I had good teachers in organizational development, but none of them, except Chris Argyris, could articulate his or her practice theory. When I began to work with teams and organizations using Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline as a point of departure, I realized that the disciplines Senge describes are useful approaches, but that the approach lacked a practice theory — I couldn’t tell which discipline to use when. So, I took some bits and pieces of ideas from colleagues and I made one up. And since I’m a visual person, it’s a practice theory as a picture (see “The Learning Action Matrix”). I call it the Learning Action Matrix, though the name isn’t important.

What is important is that the Learning Action Matrix knits Senge’s learning disciplines into a system that provides a logical “map” to guide practitioners through a process that produces real results and continuous learning. It helps identify where you are in any given process, suggests what to do at any given point, and indicates where to go next.

Learning Action Matrix

Level of Reasoning

The vertical axis “Levels of Reasoning” is borrowed from Daniel Kim’s “Vision Deployment Matrix” (see “Levels of Understanding” in The Systems Thinker, June/July 1993). His work, in turn, owes a debt to the “Iceberg Model” from Innovation Associates’ Systems Thinking curriculum.

What is a matrix? A matrix is a grid with different elements on the horizontal and vertical axes. Each cell combines the attributes of the vertical and horizontal axes to create a unique meaning.

The Learning Action Matrix is a five by four (5 x 4) grid. Let’s understand each axis of the grid, and then see what happens when we combine these axes into a matrix.

On the vertical axis is listed “Level of Reasoning.” Each of these five levels represents different ways of seeing, frames through which situations can be viewed at increasing levels of complexity. The more complexity that can be brought into the conversation, the more potential for change.

All of these levels are informed by vision. The key question at this level is “What do we want to create?” or, taken retrospectively, “What do we seem to be creating?” These aspirations, stated or unstated, exert a powerful influence on the events, patterns, systemic structures, and mental models working in any given situation. Systemic structures, in turn, are frequently held in place by mental models — assumptions that may be undiscussable theories on what constitutes quality, good service, or an acceptable return on investment. These “theories in use” may also treat interpersonal dynamics, for example, approaches toward conflict or the correct way to interact with senior leaders. Once a pattern has been identified and described, it is possible to document the systemic dynamics that maintain it. The level of systemic structures marks the boundary between what can be easily observed in the objective world (events and patterns) and what must be assessed, often laboriously, from the data (mental models and vision). Systemic dynamics are abstractions, but they stay close to the data. The causal loop language is an example of this kind of thinking. There is nothing wrong in understanding the world as a series of events. It’s just not a very high-leverage way to approach problems. Leverage begins with pattern recognition, with the basic insight that “this has happened before.” Most discussions begin at the events level, with some version of “this is what happened.” Discussions on this level usually assign a single cause to each effect: “This happened because that happened.” Listen to an explanation of stock market behavior on any given day for a good example of reasoning at the events level. The horizontal axis of the matrix describes a four-phase iterative learning cycle: observe, assess, develop, and implement.

Learning begins with observation

Learning begins with observation, with seeing what has occurred. An assessment or diagnosis is made about what one has observed — one develops a theory about what is going on. This theory influences the development of a response, which leads to the implementation of certain actions. These actions are observed, initiating a second trip through the cycle. When we combine the two axes described in the last section, we get the Learning Action Matrix (below).

Notice how the terms on the horizontal axis are verbs (“Observe”) and the terms on the vertical axis are nouns (“Events”). When we combine the two, we get a series of imperative sentences that we can group into four “Zones of Work.”

THE LEARNING ACTION MATRIX

The Learning Action Matrix knits the learning disciplines into a system that provides a logical “map” to guide practitioners through a process that produces real results and continuous learning.

The four zones on the matrix are:

• Zone 1:Observe Current Events and Patterns
• Zone 2:Assess Current Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision
• Zone 3:Develop New Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision
• Zone 4:Implement New Events and Patterns

The arrows in the Learning Action Matrix show the logical progression through the four zones.

Progressing Through the Zones

Learning begins with observing events and patterns (Zone 1).

People make assessments about the underlying structures that drive the behavior they have observed (Zone 2).

They then work to develop new structures, based on that assessment (Zone 3).

They implement the new patterns of behavior suggested from the changed structures (Zone 4) and observe the results of these actions, initiating a second iteration of the learning cycle.

While the boundaries between the zones are not hard and fast (rarely does a group say “O. K. — done with Zone 2; let’s move on to 3!”), the zones are helpful for a number of reasons: There are different kinds of work that one must to do integrate reflection and action, and the zones do a good job describing these differing kinds of work. Observing what is (Zone 1) is different from developing ideas about what could be (Zone 3). The differences are “different enough” to be useful.

Knowing where you are can help you get to where you want to go. If you’re leaping from seeing something (Zone 1) to doing something (Zone 4) without reflecting (Zones 3 and 4), chances are you’ll create unwanted conditions. The matrix helps to direct careful, learning-oriented work by suggesting what to do next.

Finally, the zones provide a way for groups to quickly self-assess what type of work they’re doing now. My clients use the vocabulary of the zones as “sound bites” to describe what they see themselves doing. It’s a vocabulary that carries over beyond my work with them, which I really like.

The work that takes place in the different zones is discussed in more detail below.

Zones 1 and 2 in Detail

Here’s a detailed tour through the first two zones of the matrix.

Zone 1: Observing Events and Patterns.

In Zone 1, team members observe and report on events in the workplace; they tell stories that focus on “what happened” in a given situation. These organizational war stories are like potato chips — no one can tell just one.

But to gain leverage, storytelling must move up the axis from “Observing Events” to “Observing Patterns.” Recognizing a pattern begins with the simple insight that “this has happened before.”

Having teams identify the patterns in their work is useful for lifting conversation out of the Events level.

For example, one group was considering rolling out an update to a product development method when I asked, “How do you usually do this, and what usually happens?” One member responded immediately that their pattern was to announce changes through a large meeting like the one they were planning, and that very little usually happened as a result. (Notice how this constitutes Zone 1 work of “Observing Patterns.”) Others laughed in agreement. The moment was an important one, as they realized the truth of the cliché “If we do what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we’ve always gotten.”

Many of the best tools for Zone 1 work come from Total Quality. Statistical process control, with it’s ability to distinguish normal from special variation, supports a rigorous analysis of production patterns. Group process practices like multi-voting and affinity diagramming make clear patterns of opinion that a group holds but cannot articulate. Stripped of its elaborate architecture, Process Reengineering reveals itself as a process of replacing one work pattern with another more rational one, here moving from Zone 1 of the matrix to Zone 4.

