damages the vegetation and those consuming it. On the other hand, if nothing is done with the weeds, the garden can be overrun with them very quickly. They always seem to grow faster than any other plant in the garden.

Personally, I keep an eye on the weeds throughout the growing season. I use pesticides in areas where I absolutely want to stop all growth. I accept a tolerable amount of weeds. When they threaten to take over the garden, I have to roll up my sleeves and get to work. They won’t go away by themselves.

I think of organizational defensive routines in the same way. While we can work to minimize their negative impact on an organization’s productivity, they will always exist. The work is not a mechanical fix, but a personal “roll up your sleeves” commitment to get your hands dirty.

I have respect for the tenacity of organizational defensive routines. There is always a risk when engaging them publicly. A sincere willingness to talk about the elephant in the room doesn’t translate into knowing how to do it. Prudence dictates developing the skill to engage a defensive routine before carelessly venturing into a discussion of the undiscussables in one’s organization.

The work to reduce the negative impact of defensive routines in organizations is slow. I live with no illusions of complete eradication. What I do hope for is that each individual in an organization will take up the commitment for reflection, worry less about the “other guy,” and embark on an inner discovery of self.

William R. Noonan is an educator and consultant with an international practice that includes facilitation, conducting workshops, and designing web-based learning programs. He has consulted to leading learning organizations such as Federal Express, Hewlett Packard, Shell Oil Company, and Herman Miller. This article is adapted from his book, Discussing the Undiscussable: A Guide to Overcoming Defensive Routines in the Workplace (Jossey-Bass, 2007).

The post Overcoming Defensive Routines in the Workplace appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

• Wisdom within themselves;
• Connections to one another;
• Respect for people’s differences;
• Power through sharing stories; and
• Capacities for bringing dreams to life.

What is going on? I believe that we are on the leading edge of a shift in how humans organize themselves to accomplish meaningful purpose. The underlying patterns of these processes interrupt the ordinary and inspire the extraordinary. Having tasted such mindful, heartful, soulful ways of working and living together, how can we operate this way all the time? In other words: “How can we seed, grow, and evolve inspired organizations and enlightened communities?”

After years of witnessing remarkable transitions from fear, hopelessness, and conflict to renewal, commitment, and action, I perceived a pattern that provides a pathway from chaos to coherence. It has dramatically shifted how I do this work. Two catalytic actions start the process:

• Welcoming disturbances using powerful, life-affirming questions
• Inviting the diverse mix of people who care to explore the unknown.

We are just beginning to understand what keeps it growing and evolving.

Seeding the Ground for Inspiration and Enlightenment

Transformational change often begins with looming crisis, fear, conflict, and despair. Sometimes it starts from hope, dreams, desires, and possibilities. Either creates “disturbances” that indicate something new wants to emerge.

Welcoming disturbances may seem crazy or simply asking for chaos. Yet, turmoil is a gateway to creativity and innovation. Just as seeds root in rich, dark soil, so does transformational change require the darkness of the unknown. Being receptive to not knowing takes courage. Buddhist nun Pema Chödrön speaks eloquently of this:, “By not knowing, not hoping to know, and not acting like we know what’s happening, we begin to access our inner strength.”

Asking unconditionally positive questions at such times can overcome fear, uncertainty, and doubt — questions like these World Café classics:

• “What question, if answered, would serve us all well in this situation?”
• , “What could our community, our organization also be?”

Such questions reframe problems as possibilities, focusing attention on what matters, and bound the territory to explore, reducing the feeling of losing control. They also provide a powerful attractor for inviting the diverse mix of people who care. The greater the diversity, the more divergent the exploration is likely to be. The wider the divergence, the greater the possibility something unexpected will emerge. Travel with me through a real life example of what can happen:

In an industry deeply in crisis, where conversations focus on what’s broken, with no solutions in sight, 29 journalists from print, broadcast, and new media; mainstream and alternative — editors, writers, bloggers, publishers, educators, funders, community activists, and even a Wall Street analyst — came together drawn by the question, “What does it mean to do journalism that matters?”

Entering the unknown with appreciative questions liberates individuals and connects the collective to itself. Inviting people to follow what has heart and meaning elicits the unexpected. It is a remarkable gift, asking each person to look within his or her own place of mystery. As the journalists quickly discovered, through stories of individual passion, the exploration diverges in many directions:

Throughout their time together, the journalists set their own agenda, sharing stories, discovering the myriad interconnections among print, broadcast, and new media. They asked questions that stimulated new ideas—Is journalism without advertising possible? Our companies, ourselves, our journalism: Why are we so pissed off? What can the elders and newcomers in journalism learn from each other?

Paradoxically, as people follow their own call, a new sense of connection to each other surfaces. Differences seem less divisive, more beneficial. By collectively reflecting on learnings, the connections to each other grow stronger. And something more difficult to name begins to happen — the same conversations show up no matter the subject. These are the signals of emergence, recognizable because they resonate so clearly. People sense a connection to something that defies description, a feeling of being part of a larger whole. This felt sense of emergence has at its core the discovery that what is deeply personal, what means most to us individually, is also universal. The discovery is palpable. The collective comes alive as new ideas and relationships emerge. We experience our connection to the “whole” filling us with excitement and energy, as a new coherent clarity emerges. The story continues:

Twenty-nine journalists found kindred spirits as they reconnected with the original impulse to make a difference that drew them to the field. They found others with the same longing for meaningful work, they saw an expanded role in the community, both as outsider witnesses and as storytellers and weavers of healthy communities. Together, they pictured a newsroom based in these ideas:

• Journalists as conveners of conversations that inform and engage people
• Professional and citizen journalists working in partnership
• High-tech delivery (Web-based, podcasting, etc.) with high-touch sourcing of stories from listening posts in ordinary places: cafés, libraries, schools
• An economic model based in local investment

As they imagined a new way of working, the group came alive. A newspaper editor described the experience:

The conversations were exhilarating and breathtakingly fresh. A picture began to emerge of how the future of journalism might be transformed. Not only could we imagine a new model, we could describe it, and could see ourselves working in it.

Personal and collective meaning converge into coherent, clear intentions. New ideas, insights, leaders, and structures naturally emerge. Action is often swift and effective, focused by clear, collective intention. There is no need to “enroll” others as people enroll themselves, taking responsibility for what they individually and collectively love. The threads that connect people weave a powerful web of community. Ideas travel the web, sometimes achieving dramatic breakthroughs. Other times, changes surface months or years later as they travel the indirect pathways of new network connections. Parenthetically, this network frequently extends to those who didn’t attend the event, who “catch” the spirit of the experience, as our journalists discovered.

The ideas were magnetic, providing a glimpse into the emerging pattern of a new journalism and creating a foundation that has attracted others to join the effort. The next step of this adventure was conceived: bringing community leaders, journalists, media educators, and funders together to devise experiments in three communities—urban and rural, depressed and affluent. Months later, the 29 journalists continue communicating electronically, still connected by the power of their experience.

As “Emergence: Moving from Chaos to Coherence” shows, this pattern of emergence moves individuals and the collective from chaos and coherence through:

• appreciative, compelling questions …
• that spark divergence into the unknown . . .
• as individuals follow their hearts and the collective reflects . . .
• to emerge connected in new ways that ignite innovative ideas . . .
• and converge into coherent, clear intentions and committed actions.

This pattern contains the seeds for new forms of organization and community.

Nourishing the Seeds of Inspired Organizations and Enlightened Communities

What causes these seeds to grow and evolve? The answer is oddly simple. Do it again! Better yet, do it continually. Ensure your focus not only attends to the visible outcomes — project ideas and plans, new teams, and agreements — but also nourishes the invisible web of community that generated those actions. In the long run, nurturing the human connections ensures ongoing generativity, the continual creation of new ideas, projects, and relationships. Having moved from chaos to coherence, new disturbances — conflicts and dreams — unquestionably arise. It is far easier to welcome disturbance when one knows one is in good company working toward shared dreams!

Shared inquiry into hopes and dreams increases the capacity to invite diversity, let go of answers, and step into the unknown. When we are more equipped to hold dynamic tensions — short-term/long-term, individual/ collective, profit/service — while staying connected to each other, inspiration and enlightenment become a way of being, not a destination. The more we embrace our differences, the more our capacity to recognize the opportunities inherent in what makes us uncomfortable grows. With practice, we become more willing, even enthusiastic, to take the vital step into the unknown.

It is the practice of caring for oneself, others, and the whole that weaves and sustains the web of connections. By supporting people in tuning in to personal meaning, sensing a heartfelt connection to each other, and feeling they are held by some larger purpose, a virtuous cycle of support grows. While many strategies can work, central to them is communication that connects — narrative rich, interactive, and transparent. Continually clarifying purpose, coming together as a community, and providing support for people to grow in their capacity to contribute also keeps the invisible web healthy and vital. These activities remind people that they are part of something larger, that they have kindred spirits who also care. And, as the journalists are discovering, when people care about what they are doing and with whom they do it, work gets done, even when the going gets tough.

With no formal infrastructure in place, some of the journalists who were inspired by the images that emerged of a new type of newsroom found the resources to reconvene and bring new partners into the mix. Six months later, 22 diverse journalists and citizens gathered around the question, “What is the next newsroom and how do we create it?” The first evening, a deeper and clearer purpose emerged, sparked by a citizen participant:, “This isn’t about a new newsroom at all; rather, they were envisioning a new news ecology.” The insight was electric. The sense of community forged around this purpose is bearing fruit — experiments in urban and rural communities are emerging. By staying connected to each other, these experiments become a learning laboratory, a community of communities growing the capacity of professional and citizen journalists for a new kind of journalism.

The Challenge and the Potential of Emergent Practices

Perhaps the most common block to using emergent processes is that it is virtually impossible to know the specific forms outcomes will take. This is because emergence, by definition, involves the unknown. What lessens the risk and increases the likelihood of success is the clarity of intention guiding the work. This powerful combination — direction established with a question that focuses intention coupled with openness to the unknown — creates a dynamic tension ripe for emergence. While it can be a leap of faith to believe great results come without defining the specific outcomes, if you want breakthroughs, a broad and deep delving into passion and purpose almost always far exceeds any predetermined outcomes. Those who ultimately choose this route often do so because they are stuck, but realize that continuing to act in the same way won’t produce the fundamentally regenerative results they seek.

<h2

A group’s diversity, an event’s duration, and ongoing experience shape the nature of what unfolds (see “The Evolution of Emergence”). New ideas, relationships, and connections regularly form in short, homogenous events. Two days and increased diversity can generate breakthrough ideas pursued by self-organized teams. Longer events often provide glimpses of the ongoing pattern of emergent leadership and structures. With multiple experiences, the pattern is internalized. Experiments frequently emerge in self-managed teams in organizations and citizen committees in communities. When embraced as an ongoing practice, people organize themselves following inspiration and commitment. Structures emerge to fit the context. New forms of governance are required when leaders are those who attract followers by taking responsibility for what they love.

What Happens When Taking Responsibility for What One Loves Becomes the Norm?

When taking responsibility for what one loves becomes the norm, then the weave of the invisible web remains whole. People care for themselves, each other, and the whole. Individuals consistently follow what has heart and meaning. The collective regularly connects with itself by reflecting together, remembering the meaning and purpose that nourishes the web of community. The resulting coherence supports individuals and groups in taking responsibility for what they love. I think of coherence as “differentiated wholeness” because it exists when there is space for the individual and collective, the inner life and the outer life. Being our quirky, unique selves while staying connected replaces our current cultural tendencies toward conformity, isolation, and group think.

Many of us learned that to care for ourselves is selfish. Sacrifice and compromise are necessary for a working society. In practice, denying our own deep needs seems to generate a shallow egocentricity. People disassociate from a deeply fulfilling connection to themselves. Selfishness and greed result as individuals and groups protect their own “interests.” Society fragments. Feelings of scarcity surface. The web of connections disintegrates and the sense of wholeness is lost.

Contrast what happens when invited to ask oneself, “What is important to me? What do I care about so much that I am willing to take responsibility for it?” Internal attention shifts from ego to center — where head, heart, and spirit connect to guide us. When acting from our center, differences cease to be barriers and become gifts that attract new connections. There is a feeling of abundance, as differences are integrated into new, fuller understandings of ideas and relationships. Oversimplified “us versus them” positions are replaced by a richly nuanced inclusion of differences. A more elegant simplicity is found through a better understanding of the true complexity of our individual and collective distinctiveness. This is truly differentiated wholeness in action.

Leadership emerges everywhere. Individuals, guided by their heads and hearts, act as “free agents.” They speak from their full voices. When that voice resonates with others, as if some universal truth were spoken, people follow. What is a leader, after all, but someone who speaks a truth so compellingly it inspires others to join him or her? When this opportunity is widely available, a powerful and fluid field of leadership emerges in the collective.

What is a leader, after all, but someone who speaks a truth so compellingly it inspires others to join him or her?

When we collectively take responsibility for what we love, there is an unaccustomed openness in which our connections to each other form a “resonant network.” In truth, we are always connected. When we act from inner connection, we open to each other, and that connection is visible. In this web of community, people are more alive and effective, sharing their gifts with each other. They easily find others who care about the same things they do. The tension between the needs of each individual and the needs of the collective dissipate. We are in coherence. If one voice is dissonant, it no longer fragments the group. Rather, with increased capacity to embrace differences, attractive, appreciative questions are framed and insights emerge that are integrated for the good of the whole.

When coherence is sustained, through continually tapping our sense of connection, the ripples are powerful. Newfound trust develops as breakthroughs in ideas, solutions, and relationships support both planned and emerging action. There is a greater willingness to be flexible. A virtuous cycle of ideas, connections, and actions feed into even more exciting ideas, connections, and actions. How might it resolve for the journalists? Beyond their gathering, what new possibilities were sparked by their time together? Here’s an imagineering story of where it could lead:

During the three-day gathering of journalists, new connections were made and projects defined. As the community experiments take shape, what might they look like organizationally, how might they affect the communities in which they operate?

Imagine the morning news meeting convened in the local café, open to whoever wishes to participate. The content for Web, broadcast, and print for the day is selected as people reflect together on what best serves the community’s needs. Stories are pursued by people taking responsibility for what they love:

• A citizen journalist hears about a potential conflict between a social service agency and the people it serves. She recruits a professional journalist to investigate with her. Their first step is creating some powerful, appreciative questions to discover what is life-giving in the situation, so that the whole story is told.
• A high school student covers the local school board meeting as a community service project. The high school newspaper staff partners with professional journalists. Beginning with school and youth issues, as student skills increase, they cover broader community issues. And, of course, the growing population of young bloggers is engaged in all aspects of this community journalism work.
• A musician is listening and composing. He will travel to restaurants, cafés, and street corners singing the news of the day.
• A professional journalist has just turned in his series on an emerging community trend in cross-cultural cooperation. Before the new news operation joined the community, there was little interaction among different ethnic groups. As people from the different parts of town met through gatherings convened by the news organization, they got to know each other. They realized knowing more about each other’s cultures would lead to greater trust and cooperation. It began with progressive dinners and sharing traditional foods. Now people are visiting each other’s places of worship. They’re even forming study groups to learn about each other’s beliefs. Some were inspired to set up a blog, an online newsletter, and podcasts to increase their reach within and beyond the community.,/li>
• A graduate student is interviewing several activists, journalists, and politicians about the new movement in “action research journalism,” in which investigative journalists team up with nonprofit advocacy and research groups to investigate corporate or governmental abuses of power. Confronting the officials involved with the potential exposé draws them into negotiations to correct their actions. Major deliberations with citizens and other stakeholders are underway to change the systems which make such abuse unattractive or unavoidable. Successful negotiations and deliberations become news stories of successful reform in which everyone wins. The would-be exposé becomes mere background material eclipsed by the narrative of positive change. Commentator Paul Hardey dubbed this growing phenomenon “appreciative democratic blackmail.”

