Despite many efforts, walls persist in our organizations as well — often in exaggerated proportions. The logic seems to be “if a waist-high wall is good, a ten-foot one is even better, and if there are any chinks in the wall we should reinforce them with steel beams.” The end result; organizational gridlock. Each “neighbor” is behind his or her wall, laying more brick and mortar until both are locked away in his or her own functional chimney. An “us versus them” mentality quickly develops and begins to govern every interaction. Tremendous organizational energy is wasted fighting our way through the obstructions. And yet, although no one seems to like the result, gridlock still persists.

Functional Walls

Gridlock may even increase as the couplings between different parts of an organization grow tighter and tighter. Imagine a mesh of beads woven together like a fish net. You can pick up one of the beads without disturbing any of the other beads until the slack is gone. Then every movement of that bead affects the four other beads directly connected to it. If you pull further and eliminate the slack between the next level of beads, your movement now affects twelve beads, and so on.

The current corporate trend toward delayering is analogous to pulling on the beads to continually eliminate the slack in the system. As slack is removed, the interdependencies grow in importance. Gridlock results when each bead continues to move as if it were independent of everyone else — each pulling in a different direction, keeping everyone at a standstill. Therefore, as the coupling tightens, our need for a systemic understanding of the consequences of our actions increases. Before we can work effectively to break through the gridlock, however, we need to first be able so see the “systemness” of our organization.

Breaking through Gridlock

Oftentimes, gridlock can be caused by interlocking “Shifting the Burden” structures. In “Shifting the Burden,” a problem is “solved” by applying a symptomatic solution that diverts attention away from more fundamental solutions (see “Shifting the Burden: The ‘Helen Keller’ Loops,” September 1990). When the symptomatic solution creates another problem, prompting further symptomatic solutions, the double “Shifting the Burden” pattern that results can spawn a whole maze of interlocking problems. In the process, the organization’s ability to fundamentally resolve the problem atrophies.

The “Shifting the Burden” archetype provides a starting point for breaking gridlock by identifying chains of problem symptoms and solutions that form or maintain walls between functions, departments, or divisions. In a car product development program, for example, gridlock can occur when each of the component or subsystem teams want to optimize their own area without considering the effect on others.

Below is a seven-step process for identifying the “Shifting the Burden” structures that can become interlocked and produce gridlock. By mapping out these structures, you can build a shared understanding about the issue and identify leverage points for action.

1. Identify the Original Problem

Symptom When identifying a problem symptom, try not to focus just on a single event. Instead, try looking back over a period of time and identifying a class of symptoms that have been recurring. For example, in the car product development setting, problem symptoms might be missing specifications, wrong part numbers, and incompatible parts — all of which may fall under a more general heading of “coordination problems.”

2. Map All fixes’

Next, try to map out all the fixes that have been used to tackle the identified problem. The objective is to identify a set of balancing loops that appear to be keeping the problems under control. For example, in the car product development effort, a Noise, Vibration, and Harshness (NVH) team encounters a noise problem and fixes it by adding reinforcements to the car, which solves the original problem (loop BI in “Inter-locked Quick Fixes” diagram).

3. Identify Impart on Others

Solutions aren’t implemented in isolation, however. Actions taken by one group almost always affect others in the organization. The persistence of gridlock suggests the presence of a reinforcing process that is locking the different players into a patterned response.

In our example, NVH’s fix for the noise problem increases the car’s weight and presents a problem for the chassis team. Chassis, in turn, “fixes” their problem by increasing the tire pressure (B2), which worsens the harshness and leads to another NVH problem. Another round of NVH quick fixes lead to another round of chassis quick fixes in a vicious reinforcing spiral (RI ).

4. Identify Fundamental Solutions

Having identified the other player(s) who are affected by your fixes, you need to identify a solution that will more fundamentally address the problem(s) by looking at the situation from both perspectives and finding a systemic solution.

A fundamental solution for NVH and Chassis might he to improve the quality and frequency of communication between the two groups so potential problems can be highlighted early and tackled together (B4 and 85 in “Organizational Gridlock” diagram).

5. Map Side Effects of Quick Fixes

Remember, in a “Shifting the Burden” structure there are usually side effects of the quick fixes that steadily undermine the usability of the fundamental solution, leading to a reinforcing spiral of dependency. In our product development example, the fixes may lead each team to focus more and more on meeting their own timing targets, which leads them to invest even less in cross-team communication (R6 and R7).

Organizational Gridlock

Quick fixes applied by each team create an interaction effect that leads to an increasing unwillingness to communicate with the each other. The “US versus them’ mentality appears and then becomes entrenched through these reinforcing loops (RR and R9).

6. Find Interconnections to Fundamental Loops

Side effects can lead to myopia, but they usually are not enough to create organizational gridlock. Finding links between the interaction effects and the fundamental solution (see ‘Organizational Gridlock” diagram) can identify some reasons why functional walls grow thicker and higher over time. In our example, the interaction effects (e.g., reinforcements leading to an added weight problem for chassis) lead to an increasing unwillingness to communicate with the other team. The “us versus them” mentality appears and then becomes entrenched through these reinforcing loops (R8 and R9).