Zone 2: Assessing Current Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision.

Once group members have identified and described a pattern, they can begin to document the underlying systemic structure that maintains that pattern. This zone is usually the first one teams experiment with when they begin to practice the five disciplines. They try to draw causal loop diagrams to explain the patterns they identify and eagerly point out each other’s mental models. As individuals become more experienced in this practice, they recognize that they need to examine their own beliefs as well.

New practitioners frequently strive to create the “right” causal loop diagram to describe a pattern. More experienced practitioners learn to tolerate more complexity and thrive in the intricacies of contradiction. Eventually, deep and sustained work with causal loop diagramming and mental models leads to a vision-oriented understanding of “what we seem to be creating here.” Vision is the foundation for all of the levels below and exerts a powerful influence on the events, patterns, systemic structures, and mental models working in any given situation. The simple question “What do we seem to be creating here?” can often lead a group to state the obvious.

Loop B1 describes a balancing structure where pressure to improve leads to change initiatives, such as new teaching methods, sexuality education, anti-gang programs, and state-mandated curriculums. These initiatives lead to actual improvements and a perception that things are improving, but only after delays. Reinforcing loop R1 illustrates how new change initiatives actually increase impatience for improvements, which increases the pressure for improvements. R2 is a reinforcing loop, where each new initiative reduces the ability to focus on any single initiative, reducing the work and slowing the rate of actual improvement.

The group also identified mental models supporting a few of the key links in this system. These are indicated by the “thought bubbles” drifting off the links. In addition, they identified the highest level of “what we are creating here,” namely, a system in which the stereotype that schools resist change will lead to behavior (more and more initiatives), which will then reinforce this very perception.

I see groups working with “chaotic purpose” in this zone, jumping from working on causal loops to speculating on mental models to reflecting on the present culture (an “assessing vision” discussion) without resolving any of these issues. Teams in this zone, especially teams new to the disciplines, are like student archeologists wandering over an area they are convinced is an important historical site. The process of learning is iterative. They will need to dig in one spot several times before they become skilled enough to understand what’s there.

Zones 3 and 4 in Detail

Zone 3: Developing New Systemic Structures, Mental Models, and Vision.

While the work of Zone 2 is like an excavation, the work of Zone 3 is more creative, like the work of an architect or artist. Like all activities that relay on inspiration, it follows its own pace, oblivious to deadlines and urgency

Teams that skip this zone imperil their ability to implement in Zone 4. Without Zone 3 work, the actions of Zone 4 are just different versions of “what we’ve always done.” They have to be, because the team lacks the cognitive infrastructure (mental models), the causal infrastructure (systemic structures), and the aspiration (vision) to create anything else.

Teams sometimes begin work in Zone 3 by literally making something up that serves as a provisional vision of the way they want things to be. In fact, I find many groups already have reflected on their vision for the future, inspired by the fact that, as one manager told me, “Vision is hot right now.” However, their visions have remained castles in the air, with little hope of informing action directly. The development of new beliefs and systemic structures are needed to link these castles to the “ground” of Zone 4 implementation.

The work of Zone 2 is a necessary point of departure for the work of Zone 3, especially in the development of new systemic structures. These structures can be creatively recast by:

• Linking existing variables in a new way
• Breaking existing links between variables
• Reducing delays in the system. (Thanks to Innovation Associates for first putting this so clearly.)

Using these as redesign principles, groups can reconfigure the structures in which they find themselves.

Extending the example of the educators and their challenge managing change, let’s look at how this team developed a new systemic structure in response to their original loop (see “Zone 3 Loop and Its Strategies”). Their Zone 3 strategies are:

1. Break the link between “Impatience for Improvements” and “Pressure to Improve.”

2. Add a link between “Impatience for Improvements” and “Ability to Focus on Any One Initiative.”

3. Reduce the delays in B1 between “Change Initiatives” and “Actual Improvements” and between this variable and “Perception of Improvements.”

In Zone 4, they make these theoretical changes concrete.

Zone 4: Implementing New Events and Patterns.

Obviously, drawing or crossing out a link on paper changes nothing in the material world (other than the paper, of course). Zone 4 work demands that these paper changes be translated into actual actions.

For most groups, Zone 4 work is familiar territory. They are comfortable with the methods that make sense in this zone. After all, planning actions is what most traditional managers do most of the time. Especially useful are those simple methods that support team planning, such as making public commitments through action plans and accountability charting.

To return to our example, reducing the two delays in the balancing loop might involve some or all of the following actions:

In “Example of Zone 2 Work,” a group of public school administrators impatient with the pace of change in their schools built the above causal loop diagram to describe what they saw.

Reduce these delays

• Designing an initiative for early successes
• Improving something simple and visible early
• Starting work before announcing the initiative to have some successes in-hand (an old fund-raising trick)
• Lowering expectations regarding the speed of change

Obviously, the mental models identified in the original loop will need to be addressed along with the systemic dynamics. For example, the assumption that “In X weeks I should see some improvement. If not, something’s wrong” needs to yield to a belief more consistent with the actual pace of change.

The educators will need to determine how best to influence this belief, possibly choosing different approaches for different constituencies; i.e., one influences a governor differently than one influences a parents’ committee. In the case above, both constituencies will need to be influenced, since both are sources of change initiatives.

How might the educators accomplish their second strategy, breaking the link between “Impatience for Improvements” and “Pressure to Improve”?

A strategy might include:

• Testing whether or not people believe that the causal loop diagram makes sense, and then
• Seeking their agreement to shift their impatience to increasing the focus on present initiatives

This last point represents an implementation of the strategy “Add a link between ‘Impatience for Improvements’ and ‘Ability to Focus on Any One Initiative.’”

In addition, the educators could establish a pattern of having senior people visit the sites of present initiatives and publishing these visits in the school-system paper, along with statements that changes take time.

Typical Group Patterns

In moving through the four zones of work, groups often follow a similar developmental course as they becomes better able to integrate reflection (Zones 2 & 3) with action (Zones 1 & 4) in the service of learning and results.

Leaping to Action

Most teams initially move from Zone 1 directly to Zone 4 (see “Leaping to Action”). They see something happening (Observe) and they do something about it (Implement), without passing through the zones where they assess and develop new systemic structures, mental models, and vision.

Lost in Space As teams begin to learn the disciplines of organizational learning, they add Zone 2 work to their “Leaping to Action” habits, developing a “Zone 1/Zone 2/Zone 4” dance step, which one group called “Lost in Space” (see above).