One of the offshoots of action research journalism is that more officials are taking the initiative — before any investigation happens — to deal with difficult moral decisions proactively. They engage journalists in utilizing public dialogues, appreciative inquiries, and community deliberations to work out acceptable — and sometimes thrillingly creative — approaches that are widely reported and credited to the initiating officials. (Thanks for Tom Atlee at cii@igc.org for the “action research journalism” examples.)

A feature of the news organization Web site is the “tip jar” button. Both citizen journalists and professional journalists benefit not only from feedback and interaction with their audience but feel acknowledged for a job well done. (Thanks to Nancy Margulies at nm@montara.com for this idea.) It has also proved a great recruiting tool for attracting citizen journalists.

That afternoon local journalists meet online with members of two other communities engaging in similar experiments. They’ve been approached by a new community that wishes to learn from their example. They discuss how to communicate the initial challenge of enticing people to become citizen journalists. After years of being a passive audience, it takes creativity and commitment for people to realize the benefits of getting involved.

The news organization has also just heard from a national broadcast news network that wants to explore a local/national partnership. As market share for national broadcast news continues eroding, networks have a new openness to learn from thriving community news operations. It is a long-awaited opportunity to scale local learning for the national stage.

That evening, the editor and interested news organization employees meet with the citizen oversight board, a self-selected group who come together monthly to ensure the social, economic, and cultural needs of the community are met. Tonight, they discuss the upcoming annual review, inviting a randomly selected mix of citizens to provide feedback on how well the news organization is meeting the community’s needs.

This annual event has worked so well that the local Citizens for a Better Community group is working with the town council and the news organization to convene a similar event for the community. They plan to randomly select 20 citizens for a weekend of facilitated conversation to produce a consensus statement about the state of the community. The journalists will cover the selection process, who these very different participants are (so the community can identify with them), and how they change during their dialogue. Their findings and public discussions of them will also be covered. With repetition and good coverage, they expect the process to become a powerful way for the community to see itself. Dreams and concerns are voiced in a coherent way that everyone — public officials, institutions, and the public itself — can engage. (Thanks to Tom Atlee for this paragraph.)

On the other side of town that same evening, a citizen journalist is covering a town meeting on waste disposal. With increased trust among the community’s many ethnic groups, there is growing confidence that those who show up are acting in service to the whole. This has enabled people to follow the issues they care most about, knowing that others are doing the same on their behalf. This virtuous cycle of increasing trust and creative community engagement mediated by community journalism has attracted national recognition, and a national foundation has just informed the town that they have received an award as one of the most livable communities in the country.

What Worked?

The constant practice in recognizing the potential inherent in disturbances and embracing them through asking powerful, attractive questions becomes the conscious way of working. When an issue arises, someone takes responsibility to convene a gathering, inviting whoever cares to address it on behalf of the whole. There is growing confidence that when diverse people follow what has heart and meaning, when they embrace the dynamic tensions that emerge among them, and when they reflect collectively on what unfolds, then unexpected and innovative insights cohere into clear intentions and meaningful action.

My working definition of an inspired organization or enlightened community offers an answer to the often-asked but rarely answered question about transformation:, “Change to what — what is it that we wish to become?” This is my answer: A system that consistently achieves what is most important to it, individually and collectively by . . .

• continually increasing its capacity for emergence through . . .
• people caring for themselves, each other, and the whole . . .
• in service to a meaningful purpose.

The practices, experience, and consciousness to do this are growing among us and around us. As more of us engage in this adventure, we can see this new way of being together clearly emerging as a vital trend. As the new century unfolds and the illusion of control continues eroding, this capacity for embracing dynamic tensions and stepping into the unknown will increasingly be recognized for its power to nurture emergence and self-organization—and thus it will grow. As this happens, the possibilities become truly limitless.

Peggy Holman brings generative processes to organizations and communities, increasing their capacity for achieving what is important to them. She is co-author of the warmly received The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today’s Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems (Berrett-Koehler, second edition 2007). Peggy has worked with a Swiss-based pharmaceutical company, a Colombian social service organization, the Israeli Ministry of Education, and U. S. journalists. Her MBA is from Seattle University.

The post From Chaos to Coherence: The Emergence of Inspired Organizations and Enlightened Communities appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Network thinking has brought about vast improvements in efficiency in all these sectors. But while such ideas have had an enormous impact on technology, we have yet to see comparable gains in understanding social systems. Social networking software and websites such as MySpace claim to provide a meaningful way to bring people together from around the world in virtual communities. However, these Internet-based solutions have gained a negative reputation for harboring child predators and others who take advantage of the web’s anonymity to deceive their victims. The purpose of this article is to introduce the history, scientific theory, and research behind how true value is created in social networks — and to provide ideas for starting to leverage this knowledge for the good of organizations and beyond.

Not in My Space!

Over the past few years, social networking websites have exploded seemingly out of nowhere. MySpace, which was founded less than four years ago, now has more than 100 million users. PC Magazine defines social networking as “a web site that provides a virtual community for people interested in a subject. It provides a way for members to communicate by voice, chat, instant message, videoconference and blogs.” The use of social networking software to form relationships online is a logical extension of the Internet’s communication capabilities. All indicators suggest that social networking providers will continue to flourish, even as new technologies emerge that improve virtual connections, such as Web 2.0 (web-based communities and hosted services that facilitate collaboration and sharing between users) and telepresence services.

But the popularity of existing services is being shadowed by concerns of child predation and social deception. Four families are suing MySpace after their underage daughters were sexually abused by adults they met through the site. Congress introduced the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, and although it did not pass the Senate, it is likely to be considered again by the 110th Congress.

Beyond concern over legal liability for the actions of people who use their services for criminal purposes, technology companies need to take into account their brand image. Over the long run, those that allow antisocial behavior to flourish — even if it’s through benign neglect — will likely be less successful than those who promote social well-being. In an ever-more crowded marketplace, the adoption of socially responsible technologies will become an important new competitive differentiator.

While technologies such as MySpace claim to be novel social networking solutions, the science of studying and understanding social networks has been developing for at least 100 years. By applying this rich body of work to the business world, I have found that value is created in collaborative social systems that run across a company’s traditional organizational chart. Enterprises that learn how to create an environment that accelerates the functioning of such networks through mutual acceptance, respect, and co-inspiration will realize large gains in performance and the well-being of their workforce. While current social networking technologies are likely to become passé as new technologies emerge, our understanding of social networks will become a core competency for organizations that find themselves in an integrated global economy.

Social Network Mapping vs. Social Network Analysis

The father of social network measurement was J. L. Moreno, M. D., an Austrian gestalt psychiatrist who, in 1915, began charting social relations by drawing “sociograms” that showed group relations as line drawings connecting people. In developing “sociometry,” now referred to as social network mapping, Moreno sought to study social groups in order to recognize and acknowledge the value of each person. Moreno was influenced by George Herbert Mead, who developed qualitative research methods, and by the American educator John Dewey. Dewey saw individuals as inseparable from their social context, just as society is meaningless apart from its realization in the lives of its individual members. Additionally, just as Dewey influenced W. E. Deming and Walter Shewhart in the creation of continuous quality improvement processes, he also influenced Moreno to use social measurement as an action science to continuously improve social well-being.

Sociologists and anthropologists use social network measurement to uncover the overall structure of a social system. In this context, a system can be small, like a family or a manufacturing line, or large, like trade balances among nations. With this knowledge of the interrelationships and social rules in a given culture, social scientists can better understand, for instance, the spread of HIV, with the goal of stopping the epidemic.

Analysis is defined as the decomposition of the whole, so social network analysis, as practiced today, generally focuses on individuals and their roles. For example, someone with many more social connections than others might be described as a “hub.” In contrast, I have followed the path of what I call social action research in order to understand the science of social systems and how human communities generate social, biological, and financial well-being. Instead of observing a network from the outside, following Moreno’s methodology, social action researchers invite everyone in a group to join them in reflecting on their daily actions by employing qualitative research practices, such as participant observation and unstructured interviews, to generate survey questions.

This process is useful in at least two ways. First, managers can refer to the maps when creating strategies and planning work processes to ensure that they enhance rather than detract from the working of the social networks involved. Second, when employees are asked for their views on how they are creating value for their organization, they feel respected, important, and inspired to perform at an even higher level.

Construction of Social Network Graphs

In business, the survey questions employed in social action research typically refer to the creation of value. For example, the following questions were used in studies at Hewlett Packard:

“With whom have you collaborated on the_______________?”

• reduction of quality escalations in inkjet supplies
• ink-elastomer chemical interaction studies
• development of HP’s first digital projector
• creation of product detection software
• sale of computers and servers

The quality of social network data depends on the relevance, timeliness, and validity of the questions used. The survey is designed for individuals to complete. It includes the name of the person completing the survey, the date, the question, and a table for them to identify those with whom they collaborate, how often they collaborate, and the role or location of those they have identified. As surveys are returned, the individuals named are also sent the same survey to complete. This process continues until no new people have been identified (snowball sampling) or until the group decides to suspend the surveying.

The collected data is then compiled. Usually, a social network with a given kind of interaction among a group of people is graphically depicted by a number of points connected by lines. In traditional graphs, each point is called a “node,” representing a person, and each line is called a “connection,” representing relationships between people. In social action research, dots are replaced with the names of people. The lines also have arrows indicating who identified whom as a network member. Finally, each connection can be associated with a value, which usually is the frequency of contact or interaction.

In this example, the social network data shows a relationship between Dennis, Maria, and Yan. Dennis and Maria, and Maria and Yan, have the strongest connections because they meet most frequently and share reciprocal interactions. At the same time, the relationship between Dennis and Yan is the weakest, because it is unidirectional and less frequent.

But we must be careful in making sweeping generalizations using social network graphs. For example, there can be value in weak ties. In our example, it could be that Dennis had valuable information that Yan needed to complete a work assignment. Our explanations of social network graphs must be validated by those involved in the study, which is again why the qualitative research is so important in preceding the social network survey.

Study of Social Network Graphs

Once the social network graph is constructed, it is shared with those participating in the study. This is a reflective process, as those involved in the network validate the quality of the data and in turn respond to its findings. Perhaps the study reveals that an important position is missing from the network, and participants take action to “fill the hole.” In response to another study, employees may choose to expand the number of connections within a social network; for example, a company that becomes more customer centered by shifting the structure of their social networks to include customers.

Following are some of the traditional features of social network graphics that can offer valuable information about their functioning and sources of leverage for change:

Density

Density is a measure of overall connectedness. It is arrived at by dividing the number of ties by the number of possible ties between people.

In this example, there are 5 ties between Maria, Peter, Dennis, and Katy out of 12 possible ties, so the density of this social network is .42. Density measures fall between 0 and 1.0, with 1.0 representing the greatest density or connectedness. The higher the density, the stronger the connections between team members. A low density score could potentially show conflict in the group or structural barriers that prevent members from communicating effectively.

Centrality

Centrality is considered a measure of power, importance, or influence in social networks. It is derived simply by counting the number of connections a person has. In this example, Maria is the most “central” person in the network, followed by Chris and Darla, with Dennis, Katy, and Peter being the least central. Here again, we would rely on the qualitative interviews to learn more about Maria’s role. In some studies, we have found that the person in Maria’s position is a program manager that everyone depends on to keep them on track. Perhaps Maria is the supervisor of Dennis, Katy, and Darla and peer of Chris and Peter. In yet another context, Maria might be the creator of a rumor that is circulating about the office.

Structural Holes

When I use social network mapping as a learning process, those in the network construct and examine the maps themselves. Participants commonly observe structural holes — individuals missing from the diagram who have the potential to contribute to the network’s performance. In one case, a manager was called in to mitigate conflicts between Hewlett-Packard and a plastics supplier. He witnessed long, grueling meetings between the two organizations where little if anything was accomplished. The manager opened his journal and drew this picture representing the engineers in his organization and in the vendor’s organization:

His sociogram showed connections within the organizations but more importantly showed structural holes between the two organizations. With engineers from both organizations present, the manager drew connections for all to see, suggesting that team members from both organizations should work as one team. As the age-old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, quite literally the picture was worth thousands of dollars. Engineers from the two companies immediately began to fill the “holes” by collaborating, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next year.

Social Systems and Living Systems

I have presented a number of traditional social network concepts. When looking at social network graphics, it is important to realize that, like photographs, they are snapshots of how social networks have formed. Social networks are constantly changing, and our greatest leverage lies in understanding them from a perspective of living systems. As currently practiced by many consultants using tools such as those described above, social network analysis is the separation of a social network into its component parts. It attempts to describe or make comments about an individual’s role within a network. So, going back to the social network in which Maria played a central role, an analysis might conclude that Dennis is an isolated “node” in the network and should be more of a team player. Or from a knowledge management perspective, Maria may be seen as a “hub” in the network and therefore should be promoted.

This approach can have value, but to me, it doesn’t go far enough in generating a systemic understanding of social networks. I have found that insights from the study of living systems and cognition provide the philosophical explanations for a deep understanding of social systems.

In 1951, social scientist Gregory Bateson reconceived psychiatric practices by describing a way of viewing the world that shifted from focusing on:

1. parts to the whole,
2. categorization to integration,
3. the individual to interactions,
4. systems outside the observer to systems that include the observer.

This shift was an initial step in leading us away from analysis and separation to systems thinking. But from my perspective, the most profound contributors to understanding social systems are the co-founders of the Matriztic Institute, Dr. Humberto Maturana and Professor Ximena Davila. They explain in great detail how human beings are born to collaborate and how we can move from a culture of pain and suffering to a culture of well-being through what they describe as “liberating conversations.” To me, this perspective offers new questions and insights into the value and practice of studying social networks. Based on their work, we begin our research with a simple statement: “Everything that is said is said by an observer.” We follow up with a fundamental question: “How do I do what I do as an observer of systems?”

This last question in particular is vital, because it brings forth the role of the observer in the social system they are reflecting upon. When someone interested in a particular network realizes that, whatever they do to the network, they do to themselves, too, they are likely to take socially responsible actions. In studying the work of Maturana and Davila, we also learn that social systems are dynamic and that anything that occurs in the social system is determined by its underlying structure.

Studying social systems is an important departure for organizations. Since the late 1800s, we have been accustomed to see organizations as machines. In the Industrial Age, the physical sciences became the frame of reference for guiding economic growth. Using scientific tools of separation, specialization, analysis, and reductionism, a new image of organizations emerged: the organizational, or org, chart. The org chart depicts hierarchy and areas of specialization. Although some still believe that organizations function based on the structures shown in these charts, many people are finding that the life sciences lead to a more valid understanding of social systems in organizations today. This shift in perspective raises new possibilities by leveraging the concepts of self-organization, collaboration, inter- and intra-organizational social networks, and multidimensionality.

Self-Organization

Are social networks static or dynamic? This is not a trivial question. Managing an organization’s effectiveness will depend on the answer to this question. If you believe that social networks are static, you will presume that relationships are always the same. If, however, you believe that social networks are dynamic, you will want to continually refresh your assumptions about how value is being created. Social action research or practices such as management by walking around become critical learning processes for understanding collective knowledge.