7. Identify Nigh Leverage Actions

When you are in the middle of gridlock, it is difficult to see exactly where you are or how to get out. But, if you are able to get a bird’s-eye view, you can see the larger grid. For this reason, the process of mapping out a gridlocked situation can be a high-leverage action. It can stop the finger-pointing and blaming that often occurs in gridlock and provide a starting point for communicating across the walls.

Summary

“Shifting the Burden” structures are so ubiquitous that they have become part of our accepted landscape. Following the steps outlined above can help us become more aware of the structures that keep us building and mending walls that have long outlived their usefulness. Mapping out potential problems and interactions before they happen can prevent gridlock from occurring. As Frost suggests, “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out,/And to whom I was like to give offense.”

The post Using “Shifting the Burden” to Break Organizational Gridlock appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Helen Keller’s story is much more than an inspirational human interest story; it illustrates a pervasive dynamic that is rooted in an archetypal structure. The well-intentioned actions of her parents shifted the burden of responsibility for Helen’s welfare to them. Every problem or failure on Helen’s part brought the parents rushing to her aid. Helen learned that no matter what she did, her parents would accommodate her. And each incident reinforced her parents’ belief that she was indeed helpless. All three were caught in a system that was eroding Helen’s ability (and desire) to cope with the world and shifting the responsibility for her well-being to her parents.

The Structure

The basic structure of this archetype is shown in the diagram labeled “Shifting the Burden Template.” The archetype usually begins with a problem symptom that prompts someone to intervene and “solve” it. The solution (or solutions) that are obvious and immediately implementable usually relieve the problem symptom very quickly. But these symptomatic solutions have two specific negative effects. First, they divert attention away from the real or fundamental source of the problem. More subtly, symptomatic solutions cause the viability of the fundamental solution to deteriorate over time, reinforcing the perceived need for more of the symptomatic solution.

In the Helen Keller story, her parents’ intervention is the symptomatic solution, Helen’s failure to cope with real world is the problem symptom, the development of Helen’s own abilities to care for herself is the fundamental solution, and the side effect is that her parents assume increasing responsibility for her well-being. This particular type of shifting the burden structure, in which responsibility is shifted to a third party, is known as “Shifting the Burden to the Intervener.” Over time, the role of the intervener increases, until it becomes an essential part of the system. In Helen’s case, her parents’ actions reinforced the underdevelopment of her abilities and therefore strengthened their role as “protectors.”

Another very common side effect that occurs in “Shifting the Burden” situations is that the person may become “addicted” to the symptomatic solution. For example, a person who turns to alcohol or drugs to boost his self-esteem or help deal with stress may end up developing an alcohol or drug dependency.

Central vs. Local

The “Shifting the Burden” archetype and its variants — “Addiction” and “Shifting the Burden to the Intervener” — comprise perhaps the single most pervasive systems structure. The diagram labeled “Central Support vs. Branch Capability” illustrates a classic example of this dynamic.

A claims office in a local branch of a large insurance company is faced with a large, complex claim that requires more expertise than it possesses. The central office responds by sending out its corps of experts who take care of the complex claim while the branch office goes about its other, more routine business. Although the occurrence of large claims may be infrequent — making it hard to justify keeping such experts in every branch — over time the interventions can result in deteriorating branch capability.

The reason is that after a while, an implicit operating norm develops that says if a person wants to handle complex, technically challenging claims she has to either join the central office or move to a different firm. Gradually, the most talented people take either of the two options. Unless these people can be replaced by equally capable adjusters, the talent of the branch office gradually erodes, making it rely even more on central support. The cycle is reinforcing — as the central staff becomes better at intervening, the branch seeks their help more often.

Using the Archetype

Templates — causal loop diagrams that trace out generic dynamic structures — serve as a useful guide for mapping out archetypes. The basic “Shifting the Burden” Template serves as a starting point, but templates are not meant to be rigid structures in which we must “fit” a specific case. Tracing out the fundamental solution in the Central vs. Local situation, for example, requires more than a single variable — “Branch attempts to settle claims,” “Learning,” and “Branch ability” are all part of the fundamental solution.

In theory, any one of the four elements of the template — problem symptom, symptomatic solution, side effect, and fundamental solution — can help us identify a “Shifting the Burden” structure at work. Side effects, however, are usually very subtle and difficult to detect from inside the system. Solutions such as alcohol use, increased marketing, oil imports, or federal insurance are more readily identified, but there may not be complete agreement on whether they are “symptomatic” or “fundamental.” Identifying problem symptoms such as high stress, falling revenues, energy shortage, or bank failures (see “Table of Shifting the Burden Examples”) is probably the easiest way to begin filling out a “Shifting the Burden” template.

Keeping in mind that the “rightness” of a solution depends on one’s perspective, it can be helpful to ask whether we are seeing the situation from the parents’, Helen Keller’s, or Ann Sullivan’s point of view. Examining a problem or issue from these different viewpoints can help us understand why a “Shifting the Burden” archetype is operating and discover a solution that is fundamental, not symptomatic.

The post Shifting the Burden: The “Helen Keller” Loops appeared first on The Systems Thinker.