Teams at this stage are able to use systems thinking and mental model disciplines to assess current reality in increasingly complex ways, yet they have difficulty using much of what they learn to implement new actions. They have usually learned just enough to see how the solutions they might have used in the past will not serve them in the long term, but have not learned enough to create new approaches. The result can be “analysis paralysis.”

Alternatively, when groups at this stage do take action, they can get into trouble. They haven’t yet developed the systemic structures or beliefs to underpin a desired future based on a new vision of what the team wants to create (Zone 3 work).

For example, one executive team I worked with used the matrix structure to redesign an organization. Working through Zones 1 and 2, they did a good job of describing current reality. However, once the outlines of a new organization began to emerge, they moved quickly to draw up the new pattern for the organization (Zone 4 work).

They presented this new organizational chart to their boss a few days later. Intrigued, he asked them to put some names on the positions on the chart. When they tried to assign the executive positions — their own slots — their agreement broke down, and part of the group went to the boss to retract the new design.

I now wonder what would have happened if they had developed a deeper understanding of the future they desired by working through Zone 3 in a disciplined manner, articulating the different beliefs they would have needed to function in this organization and developing the systemic structures to support these beliefs. At least, they might have confronted their own resistance to changing responsibilities.

Acknowledgments

As I mentioned earlier, the vertical axis “Levels of Reasoning” is borrowed from Daniel Kim’s “Vision Deployment Matrix” (see “Vision Deployment Matrix:A Framework for Large-Scale Change,” The Systems Thinker V6N1). His work, in turn, owes a debt to the “Iceberg Model” from Innovation Associates Systems Thinking curriculum, as do several other concepts from this article.

This piece benefited from early readings by Marty Castleberg, Peter Senge, and Janice Molloy. Several clients have advanced my understanding of how to apply the Matrix, most notably the Product Development Leadership and Learning Team at Harley-Davidson.

The post A Practice Theory for Organizational Learning appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Sometimes the mechanics of managing change overshadow relationships and compromise people’s dignity, respect, and trust. The manager in this vignette was insensitive to the needs of his employees. He was going to rush into informing them that they were losing their jobs and then send them immediately into a workshop about résumé writing.

Organizational change doesn’t have to happen this way. The betrayal people often experience is a result not of change itself but of how it is managed. Employees want to be a part of the process, not apart from the process. They want to hear the truth and have an opportunity to ask questions and become informed. How leaders manage change affects whether trust will be built or broken and desired outcomes achieved. Fortunately, most leaders are conscientious, trying to do the right thing in the face of all odds. How do they preserve or rebuild trust within their organizations, given the changing business landscape?

Change as Loss

People may experience change as a loss the loss of relationships with those laid off or the dissolution of the “family” company environment that once existed. They may resent that they are doing more work for the same pay with fewer benefits. Often the organization is no longer the same place employees “signed on for.”

In a world where everything is changing rapidly, many people who previously looked to their workplace as a source of stability now regard it as out of control. It frightens them.

Sometimes the mechanics of managing change overshadow relationships and compromise people’s dignity, respect, and trust.

On the other hand, the people initiating the changes often gain from them. If I am the one gaining, it can be hard for me to see how the other person loses. Many leaders are uncomfortable watching people experience the pain of change and are uncomfortable experiencing their own pain. They often consider this to be touchy feely stuff, not the stuff of “real business.” During times of change, leaders tend to retreat to the “hard side” of business for many reasons: It is where they are most comfortable, where their role is more tangibly defined, where they are skilled, and where they are the safest. But in their retreat to the safe side, they fail to honor themselves, their relationships, and the real needs of the people they serve. Their search for safety results in a betrayal of themselves, their role, and those they serve.

Such betrayal damages individuals, relationships, and performance. It robs people of their ability to believe in themselves and diminishes their capacity to contribute wholeheartedly to the organization. When people feel betrayed, they pull back. Morale declines, as does productivity.

Effective leaders acknowledge their employees’ feelings of fear and loss and work to restore their confidence. Otherwise, the betrayal continues, and people’s trust in their leaders and their organization further plummets. Survivors go into a state of resignation: They take fewer risks, blame others, go through the motions, and are not as productive as they once were. If employees have been burned before, they are less willing to give their all and come through when needed. If leaders do not deal with feelings of betrayal, they will unwittingly destroy two of the very qualities they need to be competitive: their employees’ trust and their performance.

Healing from Betrayal

Healing from betrayal — whether intentional or not begins when we observe and acknowledge that betrayal has occurred and that we understand its impact on others. As a leader, you can take certain actions that can have a positive impact on people, as outlined below. These seven steps will help you and others remain aware of the behaviors essential to healing and provide a common language and perspective that engages people in rebuilding trust (see “Seven Steps for Healing” from The Reina Trust & Betrayal Model®).

Step 1: Observe and Acknowledge What Has Happened

“Mr. Smith needs to effectively address the ‘pay package’ issue at the organizational level. If benefits or merit pay are going to be negatively affected, he needs to manage the message through an effective and timely information program. I think he underestimates the level of awareness and impact this change will have on employees.”

• Acknowledge the Negative Impact of Change. Aware leaders realize that employees are whole human beings with feelings. They know that people who do not feel supported in dealing with their feelings and concerns are less able to heal from their experience of betrayal. As a first step, these leaders acknowledge the potential downside of the change process.
• Start with Awareness. One of the greatest mistakes leaders make in challenging times is to assume that, once a major change has taken place, trust will return on its own. This view is both unrealistic and irresponsible. Similar to healing at the individual level, the next step to healing at the organizational level is awareness that trust has been eroded.
• Assess the Health of Your Organization. Leaders can learn a lot by observing and assessing the climate within the organization. Notice what your people are experiencing and acknowledge it. Pay attention to what is building and breaking trust. Find out what is important to people. Listen to what they are saying at the water cooler, in the break rooms, and on the shop floor. When witnessing anger, don’t just notice it; listen to it. Quite often, anger represents deeper feelings of hurt and disappointment. Remember, people in pain need to be listened to. They need someone they can trust to turn to for support and understanding. They need help to understand their own experience.
• Acknowledge Feelings. Effective leaders consciously acknowledge their employees’ feelings of frustration, disappointment, and betrayal. It is only after acknowledging the feelings of betrayal that leaders are able to respond to them. Leaders must work very hard not to get defensive or try to justify or rationalize what happened. They must remember that people are entitled to their feelings. It is the role of a leader to listen, observe, and acknowledge.

SEVEN STEPS FOR HEALING

These seven steps will help you and others remain aware of the behaviors essential to healing and provide a common language and perspective that engages people in rebuilding trust.