By mapping social networks over time, I have found that they are dynamic and constantly changing, even if the members stay the same. People self-organize as employees create new connections, weaken old connections, and so on in response to new opportunities. Self-organization is an important systemic principle, because performance and productivity are maximized as those within the social network have the freedom to organize their own relationships. You might think of self-organization as the antithesis of bureaucracy. Research has shown that the greatest reward for employees is making a timely contribution to their company, and self-organization is the group process for doing so. (See illustration above.)

Collaboration

Humans are social beings. We can pick out a familiar face among hundreds of pedestrians. At a very early age, infants recognize facial patterns. Biologically, facial recognition stimulates a neural network in the amygdala region of the mid-brain, which is also the center of our emotions. Neuroscientists claim that more than 90 percent of the information we receive from others we obtain through facial expression and body language. Unlike any other species, humans are neurologically wired to be social.

As Maturana and Davila have described, we humans are loving beings and are biologically structured to collaborate. This relationship of mutual acceptance expanded as humans formed groups to survive. Through this innate social behavior, we can accomplish tasks without having to spend time deciding on what group structure is most fitting. While companies spend a fortune on organizing their workforce, social systems require no funding or intervening because of their biological nature.

Social network structure varies. Some networks are based on command and control or dominant and obedient relationships. Other networks are distributive in nature, such as the rumor mill that exists in most organizations. Collaborative social networks are social systems in which everyone is accepted as a legitimate member by everyone else. They are cohesive and natural, and are the source of social capital or optimal group productivity. These systems are also the source of value creation, innovation, and performance breakthrough. This illustration shows optimal cohesion, as every member of the social network is connected to every other member in a seamless support system they created for a man with disabilities.

Whenever I have studied how value is created in the workplace, I have mapped collaborative social systems. In our expanding global economy, the performance challenge for executives is to create the conditions for collaboration to occur. Research has shown this can be done by (1) giving employees the freedom to organize themselves and (2) generating reflective conversations on how value is created.

Inter- and Intra-Organizational Social Networks

The theory that underlies most org charts is that work flows from the top of the organization down through the ranks. However, studies of how work actually gets done have consistently shown that it happens in social systems that span the organizational chart horizontally, not vertically. For a department in a large enterprise, I have plotted the collaborative social networks across the organization chart, shown above in blue shading.

The boundaries of value-creating social systems do not end within the organization. I have also studied collaboration in social systems that include two or more organizations. The rejection of plastics created by outside vendors for Hewlett-Packard’s inkjet cartridges was completely eliminated during the most aggressive inkjet cartridge launch in HP’s history, in part due to a collaborative network that included four Hewlett-Packard sites, two formerly competitive plastic suppliers, and subject matter experts. These parties worked closely in developing the use of transducers in plastic injection molding processes.

In another instance, in Puerto Rico, a network of HP engineers and engineers from their supplier Nypro joined forces on a project that refurbished worn manufacturing line parts instead of throwing them into local landfills. This network of collaboration had multiple effects. First, the initiative created social well-being by giving participants the freedom to innovate and the joy of accomplishment. Second, it generated biological well-being, as the factory no longer dumped heavy metals into Puerto Rico’s already taxed landfill waste dumps. Finally, it led to financial wellbeing by saving HP hundreds of thousands of dollars. You might recognize this example as the one cited earlier in the article in which the manager identified structural holes and asked engineers from both organizations to collaborate. In doing so, they saved HP more than $700,000.

Multidimensionality

As social beings, we coordinate our actions in conversations within closed systems that include other business units, vendors, universities, family, and friends in a continuously changing present. This statement challenges our traditional thoughts of the org chart network, isolated internally and externally, as the source of value creation. In his 1982 book, Out of the Crisis, W. Edwards Deming drew an alternative value-production system as a network of suppliers->producers->consumers. In my work, I have found that our networks are multidimensional; for example, in the HP example cited above, those in the social system generated business results but also social and biological well-being.

The illustration at the bottom of page 5 shows the social system of people supporting a man with disabilities who grew up in a state institution. By providing this man with the support he needed to have a job, the network brought his productivity to 100 percent with perfect quality. In doing so, they improved his wages from $0 at the state institution to more than $1,500/month plus benefits, enabling him to leave welfare and public assistance. This shift allowed the man to move from the institution, which cost tax-payers $80,000/year, to his own community, where he became a taxpayer and owned his own condominium. His case is a prime example of how to leverage living, multidimensional, collaborative systems and, in the process, create value and well-being.

Systems Laws

The work of the Matriztic Institute goes a step further to describe systemic laws that can expand our understanding and application of social systems thinking.

Structural Determination

Imagine going to the stadium to watch your favorite sports team, or perhaps you are at a concert hall getting ready to listen to a symphony. You anticipate an extraordinary performance and then learn that an exemplary player has been replaced. Your immediate response may be incredulity. You may think, “How could they perform without this person?” If you do not find an adequate explanation for your question or if you aren’t satisfied with the substitute, you may become disappointed and critical.

Your disappointment in this instance stems from an innate understanding of the law of structural determination. As explained by Maturana and Davila, structural determination states that everything that occurs in a system is determined by the system’s structure. Engineers will immediately understand this concept. They are experts at developing new products as a system and making sure that the interconnected parts are structurally compatible. The same law can be applied to social systems, such as a team, an orchestra, or a workplace. In these settings, performance is determined by the structure of the social network. If critical people are missing, performance will suffer. If there is a lack of collaboration among members of the network, group productivity will diminish, and cost will increase. Emotions will turn from excitement to disappointment as participants and other stakeholders realize that the output may not be of the caliber they had anticipated.

These things often occur in the workplace through restructuring, reorganization, and voluntary workforce reductions. In one case, I mapped a social network that was generating new IT products. First one person and then two others were assigned new roles in the company. The executive in charge of the new IT products noticed a slowing of performance, and it took those remaining in the network months to reorganize their efforts. By understanding social network mapping and the systemic law of structural determination, executives can anticipate how changes to a network will affect its efficiency and overall performance.

Conservation

To exist in the rapidly growing global economy, companies are told they need to keep up with the competitive environment they find themselves in. New management concepts and abstractions are continually emerging to guide organizations through these complex, dynamic challenges. To capitalize on these innovative methodologies and perspectives, managers are told they must promote an internal culture of change. But the management literature tends to focus on new concepts instead of understanding how work is done.

I propose that managers must learn how value is created in our networked world. Although change is inevitable, it is equally important to conserve those practices that improve efficiency, value creation, and well-being in collaborative social systems. When initiatives inadvertently disrupt the network of relationships through which work is accomplished, they can backfire and leave the company even more vulnerable to outside pressures than before.

Research has shown that value is created in dynamic, collaborative social systems that connect people across business units, companies, continents, and cultures. To be successful in the global economy, organizations will need to develop new practices based on understanding social systems.

Although change is inevitable, it is equally important to conserve those practices that improve efficiency, value creation, and well-being in collaborative social systems.

Unfortunately, technological developments labeled as social networking can actually obscure our understanding.

The work of Humberto Maturana and Ximena Davila expands our knowledge of social systems. This knowledge will have positive effects on organizations of all kinds. First, by developing practices that support self-organizing social systems, managers will improve organizational efficiencies through productivity gains. Second, because the quality of our social systems translates to the quality of our knowledge, reflective studies of social systems will lead to financial, social, and biological well-being. Finally, as we reflect on our social nature, we discover that we too live our lives in social networks. Through this insight, we become socially responsible and generate greater social well-being.

Dennis Sandow is president of Reflexus Company, a research company studying performance and knowledge creation in collaborative social systems. Prior to starting Reflexus, Dennis conducted research on social networks and social capital at the University of Oregon. Dennis is a research member of the Society for Organizational Learning and lives in Oregon with his wife and two adult children.

The post Extending Systems Thinking to Social Systems appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Somatics is a whole systems view that addresses the nature of how we operate and what shapes our perceptions, opinions, and actions. It deals with our innate structure, moving beyond any superficial investigation of body language or posture. The principles of Somatics recognize that the self is indistinguishable from the body, from our lived experience. Somatic practices such as deep breathing, centering, gratitude, and curiosity are effective because they retrain the nervous system by attending to the self as a whole, rather than treating it like a machine to be managed. In this way, real change can take root and become lasting experience.

In our culture, talking about the body can be tricky, because we link it to appearance, fitness, and health, relegating it to the status of an object to be managed. The body is often considered an inert mass activated by something else, the mind or the spirit. For our purposes, we hold the notion of the body very differently: We see it as an intelligent, awake, and powerful part of an organic unity. To arrive at this understanding, we must investigate and mend the mind-body schism that disconnects us from ourselves and keeps us trapped in our heads, trying to win the battle of mind over matter.

Overcoming the Mind-Body Schism

One profound cause of the schism between body and mind is that we have learned to mistrust or disregard our senses. We’ve lost touch with what poet Mary Oliver calls “the soft animal of your body.” Living as though we’re disembodied (numb or disconnected), we lose touch with our self-direction. Rather than forge ahead with a firm sense of purpose, we’re caught in the drift of whatever thought or action prevails; we go wherever we’re led.

Think about it: Can you really separate yourself from your biology, your experience, your history? We are informed by our lived experience. It influences what we perceive and how we react to everything we encounter.

I grew up as a military kid. We lived a few hundred yards from the flight line, and my days began and ended with the scream and quake of jets taking off. When our windows rattled, it was a sign to me that all was right with the world. Now as an adult, whenever the Blue Angels come to my area, I always make sure that when they fly over, I am close enough so my whole body thunders with the vibration. My system relishes the experience. Someone who has lived in a war zone would experience the sensation very differently.

If you went to a strict school where you were ridiculed for making mistakes, it’s not likely that you are the first one to offer a new idea at work. If you grew up with lots of siblings and not quite enough food, you probably eat fast. If you have traveled internationally and adapted to constant change, chances are good that you feel energized in new settings rather than frightened. We are formed or shaped by our experience. That shape, or soma, influences who we are. Along with our life story, our soma determines what is possible (and improbable) in our experience.

For a moment, slump in your chair, drop your chin to your chest, tighten your back and shoulders, make your breathing shallow, squint your eyes, and tighten your gut. Now get out there and be great! Lead that team, sell that project, host that event, attract that partner – you’re a sure bet! It’s absurd, right? We intrinsically know that this tight soma we’ve crunched ourselves into is just not consistent with effectiveness. Even so, many of us are still living in some chronic variation of this shape, and we struggle all the harder because of it.

Most of us have been practicing contraction for decades, holding a tension-filled soma that makes ease and flow feel a long way off. The good news is that when we begin to recognize how we have been shaped, we can begin to change our way of being and reshape ourselves to experience life with ease.

The Body Is Not a Taxi for the Brain

Let’s start where we all start, as babies. The work of Daniel Stern, MD, focuses on infant development. He has found that:

“All mental acts are accompanied by input from the body, including all the things the body does or must do to permit, support, and amplify the ongoing mental activity, postures formed or held, movements of the eyes, head, or body, displacements of space, and contractions and relaxations of muscular tone.”

The body and mind inform each other, and our resulting mental constructs create what Stern refers to as the embodied mind. The way we learned things in the beginning is how we continue to learn them: through the body-mind loop.

In his book Descartes’ Error, neurologist Antonio Damasio confirms the mind-body loop and describes how we can step in and make changes, how we can self-observe and self-regulate so that we don’t allow our “negative body state” to negatively affect our mental state as well (see “The Mind-Body Loop”). The process requires, first, that we be in touch with our own sensations.

Under stress, we tighten. Our bodily system contracts muscles, constricts blood vessels, alters breathing, and generally prepares for danger. It is designed to do so very efficiently for a brief period of time, and then to return to a more relaxed and fluid state. Sadly, what is meant to be a brief and intense organization of the human system has become a chronic way of being for many of us. Our muscles stay rigid and tight. We grind our teeth in our sleep. We’re squeezed in and up, losing our sense of groundedness or flexibility. We’re trapped in a conditioned reaction that perceives everything as more reason to bear down.

THE MIND-BODY LOOP

In his book Descartes’ Error, neurologist Antonio Damasio confirms the mind-body loop and describes how we can self-observe and self-regulate so that we don’t allow our “negative body state” to negatively affect our mental state as well. The process requires, first, that we be in touch with our own sensations.

Without the Body, Never Mind

I’m not a fan of suffering or struggle. In fact, my life’s work is devoted to interrupting struggle wherever I find it. As an educator and executive coach, seeing people stuck in stories or somas that strangle their aliveness launches me into action. I have witnessed myself and others valiantly trying to change our lives strictly within the mind-over-matter Cartesian model by conceptualizing, intellectualizing, rationalizing, and willing ourselves into a new reality.

This method is insufficient, however, given our human nature. We are intricate psychobiological beings, not merely minds to be programmed with new data. When I was first introduced to the discourses of Somatics about 15 years ago, I knew I had found the element that had been missing from all the well-intended work of personal and cultural transformation I had been involved with. I became an avid student. My teacher, Richard Strozzi-Heckler, has taken this important work to governments and corporations, consulting with such organizations as NATO and the Marine Corps. When I seek hope for the future, I take our cultural welcoming of Somatic principles as a very good sign. And in my own experience, I have found corporations, leaders, parents, entrepreneurs, and social leaders grateful for this powerful approach for personal and organizational change.

Strozzi-Heckler tells us: “By living in our body we can generate a presence that has the power to allow genuine contact with our most inner core, with others, and with the environment. I have come to believe that by living close to our bodily and energetic processes, we may lead lives of increasing wholeness and purpose.”

I’ve seen these changes, even in individuals and organizations for which exhaustion and defeat had gained what seemed like a permanent stronghold. By understanding our soma and learning to listen to its messages, we become equipped to create a new reality.

Thawing Out Our Life Force

Embodiment is the result of what we practice. Sadly, most of us have been practicing various forms of contraction for many years. We learned early on to squeeze down our sensations, be they excitement (“People don’t like little girls who are too loud”) or distress (“If you keep crying, I’m going to have to put you down”). How open and alive can you be if your breath is high and shallow, your shoulders are tense, and your jaw is tightly clenched?

I perfected the clenched jaw decades ago. I’ve since learned that when I hold my jaw tight, it determines how I interact with the world. Life becomes a series of hurdles to be conquered. Even if I’m not upset about anything, my tight jaw will lead me to feel I’ve got to get this done or This is hard or I have to get through this.

The good news is now I know that one place I regularly contract is my jaw. As soon as I’m clenched, my day changes from a bright package of possibility to one huge, daunting ToDo List.

By continually checking in with what’s happening in my soma, I can catch my clenched jaw early and then I can relax it. I may have to relax it a dozen times throughout the day. But every time I do, I’m interrupting an old pattern and replacing it with a new one. In the meantime, my day begins flowing much more smoothly.

How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice. We are always practicing something, and what we practice, we become. In fact, the body is incapable of not practicing. Under stress, 99.9 percent of us will gravitate to our accustomed practices, our embodied way of being. David Morris, in his paper “Placebos, Pain and Belief,” says that our biology, like our culture, limits the world we recognize and respond to. When we release the contraction in our bodies, our world expands, too.

The Shape of Our Experience

How have you shaped or configured yourself in a way that is life-suppressing, that is not available to ease and flow, that squeezes down aliveness? Yes, I’m flagrantly assuming that you have a habit of contraction, given that you’re a member of this culture. What is your customized, highly sophisticated, well-practiced personal separation strategy? And once you’re out, where do you go? You can find your suppressing practice by watching what is habitual (embodied) in how you operate.

It’s Monday morning. Today is the day you present your team’s new project to your boss and other executives. You stayed up late last night preparing. You need to drop your kids off at daycare on the way to work. The clothes you planned to wear are still at the cleaners. How do you move with all this: are you tight or at ease, hopeful or filled with dread?