Step 2: Allow Feelings to Surface

“I don’t always feel heard — that I can address my concerns directly with certain managers and be taken seriously. It is important to me that I am able to do so. There are occasions when my supervisor has to address issues with a particular manager on my behalf, because I wasn’t deemed ‘important’ enough by him to talk to. This attitude discourages me and other employees from addressing serious concerns in the future.”

• Give People Permission to Express Their Concerns, Issues, and Feelings in a Constructive Manner. Create safe forums, staffed by skilled facilitators, that support the expression of fear, anger, and frustration. Giving your employees a constructive way to discuss their feelings and experiences helps them let go of the negativity they are holding, freeing up that energy for rebuilding relationships and returning their focus to performance
• Help People Verbalize. Help employees give voice to their pain — pain they are afraid or unable to share. When you give your attention to understanding your employees, you let them know that you respect their pain. This is difficult work for leaders, but it is important and necessary for facilitating healing and navigating change. Your employees don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care — about them and their well-being. People in pain need to have their feelings heard. They need to know that you are able to relate to what they are saying and feeling. When you do not acknowledge your employees’ emotions, they feel unheard, resentful, and distrusting toward you. Another layer of betrayal occurs.

Step 3: Give Employees Support

“Our leader took the time to hear our story. She really listened and asked us questions. It helped to tell her how we felt. She heard how frightened we were about what was happening around us. It feels good to know that she understands our needs. When she shared her views, I was able to see things in a much different way. I am beginning to have hope for the future.”

• Recognize Your Employees’ Transitional Needs. People have needs that must be met before they can adapt to change. They have informational needs regarding the new direction the organization is taking and the strategies it proposes to get there. They have relationship needs associated with belonging and their role in the new organization. And they need their skills and abilities to be valued. When leaders expect people to embrace change without having these fundamental needs addressed, people feel betrayed.
• Back Your Employees. Your leader-ship position allows you to be your employees’ advocate. Represent their interests, defend them from unwarranted criticism, and lobby for resources critical to their jobs. By backing your people, you are building contractual trust and meeting the implicit expectations people have of leaders. Furthermore, you demonstrate that you can be trusted to fulfill future commitments and that people can count on you to do what you say you will do.

Step 4: Reframe the Experience

“Our president, Mr. Allen, took the time to visit every field office in our region to explain the business reasons for GNP Industries’ downsizing the eastern division. This helped us put the change into perspective. It lessened the communication gap between the headquarters and the field branches. His actions let us employees know that he cared. We believed he was going to do everything he could to lessen the impact the changes were having on our jobs, our families, and our lives. We understood the direction the company was taking and knew our leader would continue to tell us the truth.”

• Put the Experience into a Larger Context. Helping your employees work through their emotions makes it possible for them to begin to heal.This movement gives you an opportunity to rebuild trust and helps employees reframe their experience by discussing the bigger picture: the business reasons for change. Honestly acknowledge the changes the organization went through and why. In doing so, you must continue to acknowledge what people have experienced. Only then will employees be in a position to accept the new direction in which the organization is headed and to see their role in it.
• Engage in Inquiry. The questions that people ask will guide their journey. Responding to their questions honestly will provide employees with understanding, awareness, truth, and renewed hope for a trusting relationship with you and the organization.Something quite powerful occurs when we tell the impeccable truth — with no exceptions, no justifications, no rationalizations.
• Help Employees Realize There Are Choices. Experiencing betrayal leaves employees feeling very vulnerable and at the mercy of the forces of change.They may need help seeing that they have choices regarding how they react to their circumstances. The more people are aware that they can choose their actions, the more they are able to take responsibility for those actions. Employees may need help in examining their assumptions, breaking out of their self-limiting beliefs, and exploring options and possibilities.
• Embrace Mistakes. Some of the behaviors discussed that aid in healing may be new for you, and you may not trust your competence in exercising them. It may take some practice to develop these skills and become comfortable using them. During this time, you may make some mistakes. That does not automatically make you a failure. Embrace these mistakes as opportunities for learning, thereby turning them to your own benefit.

After all, they provide valuable feed-back regarding what works and what does not.

Just as leaders must be sensitive to employees’ needs, employees need to be sensitive to leaders’ needs. This may mean having some patience and understanding that the leader is grappling with change as well. Therefore, if a leader makes a mistake, it is not necessarily evidence that the leader can’t be trusted. It is evidence that the leader is stretching, growing, and learning. When someone is practicing new ways of relating, people need to be supportive and understanding of his or her learning.

To gain support and understanding, you might find it helpful to share with people that you are learning new skills. Sharing this aspect of yourself demonstrates your trust in them and further extends the invitation to rebuild your relationship with them.

It is possible that you as the leader feel betrayed as well. It is as important that your feelings of betrayal be acknowledged and that you get support to help people see that.

Step 5: Take Responsibility

“Leaders need to take responsibility for how change was implemented. The restructurings took people by surprise and left departments with minimal coverage to do the work. Questions were not answered and needs not addressed. It’s difficult to imagine the distress this has caused. Employees were in great distress and felt quite isolated.”

• Take Responsibility for Your Role in the Process. It is not helpful to try to spin the truth or cover mistakes. It does not serve you or the relationship. Something quite powerful occurs when we tell the impeccable truth with no exceptions, no justifications, no rationalizations. Telling the truth is the fundamental basis for trust in workplace relationships. It demonstrates one’s trustworthiness. We take responsibility when we acknowledge our mistakes. Three simple words, I am sorry, reflect taking responsibility and go a long way to rebuilding trust.
• Help Others Take Responsibility for Their Part. When people are in pain, they tend to blame leaders and behave in ways that contribute to betrayal. We support others in taking responsibility when we help them see their role in creating the climate of betrayal. Employees may not have control over change, but they do have control over how they choose to respond. Even though people may feel betrayed, those feelings do not make betraying in return acceptable.
• Make Amends and Return with Dividends. It is the leader’s role to break the chain of betrayal and reverse the spiral of distrust. Because actions speak louder than words, it is important that you take the first step in mending fences with your employees. Remember that rebuilding trust does not simply mean giving back what was taken away. It means returning something in better shape than it was originally in. You must not only replace but also make things better. If this is not possible, be honest about the realities of the situation and what you can do to make amends.
• Manage Expectations. To safeguard you and your employees against future betrayals, keenly manage expectations. Employees want to know what is expected of them and what they can expect in return. Emphasize the need to negotiate with them when their expectations cannot be fulfilled. Doing so strengthens contractual trust between you and your employees.
• Keep Your Promises. Managing promises is important in relationships. Trust is the result of promises kept. Don’t make promises that you know you can’t keep; doing so just sets up you and everyone with whom you have a relationship for a downfall. When you realize that you cannot keep promises, renegotiate them; don’t break them.

Be careful of what you promise and what you appear to promise. When you are attempting to rebuild trust, it is essential that you not try to justify past actions and that you address the perceptions of those who feel betrayed. According to Frank Navran in Truth and Trust: The First Two Victims of Downsizing, “It is enough for an employee to have believed that a promise was broken for trust to be violated.”

Step 6: Forgive

“Many employees feel that they have been intentionally misinformed and lied to. They do not trust management. It will take time for forgiveness to happen. We need to bring in support to help us understand the surrounding circumstances and allow us to say what needs to be said, to ‘get this off our chests.’ This will help us shift from blaming management to focusing on problem-solving the issues, so we can begin to forgive.”

• Recognize That Forgiveness Is Freedom. Forgiveness is a gift we give ourselves. It is about freeing ourselves and others from the anger, bitterness, and resentment that can deplete our individual and collective energy and spirit and interfere with relationships and performance. When we help people forgive others, we help them free themselves. With forgiveness, they heal for their future by changing their attitude about the past. We help them see new possibilities.For most people, forgiveness takes time, and it happens a little at a time. Over time, employees may be willing to forgive, but you cannot expect them to forget. You can help them heal from the pain they felt, but you cannot erase the events of the past. Occasionally, employees may still be a bit angry after they forgive. It is natural that they may experience lingering feelings of anger for the perceived wrongs they experienced.

  Occasionally, you as a leader may need to forgive yourself. You did the best you could, and for whatever reason, it still wasn’t enough. Beating yourself up mentally and emotionally is worthless and self-defeating.

  Acknowledge for yourself what needs to be said or done to put your mind and this issue to rest. Then just do it! Be compassionate and cut yourself some slack during the healing process!

• Shift from Blaming to Focusing on Needs. Because forgiveness is a personal matter, it is difficult for people to forgive a system. However, leaders can work to cultivate a more personal and trusting climate where healing and forgiveness can take place. They can begin to do this by helping people shift from blaming the organization or its leaders to focusing on their personal needs as they relate to the business.It is important to address persistent resentment and blame in an organization, as they are toxic to the individuals involved and to the whole system. They undermine trust, morale, productivity, creativity, and innovation. People continue to blame when they perceive that those who are responsible have failed to take responsibility. At the same time, they feel that they do not have to take action and are therefore not responsible.

  It is essential for leaders to help people shift from a blaming mode to a problem solving focus. What do employees need to resolve the issues, concerns, fears, and pain they are feeling? What conversations need to take place? What still needs to be said? What needs to happen for healing to occur? What will make a difference right now?

Step 7: Let Go and Move On

“Our leader brought in outside skilled facilitators to provide the needed support through the transition. During the small group discussions, they were neutral and made sure we were all heard. They held a tough line, helping us see our leader’s point of view. The facilitators really drove home the responsibility we all shared. We had painful but powerful discussions. What a relief it was when we were able to forgive ourselves, because we were no angels. But things really shifted when we also forgave our leader. Wow — we have moved on and are all on board with our organization’s new direction.”

• Accept What’s So. Leaders can help people accept what has happened. Acceptance is not condoning what was done but experiencing the reality of what happened without denying, disowning, or resenting it. It is facing the truth without blame. It is helping employees separate themselves from their preoccupation with the past and helping them invest their emotional energies in the present and in creating a different future.
• Realize That You Won’t Always Accomplish Your Goal. Although you may not always accomplish your goal, it is important that you make a good faith effort and that your intentions are honorable. It is quite acceptable for leaders to disagree with their employees or not support a particular cause. Effective leaders do so with honesty and integrity.
• Take the Time and Make the Commitment. Building trust takes time and commitment. When trust is lost, it is regained only by a sincere dedication to the key behaviors and practices that earned it in the first place. The road back is not easy. However, by listening, telling the truth, keeping your promises, and backing your employees, you will play an instrumental role in assisting your employees and organization to heal from betrayal, rebuild trust, and renew relationships.
• Give Support! Providing support is a sign of your dedication to the healing and rebuilding process. The number one mistake leaders make is expecting people to immediately move from step 1 (observing and acknowledging what has happened) to step 7 (letting go and moving on) without doing the necessary work of the other steps. We aren’t built to work this way. People in pain cannot simply move on. They need to fully go through the healing process. When people are willing and able to do the work, it will lead to renewal!Your commitment to practicing these seven steps, and engaging your people in the same, will lead to transformation. Imagine the possibilities!

The post Rebuilding Trust Within Organizations appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

How many times have we felt the same way, bumping along as always and wondering whether there is a better way to do things? Each time we are faced with a familiar problem, we swear to ourselves that we will look deeper into the situation and really solve it once and for all. But then something else comes up, causing us to push the question to the back burner until it surfaces again.

Events, Events, Events…

We live in the world of events:, “The stock market dropped 15 points today… A five-car pileup occurred on interstate 95…Our copy machine broke down at 3 o’clock…Our first quarter earnings were down by 20%…Our latest product launch was 10 weeks late…” and on it goes. When events (like a car breakdown) have a direct impact on our lives, we have to react as quickly as possible to them. But there is no long-term leverage for creating change in an organization if we only stay at the level of events (see “Levels of Understanding: ‘Fire-fighting’ at Multiple Levels,” June/July 1993).

For example, managers at A-to-Z Corp., a semiconductor company, have been puzzling over a series of events that occurred in their most recent quarter. They posted record sales for the quarter, with the majority of the sales force meeting or exceeding sales quotas. All products scheduled for release were launched, with additional products ready for early release in the next quarter. At the same time, however, profits actually declined for the first time in company history, as overhead costs as a percent of sales reached an all-time high.

Interrelated Patterns of Behavior

The frenetic pace at A-to-Z made it easy for its employees to get caught up in the daily demands of the semiconductor business. Until their profits declined, A-to-Z’s managers had no idea that there might be underlying financial problems. To address the issue of falling profits, they decided to collect data about their past performance, looking back over a period of time to identify important patterns of behavior. What, for example, was the pattern of product launches over the last two years? Or the number of new products in the pipeline? The number of product engineers? The average experience level of engineers?

The data they found was as follows: Sales revenue had risen every quarter for the past 10 years, but profit growth had been falling for the last several quarters and had actually declined in the most recent quarter. Because the company’s past success was based on new products, there was a continued commitment to launching many new products each year. Each quarter they added new sales people to meet more aggressive sales targets.