Using the list in “Open Versus Contracted,” note which traits or symptoms best describe your normal experience. Where on the continuum of Open to Contracted do you spend more time? What are the results you produce from there? What is your energy level like at the end of the day? What impact does that have on your interactions and relationships? On your self-esteem? What’s the deeply embedded story (masquerading as truth) that lives in your soma?

When we live in contraction, the tension keeps us disturbed and attending to what’s wrong. We think, “There must be a problem if I’m this tight and anxious.”

Our body informs our thinking and our mood. If we consistently hang out in our physical tensions, we can actually become addicted to struggle; in an odd way, struggle becomes our comfort zone. Many of us build our identity around making continued noble efforts in the face of almost certain defeat. We’re in a cultural harness that says the way to be attractive is to look strong and hide our vulnerability. So we squeeze down a little tighter and separate ourselves a little more. Just look at a person’s soma, or shape. (We’re talking about the shape of lived experience, not clothing size.) The shape we inhabit over time becomes our outlook on life. Our separation strategies are our stories in action.

Mick was a struggling entrepreneur who lived by the story that “Life is unsafe.” If something didn’t happen as he hoped it would, he immediately moved into resignation. It didn’t take any effort at all for him to go there – it was his default mode, and he had been practicing it for years. You can imagine what the shape of resignation looks like: rounded shoulders, flaccid belly, crumpled chest, lips pursed, and eyes dull. As Mick shifted into a new orientation of “Great things just keep happening to me,” it was amazing to see how he changed. He practiced a new shape, a new way of being, that included coming up to his full height, letting his shoulders rest back and down, breathing fully into the belly, feeling his feet solidly planted and his face relaxed and responsive.

We’re not talking about body language or posture. Such terms refer to the body as an object, a thing we configure by putting arms this way and tilting the head that way for a certain effect. Shape is our lived experience; it reveals who we are. Maybe our parents knew something when they told us to stand up straight because it produced a different mood for us to live in than being hunched down or drawn back. While shape may reflect cultural differences, travel to any country and you can see who has a sense of freedom and self-direction and who does not, just by observing how they inhabit their somas. A person raised in a position of authority is trained to take the shape of a leader or a sovereign. Such people are believable, coherent to themselves and those around them. They become the self that leads.

There’s no question that we are formed and shaped by our history, whether that means never forgetting how to ride a bicycle or flinching at the sight of the family home we lived in 30 years ago. What we experience lives in our bodies and informs our actions and reactions daily. Wilhelm Reich, the Austrian psychoanalyst of the early 1900s, was among the first to recognize muscular armoring as a reaction to stress, either current or historical. If you were yelled at frequently as a child, you might have developed protective muscular armoring in your neck and shoulders. Your eyes might be chronically squeezed. The yelling might have stopped decades ago, but if your muscles never got the message that they don’t need to contract anymore, they’re still on duty whether or not yelling is present. The armoring you took on was absolutely the right choice at the time because it helped you take care of yourself. But based on who you are and what you want today, it may be time for a different shape.

Taking Off a Tight Shoe

Once something is embodied, it becomes automatic, especially when we’re under stress. This is both the good news and the bad news. We have been conditioned a certain way. Duane Elgin, in his book Voluntary Simplicity, suggests we would do well to acknowledge how much we act in preprogrammed ways. “We live ensnared in an automated, reflexive, and dreamlike reality,” he writes, “that is a subtle and continuously changing blend of fantasy, inner dialogue, memory, planning, and so on.”

When we recognize what creates our experience, we can change it.

Don’t despair, however. We are not locked forever into the trances we have embodied. At the same time, I’m not here to blow sunshine by telling you that the whole process is a simple matter of relaxing your muscles and thinking happy thoughts. We must address things as they are, things we can count on.

One thing we can count on is that human nature is changeable.

We are living beings, not inert clumps. We are made of live, malleable substances in constant flux. Dr. Amit Goswami, who wrote the textbook on quantum mechanics, confirms that “atoms are not things, they are tendencies.”

When we recognize what creates our experience, we can change it. We can then respect, even revere, our human psychobiology, rather than ignoring it or trying to wish our way to a better life. Coming into a new relationship with embodiment, we become effective players in this game of life. Our awareness is our ace in the deck.

The person who wears a perpetual frown even when she is “relaxed” – how do you suppose that person sees the world? Or the one who inhabits a rigid back, tight arms, and hard eyes – what is she expecting life to deliver? If someone doesn’t know that it’s possible to inhabit life another way, she remains trapped. In contrast, the person who breathes deep and easy, who holds minimal tension in the shoulders, who lifts the heart and chest – she has a very different experience of life. The root of the word courage means heart. When we collapse the chest, we become easily discouraged, dis-heartened. When we fill our space and widen our chest, there is suddenly room for connection, purpose, and passion.

Our shape doesn’t impact only us, it affects those around us. The shape we take on creates our identity, and others respond to us based on the shape they see. Remember, we humans are always deciding what everything means. All I need to do is look at you, and I create an instant story about you based on what I see; it’s an automatic process. Just as an actor takes on a certain shape to get in character, we can experiment with how we inhabit ourselves until we find the soma that best supports what we care about. We can choose to inhabit the shape that encourages the unrestricted flow of life.

Saying “Yes” to the Flow

Thank goodness for great teachers! Our dog Tucker adopted us seven years ago, probably because she saw how much we needed to learn about real pleasure. The way she stalks a squirrel (which she has absolutely no intention of catching) is an exquisite act of choreography. Her muscles tremble with excitement, and she places each paw so slowly that the squirrel doesn’t even notice she’s moved closer. Her nose twitches as she draws in every scent, until her waiting explodes in a final burst of speed as she chases the squirrel up the tree, following it all the way to a second-tier branch. Then she proudly trots into the house, slurps up a loud, luscious drink of water, and paws the rug until it’s just right as she walks the secret number of circles that make her ready to throw herself down with a satisfied sigh. In minutes she drifts into a contented asleep.

Tucker gives herself completely to the moment, just as Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes in his book Flow, a study in the state of high performance. In the state of flow, the moment is rewarding in and of itself. There is no split attention. This, I realized one day, is exactly the state that Tucker effortlessly inhabits. Whether she’s tracking a squirrel or drinking water or preparing for a nap, she’s completely in touch with her sensations and uses them to enhance her experience and her action. The more she feels, the more alive she is. And it gives her impeccable timing, with no action wasted.

I am fascinated by Tucker’s unabashed experience of pleasure. My default mode has always been to settle for relief instead. When I’m stressed or pushed or uncomfortable, relief sounds pretty good. At such times, I think that anywhere other than where I am would be preferable. But here’s the problem: Relief takes me in the opposite direction from pleasure. Instead of becoming more alive, I move to being more numb. I move away from myself.

Erich Fromm identified relief as the satiation of deficiency, which he calls scarcity-pleasure, distinct from the abundance-pleasure of creation and growth., “We go to glut, relaxation, loss of tension,” he said, “in contrast to the ecstasy, the serenity one experiences when functioning easily and at the peak of one’s power. Relief is less stable or enduring than the pleasure that accompanies growth which can go on forever.”

Pleasure requires a certain degree of intimacy with ourselves. To be true to myself, I must know myself: what I enjoy, what I resist, what moves me. Pleasure asks that we reacquaint ourselves with who we are. It is through feeling sensations that we come to know ourselves in new ways. Our senses give us answers to questions such as What do I feel? What calls me? How am I affected? What am I drawn toward? What do I avoid? When do I feel most alive? The more alive we feel, the more responsibility we have. This is only fitting because we have more power when we’re fully alive. Instead of being the disembodied self that drifts away from life and goes numb, our embodied self’s aliveness grants us greater discernment.

As we become more self-aware and self-directed, our life force dramatically increases. When we are fully awake, our life force is more powerful than any trance.

The more present we are, the more consciously we choose where to direct our attention and what action to take.

So pleasure is a way of waking up! Who would have guessed it? Many of us have been taught that pleasure is the first step into the quagmire of sloth. But as Kay Redfield Jamieson asserts in her thoughtful book Exuberance, play is essential for human beings. She writes, “Play encourages fearlessness – that is, the readiness to explore one’s world, test boundaries, reward flexibility and prepare one for the unpredictable.”

Time and space for play are, nevertheless, dwindling in our culture. Today’s children have 40 percent less free time to play than they had 20 years ago. Some elementary schools have eliminated recess entirely, so students have more time to study for state-required competency tests. Such short-sightedness edges the body out of the picture and stymies our natural creativity, resilience, and excellence.

But why even bother to feel more, since life is pretty challenging as it is? Well, simply put, the more sensation we can tolerate, the more present we can be. The more present we are, the more consciously we choose where to direct our attention and what action to take. The more choice, the more power. We get to own our lives, to climb out from the valley of habits we’ve been stuck in. Life can be messy, but it doesn’t have to affect us as though a two-ton truck were barreling down upon us. We may still experience that kind of thing once in awhile, but we have options.

We now know where our feet are, and we can move out of the way with purpose and grace. And in plenty of time.

Victoria Castle is the author of The Trance of Scarcity (Berrett-Koehler, 2007). She coaches Fortune 500 executives, business owners, and social entrepreneurs on how to be purposeful and effective in the midst of chaos and pressure. As a Master Somatic Coach, Victoria teaches at several post-graduate and professional programs and speaks at national conferences.

The post Embodying Change: A Whole Systems Approach appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Commentaries about a news item or an issue allow one to examine trends and patterns of events and data. This provides a richer picture of reality and gives more insight into a “story.” In the case of stock market, this means looking at the trends over the past several months or years, observing the fluctuations in the market, and trying to explain “pulses” in the system – for example, news of a merger, a quarterly economic report, or a political scandal.

However, it is not common to read reports of how such trends and patterns relate to and affect one another. This represents a much deeper level of thinking that can show how the interplay of different factors brings about the outcomes that we observe. In the case of stocks, this means relating a number of factors that systemically cause the market fluctuations. These factors could be economic, social, political, or structural. The critical thing at this level of thinking is to understand how these factors interact.

There is yet another, deeper level of thinking that hardly ever comes to the surface. This is the “mental model” of individuals and organizations that influence why things work the way they do. Mental models reflect the beliefs, values, and assumptions that we personally hold, and they underlie our reasons for doing things the way we do. However, these generally remain “undiscussable,” according to noted educationalist Chris Argyris (Argyris, 1990).

The four levels of thinking described above are shown in “Four Levels of Thinking.” This figure uses the analogy of an iceberg, where the event level of thinking is only the tip and yet most of us are satisfied with this level. This is because events are the most visible part and often require immediate attention.

Systems Thinking and Modeling Methodology

The systems thinking and modeling methodology (ST&M) outlined here refers to a set of conceptual and analytical methods. The general approach is based on the system dynamics methodology that was initially developed by Jay Forrester and others at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 1950s, based on developments following World War II in:

• the theory of information feedback systems
• the understanding of decision-making processes
• the use of mathematical models to simulate complex systems
• the development of high-speed computing as a means of simulating mathematical models

There are several definitions of the system dynamics methodology. Wolstenholme (1997) offers the following description for system dynamics and its scope:

The Five-Phase ST&M Process The development of a systems thinking and modeling (ST&M) intervention involves five distinct but interrelated phases:

1. problem structuring
2. causal loop modeling
3. dynamic modeling
4. scenario planning and modeling
5. implementation and organizational learning

These phases follow a process, each involving a number of steps, as outlined in “The Five-Phase Process of Systems Thinking and Modeling”. However, it must be emphasized that an ST&M intervention does not require all phases to be undertaken, nor does each phase require all the steps listed in the table. Rather, these phases and steps are presented as guidelines, and which phases and steps are included in a particular ST&M intervention depends on the issues or problems that have generated the systems inquiry and the degree of effort that the organization is prepared to commit to the intervention.

“Phases of the ST&M Methodology” shows the progression of the five phases above. As mentioned earlier, although these phases can be used separately/individually, their cumulative use adds more value and power to the investigation. These phases are described in the following sections.

Problem Structuring

In this phase, the situation or issue at hand is defined and the scope and boundaries of the study are identified. This is the common first step in most problem-solving approaches. However, the importance of this step is generally underestimated as managers and decision makers often assume that they readily know what the real problem is while in reality they may think about the problem symptom. The problem structuring phase consists of the following steps:

1. Identification of the problem area or policy issues of concern to management, and identification of main stakeholders and their interests. (The seminal book on stakeholder analysis has been written by Freeman, 1984. Examples of stakeholder analysis for systems thinking applications are provided by Elias et al., 2002, and Cavana, 2004.) This step requires that we clearly establish the objectives, taking into account multiple stakeholders and perspectives. This step is most effective when performed in consultation with other stakeholders in a manner that encourages openness to new ideas and generates commitment and collaboration from the start.
2. Collection of preliminary information and data including media reports, historical and statistical records, policy documents, previous studies, and stakeholder interviews that justify the seriousness and clarify the scope and magnitude of the problem/issue identified.
3. The conduct of group sessions for creative problem structuring. Following the identification of the main issue or problems/opportunities of concern to management, bring the main stakeholders together, or separately, for a group creative problem structuring and/or group modeling session using the “affinity diagram” or “hexagon clustering” approaches.

Causal Loop Modeling

During this phase, conceptual models of the problem, known as causal loop diagrams (CLDs), will be created. Causal loop modeling is the most commonly used phase of the systems thinking approach. The following steps are used in causal loop modeling:

1. Identify main (key) variables.
2. Draw behavior over time charts (or reference modes) for the main variables.
3. Develop causal loop diagrams (influence diagrams) to illustrate the relationships among the variables.
4. Discuss behavior over time of the dynamics implied by the causal loop diagrams.
5. Identify system archetypes that would describe high-level causal patterns.
6. Identify key leverage points.
7. Develop intervention strategies.

Dynamic Modeling

This phase follows the causal loop modeling phase. Although it is possible to go into this phase directly after problem structuring, performing the causal loop modeling phase first will enhance the conceptual rigor and learning power of the systems approach. The completeness and wider insights of systems thinking are generally absent from other simulation modeling approaches, where causal loop modeling does not play a part.

The following steps are generally followed in the dynamic modeling phase:

1. Develop a high-level map or systems diagram showing the main sectors of a potential simulation model, or a “rich picture” of the main variables and issues involved in the system of interest.
2. Define variable types (e.g., stocks, flows, converters, etc.) and construct stock-flow diagrams for different sectors of the model.
3. Collect detailed, relevant data including media reports, historical and statistical records, policy documents, previous studies, and stakeholder interviews.
4. Construct a computer simulation model based on the causal loop diagrams or stock-flow diagrams. Identify the initial values for the stocks (levels), parameter values for the relationships, and the structural relationships between the variables using constants, graphical relationships, and mathematical functions where appropriate. This stage involves using specialized computer packages like STELLA, iThink, VENSIM, POWERSIM, DYNAMO, DYSMAP, COSMIC or Consideo.
5. Simulate the model over time. Select the initial value for the beginning of the simulation run, specify the unit of time for the simulation (e.g., hour, day, week, month, year, etc.). Select the simulation interval (DT) (e.g., 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) and the time horizon for the simulation run (i.e., the length of the simulation). Simulate model stability by generating steady state conditions.
6. Produce graphical and tabular output for the base case of the model. This can be produced using any of the computer packages mentioned above. Compare model behavior with historical trends or hypothesized reference modes (behavior over time charts).
7. Verify model equations, parameters, and boundaries, and validate the model’s behavior over time. Carefully inspect the graphical and tabular output generated by the model.
8. Perform sensitivity tests to gauge the sensitivity of model parameters and initial values. Identify areas of greatest improvement (key leverage points) in the system.
9. Design and test policies with the model to address the issues of concern to management and to look for system improvement.
10. Develop and test strategies (i.e., combinations of functional policies, for example operations, marketing, finance, human resources, etc.)