An initial plot of these events over a period of several years is shown in “A-to-Z’s Performance OverTime.” Just plotting the data, however, provided little insight about why the trends have occurred.

Data Analysis and Theory Building

There are many tools and methods available for analyzing such time series data as the A-to-Z managers collected. The quality improvement arena, for example, offers run charts, scatter diagrams, and statistical process control methods for analyzing trends, interrelationships, and system capability. Various regression or trend analysis tools are also available for identifying correlations between variables. But there are limitations to the use of these tools.

A-TO-Z’S PERFORMANCE OVER TIME

Sales revenue at A-to-Z has risen every quarter for the past 10 years, but profit growth has been falling for the last several quarters. Meanwhile, new product launches and the size of the sales staff have been increasing every year.

One obvious limitation is that regression or any other data analysis tool is useless without data. However, there is often a paucity of data available for analyzing a new problem — and therein lies the dilemma. If we are only using data analysis tools, we run the risk of just focusing on those variables for which we have data. On the other hand, it is unrealistic to try to track data for everything in advance. Data analysis tools and methods are most useful when they are used as part of a theory-building process.

Drawing behavior over time (BOT) graphs (also called “reference modes”) can help break the data availability dilemma by building causal theories before we gather the necessary data. The BOTs can be used to connect past observed behavior with future behavior in a way that offers insight into the causal structures underlying the case. Developing such causal theories reduces the risk of becoming straight-jacketed by the limitations of the data that is readily available. In short, BOTs guide the use of data, but are not data-bound.

Building a Theory

The A-to-Z managers began working with their initial behavior over time charts by putting together a cross-functional team to try to understand what was happening. This team decided to look at a time horizon of five years.

To begin to understand why profits were falling even as revenues were growing and new product introductions were running smoothly, the A-to-Z team hypothesized about the relationship between total number of new products and the unit cost of carrying products. Although the number of products in their catalogs had been growing steadily, they wondered whether the cost of carrying the products was growing at an even faster rate. One person inferred that the number of new products with revenues of less than $10K was probably increasing and that the average selling price was decreasing.

This possibility would help explain how they could have record unit sales and dollar volume and still have falling profits. Another person suggested that increasing revenue pressures might be putting pressure on new product development to keep pumping out even more new products. These pressures might cause people to work on creating products that were easier to develop and launch, rather than on more innovative and potentially more profitable ones. This emerging causal theory is shown in “Pressure on New Product Development.”

Guidelines for Using BOTs

As the A-to-Z team members continue to work with and build confidence in their causal theory, they can begin to gather the appropriate data to see whether it supports what they have theorized using the BOTs and the accompanying causal loop diagram. Through an iterative process of going back and forth between theory-building and data analysis, they can build a better understanding of what is happening.

When you begin using BOTs and causal loop diagrams to build causal theories of specific issues, some general suggestions can help guide the process:

1. PRESSURE ON NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

1. 1. Select Time Horizon. Identify the desired time horizon for the problem at hand. The length of time will provide a guide for determining which variables to select and study further. Having a time horizon of two years, for example, will have different critical variables than those associated with a time horizon of 20 years.
2. 2. Define the Problem Dynamically. Draw behavior over time charts of key variables. These charts can serve as reference points throughout the theory-building process, helping to define the problem, focus the conceptualization, and validate the emerging theory.
3. 3. Conduct Thought Experiments. Conduct thought experiments by hypothesizing about the time behavior of different variables and inferring the behavior of other related variables. Do “what-if” experiments of possible future scenarios and draw out the implications of those events on other variables.
4. 4. Build Causal Theories. Use causal loop diagrams to build causal theories that draw out the interrelated behavior of variables over time.
5. 5. Validate with Data. Use data analysis tools to help validate the BOTs and causal relationships.

If we don’t want to be like Edward the Bear — forever bumping our heads down the stairs — we need to be able to step out of the day-to-day stream of events and see the larger context in which we operate. Drawing behavior over time charts and a corresponding set of causal loop diagrams can not only show us what happened, but can also help us build a better understanding of why something happened.

The post Behavior Over Time Diagrams: Seeing Dynamic Interrelationships appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

There are dozens of books on the topic of difficult, crucial, challenging, important (you get the idea) kinds of conversations (at the end of the articles, I list several). Those times when you know you should talk to someone, but you don’t. Maybe you’ve tried before and it went badly. Or maybe you fear that talking will only make the situation worse. Still, there’s a feeling of being stuck, and you’d like to free up that stuck energy for more useful purposes.

What you have here is a brief synopsis of best-practice strategies: a checklist of action items to think about before going into the conversation; some useful concepts to practice during the conversation; and some tips and suggestions to help your energy stay focused and flowing, including possible conversational openings.

You’ll notice one key theme throughout: You have more power than you think.

Preparing for the Conversation

Before going into the conversation, ask yourself some questions:

1. What is your purpose for having the conversation? What do you hope to accomplish? What would be an ideal outcome? Watch for hidden purposes. You may think you have honorable goals, like educating an employee or increasing connection with your teen, only to notice that your language is excessively critical or condescending. You think you want to support, but you end up punishing. Some purposes are more useful than others. Work on yourself so that you enter the conversation with a supportive purpose.
2. What assumptions are you making about this person’s intentions?You may feel intimidated, belittled, ignored, disrespected, or marginalized, but be cautious about assuming that that was the other person’s intention. Impact does not necessarily equal intent.

.

3. What “buttons” of yours are being pushed? Are you more emotional than the situation warrants? Take a look at your “backstory,” as they say in the movies. What personal history is being triggered? You may still have the conversation, but you’ll go into it knowing that some of the heightened emotional state has to do with you.
4. How is your attitude toward the conversation influencing your perception of it? If you think it is going to be horribly difficult, it probably will be. If you truly believe that whatever happens, some good will come of it, that will likely be the case. Try to adjust your attitude for maximum effectiveness.
5. Who is the “opponent”? What might he be thinking about this situation? Is he aware of the problem? If so, how do you think he perceives it? What are his needs and fears? What solution do you think he would suggest? Begin to reframe the opponent as a partner.
6. What are your needs and fears? Are there any common concerns? Could there be?
7. How have you contributed to the problem? How has the other person?