Scenario Planning and Modeling

In this phase, various policies and strategies are formulated and tested. Here “policy” refers to changes to a single internal variable such as hiring, quality, or price. Strategy is the combination of a set of polices and, as such, deals with internal or controllable changes. When these strategies are tested under varying external conditions, this is referred to as scenario modeling. This stage involves working closely with all major stakeholders.

1. Develop general scope, timeframe, and boundaries of external environment for scenarios. Prepare stories of possible futures or theme scenarios.
2. Identify key drivers of change, uncertainties, and factors that could have a significant impact on the decisions, policies, and strategies being evaluated. Determine ranges for external parameters and graphs.
3. Construct forced scenarios by placing all the positive outcomes in an optimistic scenario and all the negative scenarios in a pessimistic scenario. Check the forced scenarios for internal consistency. Modify these scenarios as learning scenarios (this step is based on the method outlined by P. J. H. Schoemaker, 1995).
4. Simulate the scenarios (either the individual scenarios varying the key uncertainties or the learning scenarios) with the model. Redesign scenarios if necessary.
5. Evaluate the performance of the policies and strategies with the model for each scenario. Assess the performance against a range of relevant performance measures for overall robustness. Select the policies or strategies that meet management’s objectives for the investigation.

Implementation and Organizational Learning

One of the most beneficial and enduring outcomes of systems thinking and modeling is team and organizational learning. Once simulation models have been developed, they can be enhanced by extending them into a microworld. Microworlds (also known as management flight simulators) provide an interactive and user-friendly interface for managers to experiment with the model. The learning laboratory uses microworlds in a structured process, akin to a scientific environment, to test hypotheses and mental models designed to create individual and group learning. The following steps summarize this phase:

1. Prepare a report and presentation to the management team and other stakeholders. This should document the background and development of the systems thinking project the challenges faced, and the lessons learned.
2. Communicate results and insights of the study and the reasons for the proposed intervention to all stakeholders.
3. Develop a microworld and design a learning lab for the simulation model. This involves adding necessary features (i.e., from computer software) to convert the simulation model into an interactive and user-friendly microworld. Then design a learning lab process for the microworld.
4. Use the learning lab process to diffuse and facilitate learning in the organization and with clients, decision makers, and other main stakeholders.

Systems Thinking and Modeling Applications

Systems thinking and modeling has a wide range of general and specific applications. Most of these are within the “knowable” region of the sense-making framework Cynefin developed by Kurtz and Snowden (2003) and others at the Cynefin Center for Organizational Complexity at IBM Global Services. (The name “Cynefin” is a Welsh word whose literal translation into English is “habitat” or “place.”) This region is shown at the top right-hand side of “The ST&M Methodology and the Cynefin Framework.”

Kurtz and Snowden (2003) define the knowable domain of their Cynefin sense-making framework as:

“While stable cause and effect relationships exist in this domain, they may not be fully known, or they may be known only by a limited group of people. In general, relationships are separated over time and space in chains that are difficult to fully understand. Everything in this domain is capable of movement to the known domain. The only issue is whether we can afford the time and resources to move from the knowable to the known; in general, we cannot and instead rely on expert opinion, which in turn creates a key dependency on trust between expert advisor and decision maker. This is the domain of systems thinking, the learning organization, and the adaptive enterprise, all of which are too often confused with complexity theory (Stacey, 2001). In the knowable domain, experiment, expert opinion, fact-finding, and scenario-planning are appropriate. This is the domain of methodology, which seeks to identify cause-effect relationships through the study of properties which appear to be associated with qualities. For systems in which the patterns are relatively stable, this is both legitimate and desirable.

“Our decision model here is to sense incoming data, analyze that data, and then respond in accordance with expert advice or interpretation of that analysis. Structured techniques are desirable, but assumptions must be open to examination and challenge. This is the domain in which entrained patterns are at their most dangerous, as a simple error in an assumption can lead to a false conclusion that is difficult to isolate and may not be seen. It is important to note here that by known and knowable we do not refer to the knowledge of individuals. Rather, we refer to things that are known to society or the organization, whichever collective identity is of interest at the time.”

Examples of general applications of systems thinking and modeling are:

• design of new systems
• reengineering or improvement of existing systems
• prediction of behavior of complex systems under varying conditions
• understanding the interaction of component sub-systems
• strategy development and testing
• scenario modeling and testing
• group and organizational learning

The specific applications of the systems thinking and modeling methodology cover both strategic and functional aspects of business and organizations. Some of these are outlined below.

Strategy and Policy

Systems thinking and modeling is widely used for strategy formulation and testing. This occurs at the level of government and industry (e.g., healthcare, communication, regulation, etc.) as well as at the organizational level (e.g., marketing, production, human resources, finance, and their interfaces). Systems thinking highlights the following areas of strategy, which are often ignored or missed by other methodologies:

• internal contradictions in a strategy
• hidden strategic opportunities
• untapped strategic leverages

Operations and Design

Systems thinking and modeling also has widespread applications in operations and design. Traditionally, manufacturing systems have been a prominent area of application. Service industries such as healthcare, communications, and logistics are the upcoming areas that readily lend themselves to the application of systems thinking and modeling. Some of the specific applications are:

• new product and service development
• supply-chain management
• enterprise resource planning (ERP)
• network design and management

Functional Modeling

In addition to the areas mentioned above, the systems thinking and modeling methodology can be used to model functional areas such as finance, marketing, information technology, and human resource management.

Hard and Soft Modeling/Thinking

It is important to clarify the meaning of the terms model and modeling in this context. Model is defined as being a representation of the real world. Models can take on different forms – physical, analog, digital (computer), mathematical, and so on. This sense of the word model is the more traditional one and is sometimes referred to as quantitative or “hard.” More recently, the concept of soft modeling has been developed by Checkland and others (Checkland, 1981). Soft modeling refers to conceptual and contextual approaches that tend to be more realistic, pluralistic, and holistic than “hard” models. Hard and soft models are sometimes referred to as “quantitative” or positivist and “qualitative” or interpretivist, respectively (Cavana et al., 2001). The differences between the hard and soft approaches are summarized in “Hard Versus Soft Approaches”.

The methodologies presented cover both hard and soft approaches because we regard these approaches as complementary and mutually reinforcing. Systems thinking tends to fall in the category of soft approaches, while dynamic modeling gravitates toward the category of hard modeling.

In the following sections, two other approaches to systems thinking are outlined. These are soft systems methodology and cognitive mapping. While these approaches are most useful in the problem-structuring phase of systems methodology, their potential use is much wider.

Soft Systems Methodology

Another approach to systems thinking, known as soft systems methodology (SSM), originated in the U. K. (Checkland, 1981). Soft systems methodology is based on the notion that human and organizational factors cannot be separated from problem solving and decision making. Thus SSM takes a systems view of the organization (Pidd, 1996). Soft systems methodology consists of seven interrelated stages. These stages are listed below and shown in “Soft Systems Methodology”.

1. 1. The problem situation is unstructured.
   2. The problem situation is expressed.
   3. Root definitions of relevant systems are identified.
   4. Conceptual models are developed.
   5. The problem situation (stage 2) and the conceptual models (stage 4) are compared.
   6. Feasible and desirable changes are considered.
   7. Action is taken to improve the problem.

These stages are conceptually similar to the seven-step method or the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) process of quality management (Shiba et al., 1994). The focus of SSM on root definition is also analogous to the PDCA model’s root-cause analysis (i.e., the cause-and-effect or “fishbone” diagram). In essence, like quality management methods, SSM provides a powerful learning process for individuals as well as for groups and organizations.

A key feature of the second stage of the SSM process is the development of a “rich picture,” which is a “pictorial, cartoon-like representation of the problem situation that highlights significant and contentious aspects in a manner likely to lead to original thinking at stage 3 of SSM” (Jackson, 2003).

Cognitive Mapping and SODA

Cognitive mapping and strategic options development and analysis (SODA) were developed by Eden and his colleagues (Eden et al., 1983; Eden and Ackermann, 2001; Ackermann and Eden, 2001). This approach focuses on how individuals view their world and how they behave within the organization (Pidd, 1996), thus it is more individualistic than the SSM approach.
The main premise of Eden’s approach is that desirable outcomes are the product of both content and process (i.e., the end and the means). This means that, in organizations, the effectiveness of policies and strategic plans, for example, depends not only on the plan itself or the apparent results, but also on how the plans are arrived at because this determines people’s commitment to organizational plans and decisions.
Cognitive maps are tools for thinking and problem solving. They are intended for unraveling mental models and mapping how people think about a certain issue or problem. The main building blocks of cognitive maps are called “concepts.” The concepts are generated during an interview process using the words used by the interviewee (Pidd, 1996). These concepts or ideas are then linked together by arrows to form a cognitive map, as illustrated in this sustainable tourism example.
Although cognitive maps and causal loop diagrams – one of the main tools of systems thinking – are somewhat similar visually, they are distinctly different both conceptually and methodologically (Richardson, 1999). In the first place, the “concepts” used in cognitive mapping are phrases that often contain comparative adjectives (e.g., better, bigger, fewer, less). On the other hand, the “variables” used in causal loops are nouns that have “quantities” associated with them (e.g., demand, supply, quality, motivation, etc.). In the second place, the linkages in cognitive maps are not “closed” and hence loops tend not to arise in cognitive maps. In causal loop diagrams, however, loops are the mainstay of the method, indicating dynamic and recurring patterns.
When more than one individual is involved, the SODA methodology is used to create group commitment, especially with a focus on action. This is based on the premise that in order for people to work as a team and create a shared understanding, it is essential that they should be jointly involved in problem definition and the search for ways in which to solve problems (i.e., strategy formulation). SODA methodology moves people through a process of debate and negotiation towards a joint commitment to action (Pidd, 1996).
While there are differences between SSM and cognitive mapping, “neither assumes that an organisation is a machine, which grinds on its way regardless of the people who compose it” (Pidd, 1996). The problem structuring phase of the five-phase ST&M process is consistent with and emphasizes this approach.
Kambiz E. Maani is an international expert on systemic approaches to organizations and leadership. He is an author and inspirational speaker on systems thinking, complexity management, and organizational learning and leadership. Currently, Kambiz is an associate professor of management and systems sciences at the University of Auckland Business School, where he has held several leadership roles.
Robert Y. Cavana is a reader in systems science with the Victoria Management School at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He was previously a president of the Operational Research Society of New Zealand and a vice president of the International System Dynamics Society; he is currently a managing editor of the System Dynamics Review.
This article is adapted with permission from Chapter 2 of Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Managing Change and Complexity, Second Edition (Pearson Education New Zealand, 2007).

The post Systems Methodology appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

A shared commitment to act toward a compelling goal.

Why do I like it?

• First, it emphasizes that strategy is about action – not about analyzing, forecasting, writing papers, filling out forms, compiling spreadsheets, but about action.
• Second, it speaks of a shared commitment – the kind of commitment that management needs so that they continue to act as a team, even when things get tough.
• Third, it recognizes the importance of a compelling goal – the objective, that, when realized, brings vision into reality.

I recognize that the statement makes no declaration about what the goal should be or about what actions should be taken, but I ask that you ride with that gap for the moment — all will be revealed in due course. I also recognize that are many ways of building a shared commitment to act and of defining a good strategy. Scenario planning, which I will focus on, is just one of them.

Gods, Gamblers, Grinders, and Guides

All organizations have their own dominant beliefs, and top managers have their own styles. Some people believe, for example, that it is possible to predict the future (if not in general, then at least as far as their own organizations are concerned); others prefer to believe that the future is uncertain and that the journey into the future is one of exploration. As regards style, some leaders exercise very strong control, while others seek to empower those in their organizations (see “Four Leadership Styles”).

Strong, controlling leaders who believe they can predict the future are much like gods: Not only do they know what they want, they know best, too. You don’t have to read Homer to learn that any mortal who incites the wrath of an angry god soon has an uncomfortable time. Such leaders need no tools and techniques to formulate a strategy: They know. From time to time, they might actually be right.

Strong, controlling leaders who are less certain of their powers of prediction often behave like gamblers: They place a bet that the future will evolve in a certain way and, if it does, fine; if it doesn’t, well, let’s throw the dice again and see what happens a second time. Gamblers, too, need few tools and techniques, but they might like some financial analyses to give them a feel for the odds.

Empowerers who believe they can predict the future are convinced that, somewhere out there, the “right” strategic answer exists, if only they can find it. These are the grinders, managers who are forever grinding away on more analyses, more research, more numbers. These people love tools and techniques, with their five forces, their value chains, their PERTS, and their SWOTS.

In many cases, the most successful leaders may be those empowerers who choose to serve as guides: They seek to carefully steer their organizations through the uncertainties that the future will inevitably bring. How can they steer the safest course? Well, to do so, they need a map. The problem is that no such map can be found, for maps exist in space, not in time.

It is in this last arena that scenarios can help, for scenarios are stories describing how the future might evolve. Scenarios therefore do a similar job in time to that done by maps in space. But because the future might evolve in many ways, there are many possible scenarios, each of which represents one possible view of what might happen over the next five, 10, or 20 years. Importantly, the emphasis within each scenario is not on the internal aspects of the business, but rather on the external context in which the business might operate; robust scenarios depict the future in terms of politics, economics, sociology, demography, technology, and industrial structures.

By imagining what such a future might be, you can test whether or not a particular strategy for your own business will be beneficial, should that future indeed come to pass. And by explicitly recognizing that there might be several different futures, any one of which might happen, you can test your strategy against each and see if some strategies are more robust than others. In essence, scenario planning is a form of simulation: It is the business manager’s equivalent of the jet pilot’s flight simulator. The scenarios project you and your organization into the future, and provide a realistic, rich context in which you can examine whether or not particular strategies – the development of new products, the entry into new markets, or whatever – are likely to be successful.

Scenarios also serve to heighten your understanding of risk, so that when you put your strategy into action, you will be much more aware of how changes in the external environment are likely to impact your business. Then if you notice that the world is in fact evolving in a direction for which your strategy is less appropriate, you will be able to change course easily and quickly, far more so than your competitors, who may not have noticed what is going on, or, if they have, may continue for some time in a state of denial.

But how does scenario-based strategic planning – to give it its full name – actually work?

Scenario-Based Strategic Planning

Scenario-based strategic planning comprises two principal activities:

• First, the development of a small number of scenarios – say, up to five – each of which describes a different view of how a future world might look.
• Second, the agreement on a strategy – a set of actions that the organization is committed to take.

As indicated by “Scenario Development and Strategy Formation,” the process of scenario development is divergent and strives to embrace as broad as possible a view of how the future might evolve, in order to encompass the future’s inevitable uncertainties. This is done through a series of group workshops, supported by research, and the gathering of expert opinions. The purpose of the scenarios is to provide a series of backdrops against which different strategies can be assessed. Questions such as “Should we enter the [whatever] market?”, “What are the risks of making [whatever] investment?” and the like are tested against each of the scenarios. Participants assume that, yes, they do enter that market, and that, yes, they do make that investment, and then imagine that they and their organization are projected into each scenario 10 years into the future. They can then assess, using “projected hindsight,” whether or not those decisions were “good” or “bad.” By exploring various decisions against each scenario in this way, team members can then determine that set of decisions that they collectively feel most comfortable taking now and therefore converge upon an agreed strategy.

The following pages describe the process in more detail. First, we need to introduce and define three terms that have a special role in scenario planning: worlds, levers, and outcomes.

Worlds. A world is a comprehensive description of the context in which a business operates. Worlds are therefore described in terms of (often long!) lists of adjectives and adjectival phrases, describing all aspects of the world of interest, including the political, social, economic and regulatory structures, nature of market competition, technology, and all the rest.

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY FORMATION

The process of scenario development is divergent and strives to embrace as broad as possible a view of how the future might evolve, in order to encompass the future’s inevitable uncertainties. The purpose of the scenarios is to provide a series of backdrops against which different strategies can be assessed. By exploring various decisions against each scenario in this way, team members can then determine that set of decisions that they collectively feel most comfortable taking now and therefore converge upon an agreed strategy.

The most familiar world is today’s world, and an important part of the scenario planning process is to come to a shared view of just what it is. Different people see different things, and some lively workshops can be run focused on describing today’s world. Ultimately, any description of today’s world must pass the Martian Test: If the description were e-mailed to a group of Martians approaching Earth, on stepping out of their saucer, they must be able to recognize where they have landed.

If today’s world is defined in terms of a long list of descriptive phrases, then, by definition, a different world must have a different list. A major milestone in scenario planning is to generate a small number of different worlds – three to five is usually sufficient – that have self-consistent descriptions. These worlds should be significantly different from one another, and from today’s world.

Some of the different worlds might appear favorable, others harsh; some may appear to be relatively likely, other less so; some might be desirable, others positively repulsive. At the moment, though, such issues aren’t important; all that matters is that any different world must be believed to be, in principle, possible.

Levers and Outcomes. Levers represent the actions and decisions that managers can take. For example, managers can determine product range, target markets, staffing levels, skills, investments in infrastructure, level of R&D, location of manufacturing sites, amount spent on advertising, and so on. At any time, each lever has a setting – the numeric amount associated with that lever.

Outcomes represent the commercial results of the organization: levels of sales and profit, reputation, share price, market share, staff morale, and so on. At any time, each outcome has a numeric value.

Fundamentally, the job of strategic management is to determine the levers and assign their settings, so as to generate desirable outcomes. As every manager soon learns, however, levers are not directly connected to outcomes; there simply is no lever to allow managers to directly control profit, market share, or share price. Rather, the levers that managers can actually pull are only indirectly, and sometimes rather loosely, coupled to the outcomes, and managers act in the belief – or hope – that by cutting costs here and increasing staff there, shareholder value will be increased. To make matters worse, time delays occur before any change in a lever setting begins to take effect.

This process is, as we all know too well, very complex. A powerful tool in taming this complexity is system dynamics modeling. This kind of simulation goes far beyond the typical spreadsheet and can handle loosely coupled variables, time lags, and feedback loops. (For a more complete definition of system dynamics, go to http://www.systemdynamics.org.)

The Rules of Innovation

Many people feel that inventing new worlds is difficult, fearing not only that they lack the expert knowledge, but also – and far worse – that they just don’t have the imagination. In fact, inventing new worlds is easy and a lot of fun, provided, of course, that you do it in the easy, fun way – and that is to borrow from the techniques of innovation.

Briefly, two of the key rules that make innovation deliberate, systematic, and safe are:

• Rule No. 1: Don’t try to leap directly into the unknown – start from something or somewhere you know well.
• Rule No. 2: New ideas are best generated not by waiting for lightning to strike, but by challenging assumptions and asking, “How might this be different?”

A simple but nonetheless startling example of these rules in action is the familiar nine dots puzzle (see “Nine Dots Puzzle”). There are two questions:

• How can you join all nine dots with four straight lines, without taking your pencil off the page?
• And if that is too easy, how many different ways can you find of joining all the dots with just one line?

Most people tackle the first question by picking up a pen and drawing various alternatives; they usually don’t even know where to start with the second question. But then most people don’t know the two rules of innovation. Picking up a pen, drawing, and trying to solve the puzzle by trial and error breaks the first rule – you’re leaping into the dark. The first rule says “Let’s understand all we can about the nine dots.” There are nine, they are in a square array, they are an inch or so apart, and they are about a quarter-inch square. The second rule says, “Challenge the assumptions.” Is the shape the dots form a square? What would happen if the dots weren’t an inch apart? They might be a mile apart or close together. But if they were close, I could wipe a felt-tip pen across all nine at once. So, if they’re an inch apart, I need a thick pen – maybe a paint roller. Ah yes, that’s it, a paint roller. And the puzzle is instantly solved.

Inventing New Worlds

The easiest way of inventing new worlds is therefore to apply the two key rules of innovation defined above. In the context of scenario planning, if we follow Rule No. 1, our starting point is something we all know well indeed, namely, today’s world. In fact, we take the time to define today’s world not only to build a genuine, deeply shared view of where we are, but also as a springboard to innovation.

One observation about today’s world might be that “the current industrial structure is consolidating.” Rule No. 2 requires us to challenge assumptions and ask, “How might this be different?” How might the industrial structure be different? Well, perhaps it will concentrate even further into a global monopoly; perhaps it will fragment as a result of government intervention; perhaps new entrants will come in on the back of a new technology.

Applying Rule No. 2 thus results in many alternative possibilities. As a group begins to list these potential futures, people start associating characteristics together, so that a small number of self-consistent worlds emerge, each with its appropriate set of descriptions. Created by a process of deliberate challenge and deliberate and systematic innovation, these descriptions will be very different from today’s world. When you are in the middle of the process, it can appear to be something of a muddle, with hundreds of post-its all over the walls. But rest assured that it works: The human mind is quite adept at seeing patterns. Just as the solution to the nine dots puzzle emerged, seemingly out of nowhere, so the process of challenge, coupled with the interactions of a group and the human ability to see patterns, will create a compelling series of new worlds.

“Scenario Planning Summary” forms the heart of a scenario planning exercise. Each column represents a different world, the first being today’s world. The often extensive descriptions of each world are incorporated in the first row. The levers are named in the title box of the second row, and the corresponding lever settings are identified in the appropriate column. Similarly, the outcomes are named in the title box of the third row, and the outcome values, for the defined lever settings in each world, are assessed and entered into each column.

The question then becomes, What are the lever settings and what new levers might be required to give favorable outcomes in as many of the worlds as possible? Once the most favorable set of levers and lever settings have been determined, then your strategy is that set of managerial actions required to move the levers from their current settings to the desired ones.

Testing the Levers

By now, you will have:

• Defined today’s world.
• Defined up to five alternative worlds.
• Defined the levers and the outcomes.
• Seen how the lever settings in today’s world generate today’s outcome values.

It is at this point that the scenarios themselves are written, each scenario being a vivid story describing how each of the alternative new worlds evolved, in its own particular way, from today’s world. Well-written scenarios capture your imagination and are powerful vehicles for communication and training. Immersing yourself in the scenarios builds “a memory of the future,” so that as time passes and the future becomes reality, you recognize what you see. But the scenarios themselves are not the end of the exercise: The purpose of the scenarios, and the alternative worlds they describe, is to form a context in which your business might operate in the future.

To test out this method:

• Imagine that the levers and their settings are the same as in today’s world. What will the outcome values be in the different worlds? Are they favorable or unfavorable?
• If the outcome values in any alternative world are unfavorable, what would the lever settings have be to give rise to favorable outcomes? Do you need to invoke any new levers?

This process is best carried out through group discussion; it can also be supported by modeling and specific, well-focused analysis. The objective is to examine how robust different lever settings are to future uncertainty. Suppose, for example, you decide that the current lever settings give favorable outcome values in just one of the alternative future worlds. That analysis implies that, if you leave the lever settings as they are and that particular future does indeed come to pass, your business is likely to be successful. But if the future were to evolve toward any of the other worlds, things might not be so rosy.

Turning Scenarios into Strategy

As a result of the exploration of the lever settings in the various worlds, you will discover one of a number of things, for example, that:

• The current levers, and their settings, are indeed robust under future worlds, or
• The current levers, and their settings, are not robust under future worlds, or
• Some different lever settings are robust under many of the future worlds, including today’s world; or there are no lever settings that work well under many worlds, but several clusters of settings that work well in some worlds but not others; or there are no generally safe lever settings – each world has its own.

These insights are guides to strategy. How so? Let’s go back to our definition of strategy: a shared commitment to act toward a compelling goal.

A shared commitment to take what specific actions, toward which particular goal? Well:

• The goal must be defined in relation to one or more of the worlds, and
• The actions must be to move existing levers to new settings or to deploy new levers.

The process of strategy development is therefore that of deciding which levers need to be placed at what settings. And the strategy itself is the set of actions you decide to take to move the levers from their current settings to their new ones.

Scenario-based strategic planning has the objective of providing a framework to enable managers to make strategic decisions (see “The Scenario-Based Strategic Planning Process”). These decisions can relate only to levers and their settings; managers, quite literally, can do little else. As we all know, the problem with resetting the levers is that some of them are difficult to reset; some, once reset, cannot be reversed to their original settings; many require a long time to reset; and, once settings have been reset, it may be a long time before the results are actually achieved—time during which the world is fast evolving, often in such a way as to make the new settings no longer fit for their originally conceived purpose.

THE SCENARIO-BASED STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

Scenario-based strategic planning has the objective of providing a framework to enable managers to make strategic decisions. As such, it comprises a number of activities, beginning with defining today’s world and the range of actions that managers can take to creating scenarios of different possible worlds to testing levers in different settings and, finally, identifying effective actions.

But the levers must be reset from time to time. Doing nothing, and so betting that the world will stay still, is often a worse bet than taking a gamble on one particular future. The process is exciting, challenging, stimulating, exhausting, amazing – and, most importantly, it works.

Dennis Sherwood is the author of nine books, including Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager’s Guide to Applying Systems Thinking, Smart Things to Know About Innovation, and Unlock Your Mind. For 12 years, he was a consulting partner with Coopers & Lybrand and was subsequently an executive director at Goldman Sachs in London, a partner in Bossard Consultants, and vice president of SRI Consulting. He is currently with the Silver Bullet Machine Manufacturing Company. Dennis was educated at the Universities of Cambridge, Yale, and California, and is a Sloan Fellow, with distinction, of the London Business School. He is a well-known speaker at conferences, has written many journal articles, and has appeared on BBC Radio 4’s programs In Business, Shoptalk, and Nice Work.

The post Turning Innovative Scenarios into Robust Strategies appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

This exchange brings into sharp contrast the two different definitions of learning that we were operating under. For Elise, learning algebra meant acquiring information in her head about how to manipulate numbers and symbols according to prescribed rules in order to give an answer that would be deemed correct by someone in authority. My definition of learning, in contrast, involved increasing the ability to achieve desired results. Learning had to be practically useful — it had to lead to outcomes in the real world. To me, what Elise was doing wasn’t learning at all: She was simply storing information that she may or may not ever retrieve again (she has no interest in pursuing a career in math or science). So if what she was doing really wasn’t learning, why did I want her to learn algebra? For a while, I really wasn’t quite sure. How was studying algebra going to help Elise achieve her desired results?

In a moment of inspired brilliance (or so I thought), I conjured up three reasons why she should learn algebra: (1) It increases brain development by making new neural connections; (2) It helps her acquire intellectual discipline; and (3) It increases her maturity. She was having a hard time relating to these noble, idealized reasons. Then as an afterthought, I added a fourth: It helps her do better on her college entrance exams. Now, I had her attention. She saw a practical use for algebra after all.

As the story above illustrates, we need a more robust perspective of learning than we’ve had in the past. In this article, I am advocating for an integrated framework that describes a new way to understand, utilize, and sustain learning—and, in turn, achieve our desired results.

Human Efficacy

The ultimate aim of humans can be boiled down into three basic categories:

• Seeking fulfillment (pursuing happiness, consciousness, meaning)
• Creating relationships (giving and receiving love, strengthening connection to other people or a higher being)
• Having a purpose (pursuing a dream, fighting for justice, improving the world)

We cannot achieve these aims or our day-to-day goals (e.g., shaving, buying groceries, getting your kids to school on time, serving people in need) without a certain level of human efficacy.

Efficacy is being able to produce a desired effect (see “Achieving Results and Human Efficacy”). Some level of effort must be expended, and therefore some effect produced, to attain our goals as humans. (This is not to say that we can achieve all our aims through individual human effort alone. We must work in cooperation with others and in alignment with our sources of influence, authority, or wisdom. However, we cannot fail to exert an effort and expect we are going to get the outcome we’re seeking.)

For example, let’s say you want to experience more love in your life. How successful would you be if, in order to accomplish this goal, you sit in a chair and wait for the love to come to you? You don’t talk to anyone, you don’t look at anyone, you don’t think about anyone — in reality, all you really do is wait. Not very. You will be unable to produce the desired effect. Another example: Will it be possible for you to be more effective in your job if you don’t initiate some sort of movement or influence — even if that movement is simply to begin to notice what others are saying or doing? All desires, lofty or modest, will only be reached through some level of human efficacy.

So then, how do you increase your efficacy? Psychologist Albert Bandura argues that there are several sources for increasing our effectiveness: “They include [1] mastery experiences, [2] seeing people similar to oneself manage task demands successfully, [3] social persuasion that one has the capabilities to succeed in given activities, and [4] inferences from somatic and emotional states indicative of personal strengths and vulnerabilities.” Bandura goes on to say that “the most effective way of creating a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences” (Albert Bandura, “Self-Efficacy,” in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior). In other words, you build efficacy by repeatedly achieving your desired results.

The next question, naturally, is, “How do you get better at ‘repeatedly achieving your desired results’?” The answer is learning. Unfortunately, without understanding how learning actually works, most of us are less than intentional about how we learn. And, consequently, we take actions that are unconscious, random, or undirected, at worst, or ineffective, at best. Therefore, the next section will attempt to provide that important understanding.

How Learning Works

In the most concise, generic form I can express, learning works in the following way (see “A New View of Learning”).

First, you become aware of a discrepancy between “the way things are” and “the way things ought to be”—you realize that you are not achieving desired results.

Second, you make a choice to address the discrepancy and decide that something has to change. Your response emerges either out of a knower stance, which says someone or something else will have to change (a focus on the circumstances) or a learner stance, which says you will have to change (a focus on your ability to respond to the circumstances).

If you decide to respond out of a knower stance, you will (eventually) become ineffective. New and different challenges and circumstances confront you daily. Responding to tomorrow’s dynamic challenges with your current, static abilities will, over time, lose its effectiveness.

Third, you choose to respond out of the learner stance and decide that you will have to change. So, you will take actions to increase your ability to respond to the circumstances you are facing. If your ability to respond becomes greater than the circumstances, you will achieve positive results, but if the circumstances remain greater than your ability to respond, then you will get negative results.

STANCE DECISION TREE

Whether you adopt the knower stance or the learner stance depends on how you answer three questions.

Because learning can be difficult, we all, unfortunately, have a tendency to respond from the knower stance. Making a change requires a direct confrontation with the status quo. And in confronting the status quo, you will eventually discover that your ability to respond is less than you’d like it to be, and this discovery, in turn, may generate feelings of threat or embarrassment. So, in order to protect yourself, you take the stance that someone or something else (i.e., the circumstances) must change. Over time, you become so skilled at this way of reacting that you assimilate these thinking habits into your everyday practice, and they become your knower stance.

Fourth, you will vigilantly notice whenever you are responding out of a knower stance and choose to shift back into the learner stance. You will make this shift easier by diligently employing five learning practices: personal mastery, shared vision, mental models, systems thinking, and team learning. A disciplined application of these five learning practices will help you continually look at yourself as the necessary focus of change and increase your ability to respond appropriately and achieve your desired results.