Four Steps to a Successful Outcome

The majority of the work in any conflict conversation is work you do on yourself. No matter how well the conversation begins, you’ll need to stay in charge of yourself, your purpose, and your emotional energy. Breathe, center, and continue to notice when you become off-center—and choose to return again. This is where your power lies. By choosing the calm, centered state, you’ll help your opponent/partner to be more centered, too. Centering is not a step; centering is how you are as you take the steps. (For more on centering, see The Magic of Conflict and the “FAQs About Conflict” listed at the end of the article.)

Step #1: Inquiry

Cultivate an attitude of discovery and curiosity. Pretend you don’t know anything (you really don’t), and try to learn as much as possible about your opponent/partner and her point of view. Pretend you’re entertaining a visitor from another planet, and find out how things look on that planet, how certain events affect the other person, and what the values and priorities are there.

If your partner really was from another planet, you’d be watching her body language and listening for the unspoken energy as well. Do that here. What does she really want? What is she not saying?

Let her talk until she is finished. Don’t interrupt except to acknowledge. Whatever you hear, don’t take it personally. It’s not really about you. Try to learn as much as you can in this phase of the conversation. You’ll get your turn, but don’t rush it.

Step #2: Acknowledgment

Acknowledgment means showing that you’ve heard and understood. Try to understand the other person so well you can make his argument for him. Then do it. Explain back to him what you think he’s really going for. Guess at his hopes and honor his position. He won’t change unless he sees that you see where he stands. Then he might. No guarantees.

Acknowledge whatever you can, including your own defensiveness if it comes up. It’s fine; it just is. You can decide later how to address it. For example, in an argument with a friend, I said: “I notice I’m becoming defensive, and I think it’s because your voice just got louder and sounded angry. I just want to talk about this topic. I’m not trying to persuade you in either direction.” The acknowledgment helped him (and me) to recenter.

Acknowledgment can be difficult if we associate it with agreement. Keep them separate. My saying, “This sounds really important to you” doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with your decision.

Step #3: Advocacy

When you sense that your opponent has expressed all her energy on the topic, it’s your turn. What can you see from your perspective that she has missed? Help clarify your position without minimizing hers. For example, “From what you’ve told me, I can see how you came to the conclusion that I’m not a team player. And I think I am. When I introduce problems with a project, I’m thinking about its long-term success. I don’t mean to be a critic, though perhaps I sound like one. Maybe we can talk about how to address these issues so that my intention is clear.”

Step #4: Problem-Solving

Now you’re ready to begin building solutions. Brainstorming and continued inquiry are useful. Ask your opponent/partner what he thinks would work. Whatever he says, find something that you like and build on it. If the conversation becomes adversarial, go back to inquiry. Asking for the other’s point of view usually creates safety, and he’ll be more willing to engage. If you’ve been successful in centering, adjusting your attitude, and engaging with inquiry and useful purpose, building sustainable solutions will be easy.

Practice, Practice, Practice

The art of conversation is like any art—with continued practice, you acquire skill and ease. Here are some additional hints:

• A successful outcome will depend on two things: how you are and what you say. How you are (centered, supportive, curious, problem-solving) will greatly influence what you say.
• Acknowledge emotional energy— yours and your opponent/partner’s— and direct it toward a useful purpose.
• Know and return to your purpose at difficult moments.
• Don’t take verbal attacks personally. Help your opponent/partner come back to center.
• Don’t assume your opponent/partner can see things from your point of view.
• Practice the conversation with a friend before holding the real one.
• Mentally rehearse the conversation.

See various possibilities and visualize yourself handling them with ease. Envision the outcome you’re hoping for.

How Do I Begin?

In my workshops, a common question is “How do I begin the conversation?” Here are a few conversation openers I’ve picked up over the years—and used many times!

• I have something I’d like to discuss with you that I think will help us work together more effectively.
• I’d like to talk about ___________ with you, but first I’d like to get your point of view.
• I need your help with what just happened. Do you have a few minutes to talk?
• I need your help with something. Can we talk about it (soon)? If the person says, “Sure, let me get back to you,” follow up.
• I think we have different perceptions about ___________. I’d like to hear your thinking on this.
• I’d like to talk about ___________. I think we may have different ideas on how to ___________.
• I’d like to see if we might reach a better understanding about ________. I really want to hear your feelings about this and share my perspective as well.

Write a possible opening for your conversation here: ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

Good luck!

Judy Ringer is a conflict and communication skills trainer, black belt in aikido, and sole owner of Power & Presence Training and Portsmouth Aikido. To sign up for free tips and articles, visit http://www. JudyRinger.com.

The post We Have to Talk: A Checklist for Difficult Conversations appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The plan won state funding, and a new executive director supported by a multi-sector board began steering implementation. Service providers who had previously worked independently and competed for foundation and public monies came together in new ways. One dramatic example was that they all voted unanimously to reallocate HUD funding from one service provider’s transitional housing program to a permanent supportive housing program run by another provider. Jennifer Schrand, who chaired the planning process and is currently Manager of Outreach and Development for Legal Services of South Central Michigan, observed, “I learned the difference between changing a particular system and leading systemic change.”

Calhoun County has done a remarkable job of securing permanent housing for the homeless, especially in the face of the economic downturn. For example, in the plan’s first three years of operation from 2007-2009, homelessness decreased by 13% (from 1,658 to 1,437), and eviction rates declined by 3%, despite a 70% increase in unemployment and 15% increase in bankruptcy filings. Readers can follow the ongoing progress of the initiative at the Coordinating Council of Calhoun County website.

Why was this intervention so successful when many other attempts to improve the quality of people’s lives fall short? For example, urban renewal programs of the 1960s were backed by good intentions and significant funding, yet they failed to produce the changes envisioned for them. Moreover, the programs often made living conditions worse – leading to outcomes such as abandoned public housing projects and increased unemployment that resulted from what appeared to be successful job training programs (see Jay W. Forrester, Urban Dynamics, 1969).

Stories of well-intentioned yet counterproductive solutions abound, as we learn that food aid can lead to increased starvation by undermining local agriculture, and drug busts can cause a rise in drug-related crime by reducing the availability and increasing the price of the diminished street supply. In other cases, short-term successes frequently fail to be sustained, and the problem mysteriously reappears. We see this dynamic when civic leaders invest in programs to reduce urban youth crime only to have the crime rate subsequently rise, or when international donors fund the drilling of wells in African villages to improve access to potable water, with the result that the wells eventually break down and villagers are unable to fix them.

By applying a systems thinking-based approach, the project to end homelessness managed to overcome the pitfalls of these other initiatives. The partners combined two significant interventions:

1. a proactive community development effort that engaged leaders in various sectors along with homeless people themselves, and
2. a systems diagnosis that enabled all stakeholders to agree on a shared picture of why homelessness persists and where the leverage exists in ending it.