Awareness and Choice

Many times, the choices we make are hidden from our conscious awareness. For example, when I first got married, I was in the habit of pointing out the flaws in my wife’s suggestions when she proposed an idea with which I disagreed. I figured I was just helping her to “think things through a little more clearly,” when in reality all I was doing was frustrating her to no end. It wasn’t until she pointed out that all I ever did was poke holes in her ideas, without making an alternative suggestion of my own, that I became aware of how my behavior was unfair to her. When I became consciously aware of how I was acting, I could choose to continue with it (perhaps more skillfully, so as not to get caught quite so often), or I could choose to change my behavior, so that it was more productive and caring.

We go through life, to a great extent, unaware of the choices we are making. To be more effective in the world, it is important to consciously operate from a learner stance. So we need a way to wake up our awareness about which stance we are living out of, so we can then make choices — behave in ways — that are in alignment with the learner stance rather than the knower stance. Learning cannot begin without awareness and cannot continue without the making of fundamental choices.

Knower Stance Versus Learner Stance

The terms “knower” and “learner” will be used throughout this article. In short, let’s define a knower as someone who can’t admit that they don’t know something, for fear that doing so will make them look bad. They often pretend that they know things even when they don’t, and they are not willing to be influenced. They are like those know-it-all kids we knew in grade school, except that, as adults, they are much better at hiding it when they don’t know something. Alternatively, let’s define a learner as someone who admits they could be wrong, or that they are uncertain, or that they probably have to change their usual actions in order to achieve their desired results. Learners are willing to be influenced.

Whether you adopt the knower stance or the learner stance depends on how you answer the three questions depicted in the Stance Decision Tree. If you believe you are actually “getting what you want,” you will take on a non-learner stance — there is no need for learning, things are fine, nothing needs to change. If, however, you believe you are not getting what you want, but you don’t want to do something about that discrepancy, then you will, likewise, take on the non-learner stance.

If you believe that you are not getting what you want and you decide that you will do something about it, your next choice is “What will you try to change?” If you attempt to change someone or something else (focus on the circumstances), you are living out of the knower stance, and if you attempt to change yourself (focus on improving your ability to respond), you are living out of the learner stance.

For example, let’s say you become aware that your accounting practices are peppered with errors rather than being the pristine example of proper accounting you thought they were. You are now faced with a choice. How will you address what is happening? If you focus attention on someone or something else, such as why no one ever told you this before, or how you had received poor training in accounting, or how this was fine at the place you used to work, then you are taking a knower stance. On the other hand, if you focus attention on yourself, such as feeling stuck in a rut, or not staying up-to-date on the latest techniques, or lacking passion for doing accounting in the first place, then you are choosing a learner stance. You can tell whether people have taken a learner stance or a knower stance based on where they primarily focus their attention (this is illustrated by the two vertical lines in “A New View of Learning”). If they persistently focus their attention on changing someone or something else, they are living from the knower stance; if they persistently focus on changing themselves, then they have taken a learner stance.

Results

In baseball, home plate is the most important place on the diamond. A run is scored when a player rounds the bases and touches home plate, and not before. It is the central focus of the action—the ball must always be thrown to it or hit from it.

Likewise, achievement of results is the home plate of learning. All learning must be directed to achievement of results or emerge from it. There is no learning without achieving desired results. As illustrated at the top of “A New View of Learning,” results occur through the interaction of (1) the challenge or circumstances we face and (2) our ability to successfully respond to the challenge. When our ability to respond is greater than the challenge itself, then results will be positive; and when the challenge is greater than our ability to respond, we will get negative results.

Let’s bring the baseball analogy a little further. Think of the pitcher as the circumstances or challenges you must face, and think of yourself, and your ability to respond, as the batter. The pitcher hurls challenge after challenge at you. If your ability to respond is greater than the circumstances, you will hit the ball, but if the circumstances are greater than your ability to respond, you will miss the ball or watch it fly past.

The most effective people are always increasing their ability to respond to the changes and challenges they face, and thereby keeping the ratio of “challenge” to “ability to respond” tilted in their favor. On the other hand, when faced with challenging circumstances, less effective people focus their attention on the circumstances rather than increasing their ability to respond. So they blame the circumstances, avoid the circumstances, cover up the circumstances, deny that the circumstances are as bad as they seem, or blame someone or something else for the circumstances.

As an effective baseball player, you would continually seek to increase your ability to hit the ball, no matter who the pitcher is or what type of pitch he is throwing. If you began to frequently strike out, you would focus on your inability to respond and ask, “What part of my hitting needs to improve in order to hit what is being pitched to me?” As an ineffective player, frequently striking out, you would start to question the circumstances (e.g., the umpire isn’t fair; the sun is in my eyes; at least I haven’t struck out as many times as Carlos; I’ve got the wrong bat; etc.) rather than your ability to respond (hitting ability).

You cannot achieve your desired results by focusing attention exclusively on the circumstances rather than on your ability to respond to those circumstances. It doesn’t make sense to ignore the circumstances, however, for they are part of the equation of effectiveness. In fact, you must explore and interact with them. But then you must redirect your energy toward developing the ability to respond successfully to those circumstances.

Learning begins and ends with achievement of desired results. You cannot know whether you have actually learned anything unless and until you compare the results you are getting with those that you desire to achieve.

Five Core Learning Practices

As you become more skillful at catching yourself reacting from the knower stance and, simultaneously, desiring to live more out of the learner stance, you will recognize a need to develop your learning muscles, or your capacity for learning. In order to do so, you will need to practice five fundamental learning disciplines (as Peter Senge described in The Fifth Discipline) — personal mastery, shared vision, mental models, systems thinking, and team learning. As you develop your learning muscles in each of the five disciplines, you will progress along five continuums from a “knower” to a “learner” (illustrated by horizontal arrows in “A New View of Learning”).

As you practice the disciplines, there is a developmental process — a progression away from knower behaviors toward learner behaviors. While there is some risk of labeling people by using such words as “knower” and “learner,” these terms are used in this context as convenient handles to suggest a contrast between “where we are” in our learning journey and “where we want to end up.” You might think of them like those “before” and “after” photographs often used in weight-loss advertisements. You don’t have much of an appreciation for the “after” picture unless it’s contrasted with the “before” picture. Likewise, you don’t much appreciate what it takes to become a learner unless it’s contrasted with living like a knower. This framework is meant to imply that you cannot stay the same and remain effective in your life.

There are many, many learning practices that you can use, including meditation, reading, intuition, reflection, suspending assumptions, dialogue, intention, team-building, productive conversations, and so on. The five learning disciplines that are explored here are not the exclusive practices that you need to master to get to learning “heaven.” Instead, consider them the core disciplines (along with any associated tools, techniques, or practices) that will help you develop your capacity for deeper and richer learning. Many of the learning practices would serve to enhance and build capacity for progressing along one or more of the learning discipline continuums.

Personal Mastery — If you have transitioned from knower to learner along the personal mastery continuum, you will have felt an internal shift from external pressure to internal desire. Formerly, you reacted to external pressures and expectations defined for you by someone or something else, but now you experience an intense internal desire to create the results you truly want in your life. You have developed the ability to bring something new into existence.

Shared Vision — As an advanced practitioner of shared vision, you have shifted from controlling group interactions with a goal of getting compliance from the members to facilitating mutual commitment. You have developed the ability to co-create collective aspiration.

Mental Models — As someone operating from the learner end of the mental models continuum, you have given up defending yourself during conversations using “protection mode” and now embrace self-exploration using “reflection mode.” You have a well-developed ability to distinguish between “myself” and “my view.”

Systems Thinking — An experienced practitioner of systems thinking, you have shifted your perspective from focusing exclusively on “my part” to focusing on “the whole.” You have a well-developed ability to see your role in the whole.

Team Learning — As you have moved from knower to learner along the team learning continuum, you have shifted from directing and debating during group conversations to having group conversations focused on mutual learning. You have a well-developed ability to generate collective insight.

Living As a Learner

The ultimate aim of this article is to help you live your life as a learner, both individually and collectively. Living an effective life — whether it is achieving your ultimate aim or swatting at little problems that annoy you — begins and ends with understanding how learning works. With this understanding, you are in a position to make critical choices. Do you want to take actions based on a knower stance or based on a learner stance? If you see yourself avoiding, covering up, or denying the circumstances or blaming someone or something else for the circumstances, you know you are living from the knower stance. If you see yourself taking actions designed to change someone or something else, without first focusing on changing yourself, you will, again, recognize that you are mired in the knower stance. If you see yourself creating, reflecting, building commitment, seeing your role in the whole, and engaging in mutual learning, you will be aware that you are living from the learner stance.

Becoming aware, making choices, focusing on your ability to respond, and achieving your desired results — this is living your life as a learner.

Brian Hinken is the author of the newly released book, The Learner’s Path: Practices for Recovering Knowers (Pegasus Communications, 2007), from which this article was adapted. He serves as the Organizational Development Facilitator at Gerber Memorial Health Services, a progressive rural hospital in Fremont, MI. Brian is responsible for leadership development, process facilitation, and making organizational learning practically useful for people at all levels of the organization.

The post How Learning Works appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

There is an enormous amount of writing available on the subject of innovation for business leaders. This article attempts to simplify much of these writings in what might be called “The Agenda for Senior Leadership Teams.” Think of it as five bases — miss any one of them and “you’re out!”

1. Skills and Abilities People generally consider this base first, often focusing on innovation as a function of creativity, skills, and techniques, e.g., “make my people more creative and innovative.” But this definition needs to be broadened to include other essential skill categories.

The first is Technical/Scientific. If you are in the biotech industry, you need biologists and geneticists. If you manufacture jet engines, you need mechanical engineers and metallurgists. This would seem like common sense, but without these talents, a business cannot compete in the game.

A less obvious category is what might be termed Temperament or Inclination. Everyone knows that for successful innovation you need idea generators, the kind of people who are always thinking up new things. However, there are a few other skill sets to keep in mind as well. Some of your people must be the entrepreneurs, whose attitudes and skills drive things to the market. You also need early-stage managers, since not all entrepreneurs are good at planning, organizing, budgeting, and managing people. Also important are executive sponsors to support and “fly air cover” for innovators whose disruptive effects often trigger organization-stabilizing mechanisms that seek to quash the causes of disequilibrium. Organizations often fail to recognize the variety of temperaments that are necessary, and generally don’t plan and organize very well according to the skills they do have.

One company I worked with a few years back had ideas bubbling out all over the place. Management had challenged the company to think out of the box and had placed direct lines through which employees could send their ideas to senior staff. The organization responded as directed. Senior leaders sifted through the ideas and suggestions as they had promised and ordered the implementation of many of them. When the change was an improvement to something already in place, it was generally successful, but when it involved doing something new, it wasn’t. Projects and new product ideas would get started and then stall. Why?

Often it turned out that the person who had the initial idea did not have the internal drive to surmount obstacles, even with the support of senior management. In a few cases, innovation failed even after a forceful implementer had proved the product’s market acceptance and built high energy around the new project simply because of a lack of basic political and management skills. With a bit of rethinking, senior management began to staff their ventures with people whose temperament was appropriate to each project’s stage of development. The company’s innovation efforts became categorically more successful.

Individual Creativity, Skill, and Technique are necessary for both working alone and in groups. Team leaders often begin innovation efforts by looking at themselves, thinking that if they as an individual become more creative, these skills will somehow translate to their team. Though seductive in logic, this doesn’t often work. Fortunately, there are many resources available on developing these capabilities. Volumes have been written on the acquisition of creativity skills, and adult education courses on the subject abound. Organizational development consultants can be cost effective, and some large consulting companies have years of experience and powerful techniques in the area. A web search will identify many of these resources.

2. The Business Imperative

This is probably the most important and, in my experience, under addressed base. Given that many businesses are up against the wall trying to get improvement through means with which they’re already familiar, it’s reasonable that they would turn to … drum roll and flourish … innovation. But it does seem that becoming innovative — essentially out of desperation or as a last resort — doesn’t work. A strategic vision is necessary in which innovation is a must have, not a nice to have. Otherwise innovation is just another initiative du jour. The financials must confirm the necessity and show that you will not be successful in the long term without innovation. Without strategic logic, the imperative is experienced as “be innovative because we (senior management) say so.” To illustrate the point, think of the innovative firms you know. Don’t they view innovation as vital?

In establishing and articulating this imperative, managers must be explicit, because the territory is generally unfamiliar. The strategic rationale must break through the prevailing mental models throughout the organization, and the company’s self-image must change. Despite effort over the past 20 years, I’ve had limited success in getting my clients to make this shift, but when I have, the results have been extraordinary. Properly placing the role of innovation in a firm’s strategy is paramount. Some strategy consulting firms have been effective with this task.

3. Innovation Processes, Systems, and Structures

The backbone of the classic process for new product innovation begins with the marriage of a market need with a technical solution and ends with stable manufacturing and profitable sales. Many firms haven’t formalized this process. There are often weak or broken links; in many cases, these shortcomings are so burdensome that they kill off any innovation before it can flourish. Other types of innovation, for example creating and implementing a new manufacturing line, require different processes, many of which may be absent or significantly flawed. In most areas in which you want to foster innovation, there are one or more associated processes suited to obtaining those goals. If these processes are flawed, broken, or absent, you either won’t get innovation, or you will be stuck getting it the hard way. With current pressures, most people understandably don’t have the appetite for undertaking something that is recognizably hard and thus personally risky.

Sound organizational systems and designs are also essential for innovation. There are no universally effective designs; instead, there are those specific to the organization, industry, or technology. For example, in some industries, it is better to separate basic research from product development; in others, it is better to integrate the two. Some organizations set up standing committees to drive innovation, while others do not do so and are equally successful. What works in one organization is laughed at by another, and both can be correct. Beneath all these examples there remains one simple point: Poor design can cripple or kill innovation.

Soft structures are as important as the hard ones. One example would be a compensation system that penalizes people for risk taking; another would be social norms that discourage collaboration between marketing and technology. The list is endless, and while you need to create new structures, more often than not you also need to either alter or destroy the old ones.

With each of these three areas, there are no panaceas or rote steps to take, but with awareness of what they impact and some careful thought, the right approaches can be uncovered and put into place.

Taking Stock of the Second and Third Bases

If innovation has not been strategic for you in the past, it’s reasonable to suspect that your existing structures and processes are not optimal for that purpose. If your strategy or environment has changed, what once enabled innovation might not be what’s needed now. Most firms benefit by doing an assessment of the current strategy and the nature of the innovation requirement. Does that requirement meet the criteria in Base 2 above? Are all the innovation processes present and functioning? Are the required structures sound? Once the assessment is complete, the holes below the waterline will be revealed. It becomes straightforward to monetize the costs and implied benefits of change, and then prioritize and identify the appropriate next steps.

If you address the first three bases, you will innovate more, but you will not necessarily be innovative. Without covering the remaining two bases, innovation will require a great deal of effort, and you will fail more frequently than you need to. To play at the top of your game, you also need a Mindset and Culture that welcome innovation and leadership.

4. Mindset and Culture

Senior management can successfully direct subordinates to behave in more innovative ways and consequently see positive results. But while behavior will change, there is a big difference between what I call “doing innovation” and “being innovative.” The innovative individual is curious about what is going on and whether it can be improved. When a new idea dawns, the innovator takes the first steps to test it. It is much the same for an innovative organization. People are on the lookout for ways of improving, and when they discover them, they take those ideas to the next level for testing. If they hold up, mechanisms are in place to carry them further.

Motivation and energy are critical for innovation. An individual or organization can do things in reaction or response to the circumstances faced; Robert Fritz has termed this the “reactive/responsive orientation.” The source of energy comes from “outside,” whether it is management directive, the market, or customers, and generally aims to get rid of the undesired circumstance. The other form of motivation is generative; it is termed “the creative orientation” by Fritz and “intrinsic motivation” by W. Edwards Deming, among others. Intrinsically motivated people do what they do because they want to and because they actually care.

The creative orientation seeks to bring what is wanted into existence; the reactive/responsive orientation seeks to drive the unwanted out of existence. These approaches differ in essential ways. The problem with the reactive orientation is that action ceases when the pressure of circumstance is removed. For example, when business improves, management switches attention to something else. This is not the case in the creative orientation, wherein energy and action are sustained. Shifting from the reactive/responsive to the creative orientation is critical. It is the basis for being innovative.

The second critical shift is forming the new habit of generating “fresh thought” rather than using “memory thought.” Much of our thinking is reviewing, reusing, and rethinking thoughts we’ve already had before; I term this “memory thought.” Much of our education has been oriented to memorizing — absorbing facts and methods so that they can be recalled and applied when new problems are encountered. Memory thought is habitual for most of us and for most organizations; it can be useful when the answer to the new problem is already known or when it can be discovered by a known method using known facts.

The alternative is what might be termed “fresh thought,” namely an idea or thought you’ve never had before—a thought that is new for you, the thinker, even though others may have had it before. High-quality fresh thought is associated with new ideas, insights, and solutions that work, but even when it does occur, this type of thinking is less frequent, less noticed, and generally drowned out by memory thought. Being innovative requires forming the organizational habit of fresh thought and legitimizing, encouraging, and supporting it.

5. Leadership

There are at least six mandates for any executive team that wants to promote the shift to being innovative. They all point to elements of being leaders, not just adopting leadership behavior.

First, be clear in your own minds about what being innovative would look like in your organization. How would you know it if you achieved it? Then be prepared to set out this vision for others to see and discuss.

Second, ensure that all of the five bases are covered (see “Looking at the Bases Together”). Do an honest assessment of the current reality in each of the areas. This evaluation will help you develop a blueprint, which you must use to plan and lead organizational change.

Third, articulate the connection between becoming innovative and the business imperative clearly, relentlessly, and at every opportunity. If history is any sort of teacher, you cannot overdo this.

Fourth, remember that executives don’t have to be the idea generators; they shouldn’t be the early-stage managers; and it’s generally dangerous for them to be the entrepreneurs. One or more (though certainly not all) executives need to develop the abilities of executive sponsors. Which of you will step up to the plate and become skilled in this area?

Fifth, manifest the mindset shift from the reactive to the creative and from memory thought to fresh thought. You yourselves must be the change you wish to see; only by doing so will you evoke it in your subordinates. Then you can figure out how to propagate these shifts more deeply in your organization.

Sixth, it is particularly powerful for the executive team to become accustomed to “insisting on the impossible,” a phrase originally ascribed to Edwin Land (of Polaroid fame) but which probably applies to all executives who have successfully driven repeated innovation. Your job, first and foremost, is to define what must be created (no matter how impossible it may seem at first), and then to let your organization rise to the occasion and meet the challenge. This precept is every bit as applicable to becoming innovative as it is to an individual project.

Becoming more innovative is itself an innovation, an ongoing creative act at an organizational level. It is a process of creating and refining, creating and refining, with which you are never done. Your attention will naturally and continually shift from one base to another, each time discovering new things that need attention and each time stepping off from the progress you have made in the past.

Charlie Kiefer founded Innovation Associates in 1976. Early on, the firm focused predominantly on high-performing teams for innovation and leadership. Later, it pioneered the field of learning organizations through publication of IA co-founder Peter Senge’s bestselling The Fifth Discipline. Over the course of nearly 30 years, Charlie has developed extensive experience and capability in executive team development, leadership, learning-based organizational change, and shifting mindset and culture. His new firm is Insight Management Partners.

The post Leading Innovation: A Five-base Game appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Action-to-outcome maps (ATOMs), a systems thinking technique developed by Andrew Jones and Don Seville (see “Action-to-Outcome Mapping: Testing Strategy with Systems Thinking” in The Systems Thinker, Vol. 14, No. 2), are useful for handling causality in policy analysis. But impact assessment professionals have been reluctant to use systems thinking tools. Through research, we have documented how practitioners can employ ATOMS to integrate transparent and communicable causal thinking in impact assessment. This article reviews several types of ATOMs, explores their suitability for impact assessment, and presents some illustrations from applications.

Assessing Impact in Proposals

Development proposals range from the operational level, with individual executable projects such as motorways or power stations, to the strategic level, with national or international policy such as land-use plans or climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Accordingly, there are various types of impact assessment, including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA), and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The general methodology of impact assessment has been developed and practiced for almost 40 years; the International Association for Impact Assessment, which monitors such practice, has existed for almost three decades.

The typical impact assessment function includes the study of the proposed action, forecast and assessment of the impacts, and proposal for mitigation of the significant adverse impacts. In recent work, we have come to formalize that any analysis of a development proposal for impact assessment purposes must contain four key semantics categories:

System Elements. This is who and what is involved. System elements can be ecosystem components (humans, forest, atmosphere), the actors (construction team, operation team), or the new developments (power station, highway). System elements are usually explicit, but sometimes merely implied.

Action. This is the proposed action. In a proposal, action is expressed by the main “action verbs” (build, operate), and explicitly or implicitly associated to the actors.

Causality. This is how the proposed action will induce certain changes. Causality is expressed by cause-and-effect relationships between system elements; in writing, for instance, causality can be expressed by special verbs (“to cause”).

Impacts or Effects. This is what happens because of the proposed action. Impacts or effects are changes in system elements, such as increase or decrease in magnitude (of noise, of biodiversity).

Representing Causality

The fundamental premise of an impact assessment is a causality statement: the development action causes these impacts. At the operational level of impact assessment — for instance, in Environmental Impact Assessment —  causality is concerned with the way impacts arise from the actions of a proposal, directly or indirectly. Impact assessment at the strategic level — for instance in Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal  — examines the proposals more than the impacts themselves. For instance, compatibility among the objectives becomes an issue, as the interests are likely to be multiple and diverse.

Impact assessment literature does recognize causality as important, and some recommends ways to represent cause-and-effect relationships — although most of these publications are already old. The updating of this literature is difficult without enough examples from practice, as causal thinking is not commonly present in technical reports of impact assessment. With scarce practice and an outdated literature, few are taking the risk or the time to include causality in impact assessment.

Because causality is one of its main concerns, systems thinking has a considerable application potential in impact assessment. Concretely, action-to-outcome maps (ATOMs) of various types are capable of showing explicitly how project action is conceived and assembled to reach its objectives (strategic interest), as well as how it is believed to cause its likely impacts (operational interest).

The first need of impact assessment regarding causality is mostly noted at the operational level, in Environmental Impact Assessment. In a typical impact assessment text, the likely impacts are referred to or simply listed, so causality is not clearly established or demonstrated. Where impact matrices are used, it is easier to tell which actions cause which impacts and vice versa — which impacts arise from each action. However, matrices are not good with cumulative impacts (such as indirect impacts, synergistic effects, additive effects) and cannot show pathways of cause-effect.

Impact assessment of higher-tier proposals, such as plans and programs, may not require very detailed information about impacts. At the strategic level, causality involves the internal qualities of the proposals, such as their coherence and completeness. To date, this concern manifests itself mainly through compatibility matrices, which juxtapose the proposal’s objectives in order to expose any conflicts. In addition to the compatibility concern, other causality issues on the action side may include the nexus between objectives and action, logical gaps, dead-ends, and island effects (for instance, isolated objectives or action).

Review of Systems Thinking Tools

In the past, we have tried to apply standard diagramming techniques from systems thinking, such as causal loop diagrams (CLD) and stock and flow diagrams (SFD), to satisfy the causality needs of impact assessment both at the operational and the strategic level. These techniques have proven unpopular among specialist colleagues. At informal talks in meetings of the International Association of Impact Assessment, some practitioners have reported that they “have tried [SFDs] with no particular success”; others, more practical, urge to “keep it simple”; some complain that [CLDs] are “too technical”; and strong skeptics admit that they “don’t see the importance of all this.”

SIMULATION ATOM

Simulation ATOMs look like CLDs, but instead of relative effects (or relationship types) they show likely effects—i.e., the results of a simulation.

Causal Loop Diagrams. In particular, causal loop diagrams contain rich and useful information about the causal relationships, and can also help determine and label feedback loops. However, CLDs appear to deter many impact assessment professionals because of the “+/− or “s/o” (, “same”/ “opposite”) symbols next to the arrowheads, and the “balancing” and “reinforcing” labeling of the feedback loops. After experimenting with CLDs, we saw that the impact assessment professionals were right to complain, not because CLDs were “too technical” or “too complicated,” but because they do not give them what they want to know — impacts. The types of relationships within pairs of variables shown in CLDs are in essence relative impacts; that is, when a relationship between A and B is marked as “s,” an increase in A will produce an increase in B, and/or a decrease in A will produce a decrease in B. What impact assessment professionals really want to see are the likely impacts — that is, what is likely to happen to B in this case—will it increase or decrease? This kind of analysis is difficult to depict with CLDs.

Stock and Flow Diagrams. Environmental impact studies occasionally include numerical simulation on things such as noise, air pollution, and water pollution. Even though we have not come across numerical simulation methods based on stock and flow diagrams in Environmental Impact Statements, SFDs could very well be used in advanced forecasting. But they would not appear in the main body of the EIS, where everything must be kept accessible to all readers.

Impact assessment professionals generally have strong negative reactions to experimentations with stock and flow diagrams. This may be because they are made up of special shapes like rectangles, flows, arrows, and clouds. Also, although stocks and flows can provide numerical forecasts, impact assessment professionals don’t view that capacity favorably, perhaps because they are used to working with other tools.

Action-to-Outcome Maps.The causality diagrams that have occasionally appeared in technical reports of EIAs and SEA/SAs are quite informal when contrasted with CLDs and SFDs. Such informal diagrams typically employ text boxes and arrows. The arrows indicate causal links more or less as in CLDs, while the boxed text may be as simple as mere system elements (such as “water quality”) or events (such as “reduction in willingness to use alternatives”). What we call Element ATOMs are like CLDs, and their simplicity in content helps practitioners to clearly see what is involved in the system. Event ATOMs tell stories in a user-friendly, step-by-step, “if-then” fashion, making them particularly good for transcribing plans and programs into diagrammatic form.

To serve the causality needs of impact assessment at both the strategic and operational levels, we devised a new systems thinking tool specially made for impact assessment: simulation ATOMs (see “Simulation ATOM”). Simulation ATOMs are designed to present simulation results — that is, likely impacts — for impact assessment purposes. To keep them simple and accessible, we create simulation ATOMs in open-source vector diagramming software (OpenOffice.org Draw). The simulation is qualitative and “manual” — that is, created by hand — as opposed to the typical numerical/automated simulation produced by software based on stocks and flows.

From the previous section, we distinguish four types of ATOMs suitable for use in impact assessment (see “ATOM Types and Functions”):

Event ATOMs. They contain a combination of system elements and action, using regular expressions; they tell a story easily and understandably with “if-then” statements; historically, they have appeared as informal diagrams in SEA/SAs; they are valuable in transcribing policy from text to diagrams.

Element ATOMs. They contain system elements and their basic links (typically as unmarked arrows); they are useful for studying what is involved in a system (related to a story); historically, they have been used as incomplete or “draft” versions of CLDs; being free of scenarios, they can be used to define objectives and seek alternative action; they can be formed by abstracting “if-then” ATOMs, removing any policy element.

Structure ATOMs. They contain system elements and their basic links, plus relation symbols (s/o), feedback, delays, etc.; they are useful for studying what is involved in a story and in which functional way (system structure and function); historically, they have been the typical, all-purpose CLDs.

Simulation ATOMs. They contain system elements and action, plus simulation results; they are useful for presenting simulation results, such as impacts; they tell a complete story; they are a new type of ATOM, for the purposes of EIA and related applications; during simulation, it is easy to capture faults in thought such as dead-ends, isolated action or objectives (islands), inefficient or fragile long-winded paths, and logic errors.

Since there are various types of ATOMs to serve different purposes, each one should include an explanatory key (see “Explanatory Key”).

Application Examples

Operational Level. We created three ATOMs based on an Environmental Impact Statement of a single project in a European Union member state in the 1990s. Two types of ATOMs helped to discover information faults in the EIS, which could have been avoided or corrected at a pre-production stage.

We first transcribed the EIS information into the simplest form of ATOMs: an element ATOM. Because the document used verbs such as “causes,” causality was almost always unambiguous, but sometimes information was missing about certain causal relationships. The information provided in the EIS was mainly about the likely impacts, so we proceeded to create the simulation ATOM. The impacts in the causal relationships were typically reported as “increase” or “decrease,” but sometimes impacts were reported merely as a “change.”

From the described behavior in the simulation ATOM, we discovered the types of causal relationships in the system. Although we were able to identify some feedback loops, most of them could not be labeled because some information was missing — for instance, one of the causal relationships in the loop was not possible to identify because there was uncertainty in the impact. In this case, we did not create an event ATOM because the information in the EIS was not presented in a suitable way, and the event ATOM would not add any new value to the analysis.

Strategic Level. In the case of a community development plan of a local authority of a European Union member state, all four types of ATOMs, in their own ways, helped to surface information faults that could have been avoided or corrected at a preproduction stage. We started by creating the event ATOM from the text of the plan. Since the plan contained complete information about objectives, targets, guidelines, and action, we were then able to produce an element ATOM, discover the structure ATOM, and finally create a simulation ATOM from the plan’s single action scenario. The four ATOMs gave various indications that the plan was not yet ready for implementation. For instance, some guidelines were “islands,” not being connected to anything else (for example, guideline 4h: cater for the ageing and less mobile citizens). Some actions were missing between guidelines and goals (for example, guideline 4g: promote safe housing → [new action: upgrade safety in existing housing] → goal 4g: raise standard in housing safety). Finally, some goals could be confused as action, since they contained “action verbs” (for example, goal 4g: raise standard in housing safety). “Sample ATOMS” illustrates a section of two ATOMs from this case study.

Discussion and Conclusion

Systems thinking makes a valuable contribution to the handling of causality for impact assessment through four types of qualitative action-to-outcome maps. Event ATOMS are useful for transcribing plans and programs, telling a simple story, and catching basic mistakes in the conception of strategy; however, they are insufficient for finer detail in the exploration of strategy, or simulating and presenting impacts. Element ATOMs are essential for clarifying the picture painted by event ATOMs, and also for discovering and marking the roles of the system elements. Structure ATOMs (classic CLDs) aid in exploring how the system works, which is necessary for the refinement of the proposed action. Finally, simulation ATOMs (a new type of systems thinking diagram) tell a story much better than event ATOMs, catch finer mistakes in the conception of strategy, and present qualitative forecasts suitably for the needs of impact assessment. Whether in training or production circumstances, all ATOMs—and especially simulation ATOMs—offer value to the impact assessment process and to the professionals involved.

Anastássios Perdicoúlis (tasso@utad.pt) is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development and Assistant Professor at the Universide de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro in Portugal. John Glasson (jglasson@brookes.ac.uk) is Professor of Environmental Planning at the School of the Built Environment and Co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development.

The post Action-to-Outcome Maps in Impact Assessment appeared first on The Systems Thinker.