In other words, the approach combined more conventional processes that facilitate acting systemically with tools to help the stakeholders transcend their immediate self-interests by thinking systemically as well.

Likewise, a comprehensive initiative to improve food and fitness – and in the process address childhood obesity – illustrates how the application of systems thinking can help organizations make better decisions about how to use their limited resources for highest sustainable impact (much of the first part of this article was adapted from David Peter Stroh, “Leveraging Grant-Making: Understanding the Dynamics of Complex Social Systems,” Foundation Review, Vol. 1, No. 3).

The Non-Obvious Nature of Complex Systems

Lewis Thomas, the award-winning medical essayist, observed, “When you are confronted by any complex social system… with things about it that you’re dissatisfied with and anxious to fix, you cannot just step in and set about fixing with much hope of helping. This is one of the sore discouragements of our time” (The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher, 1979). The stories above about failed interventions epitomize this poignant insight. They share other specific characteristics:

• The solutions that were implemented seemed obvious at the time and in fact often helped achieve the desired results in the short term. For example, it is natural to provide shelter, even temporary, for people who are homeless.
• In the long term, the intervention neutralized short-term gains or even made things worse. For example, the temporary shelters provided by Calhoun County led to the ironic consequence of reducing the visibility of its homeless population, which diminished community pressure to solve the problem permanently.
• The negative consequences of these solutions were unintentional; everyone did the best they could with what they knew at the time.
• When the problem recurs, people fail to see their responsibility for the recurrence and blame others for the failure.

How can the interactions over time among elements in a complex system transform the best of intentions into such disappointing results? The reason lies in part in our tendency to apply linear thinking to complex, nonlinear problems. Systems and linear thinking differ in several important respects, as shown in “Distinguishing Linear Thinking from Systems Thinking.”

For instance, a linear approach to starvation might lead donors to assume that sending food aid solves the problem. However, thinking about it in a systemic way would raise concerns about such unintended consequences as depressed local food prices that deter local agricultural development and leave a country even more vulnerable to food shortages in the future. From a systemic view, temporary food aid only exacerbates the problem in the long run unless it is coupled with supports for local agriculture.

Systems vs. Linear Thinking

Because the problems addressed by many organizations are exceedingly complex, one step they can take to increase the social return on their investments is to think systemically (vs. linearly). Implementing a systems approach involves the following process:

1. Building a strong foundation for change by engaging multiple stakeholders to identify an initial vision and picture of current reality
2. Engaging stakeholders to explain their often competing views of why a chronic, complex problem persists despite people’s best efforts to solve it
3. Integrating the diverse perspectives into a map that provides a more complete picture of the system and root causes of the problem
4. Supporting people to see how their well-intended efforts to solve the problem often make the problem worse
5. Committing to a compelling vision of the future and supportive strategies that can lead to sustainable, system-wide change

Based on the insight that non-obvious system dynamics often seduce us into doing what is expedient but ultimately ineffective, the Food and Fitness (F&F) initiative of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) followed these steps in taking a comprehensive systems approach to planning, implementing, and evaluating the program. Initial planning began in 2004, and the first work with systems thinking in the field started in 2007. Implementation continues today in nine communities throughout the U. S.

F&F began as a response to staff and board member concerns about the rising rate of childhood obesity and early onset of related diseases such as type 2 diabetes. The WKKF program officers who initially led F&F, Linda Jo Doctor and Gail Imig, knew that many well-intentioned programs had attempted to address childhood obesity by focusing on nutrition, education, or exercise. Some targeted policy change, whereas others focused on individual behavior, but data clearly showed undesirable outcomes continuing, especially among children from poor families.

WKKF had long supported developing a healthy, safe food supply and increasing consumption of good food. Because the issue was highly complex and prior efforts to address it had been unsuccessful, the program officers determined that a systemic approach would be essential to achieving long-term goals. They believed that applying this kind of process to F&F would increase the likelihood of engaging a diverse group of people and organizations, fostering collaboration and finding innovative strategies to change the underlying systems, and thereby creating and sustaining the healthy results everyone seeks for children and families.

Applying Systems Thinking to Program Planning

Of the three major programming functions – planning, implementation, and evaluation – systems thinking can play an especially important role in improving planning. Here are suggestions for how to integrate these steps into the program planning process.

Step 1: Build a Foundation for Change

Building a strong foundation for systemic change involves engaging diverse stakeholders in the planning stage. This is a cornerstone of the F&F initiative. WKKF developed its knowledge base by bringing together researchers and theorists from around the country in fields such as public health, nutrition, exercise physiology, education, behavior change, child development, social change, and social marketing. The foundation also assembled a group of community thought leaders for a conversation about the current realities in their communities, as well as their visions for communities that would support the health of vulnerable children and families. In addition, WKKF engaged with other foundations throughout the U. S. in conversations about their collective thinking on childhood obesity and the roles foundations might play. From all of this outreach, a collective vision for the initiative began to emerge—not as a reaction to the immediate circumstances, but from an enriched understanding of current realities, as well as deeply shared aspirations for the future:

We envision vibrant communities where everyone – especially the most vulnerable children – has equitable access to affordable, healthy, locally grown food, and safe and inviting places for physical activity and play.

Step 2: Engage Stakeholders to Explain Often Competing Views

Building on the results of Step 1 above, systems mapping is one tool to help stakeholders see how their efforts are connected and where their views differ. This tool extends the more familiar approaches of sociograms or network maps to show not only who is related to whom, but also how their different assessments of what is important interact.

F&F’s conversation among community thought leaders was structured using the systems thinking iceberg model. Examples of questions included, “What is happening now regarding the health and fitness of children in your communities that has been capturing your attention?” “What are some patterns related to health and fitness of children that you’re noticing?” “What policies, community or societal structures, and systems in your communities do you believe are creating the patterns and events you’ve been noticing?” “What beliefs and assumptions that people hold are getting in the way of children’s health and fitness?” This conversation ended with the question, “What is the future for supporting the health of children and their parents that you truly care about creating in your community?”

Initially, each participant’s comments reflected his or her own work and the competition for resources that typically accompanies community engagement. Some believed the lack of mandated daily physical education caused childhood obesity. Others faulted school lunches. Some hoped parents would prepare more meals at home rather than eating out. Several blamed the rise of fast-food establishments. In the ensuing conversation, participants began to consider one another’s thinking. They came to realize that no single explanation, including their own, could fully explain the health outcomes they saw. The conversation revealed different perspectives and experiences but also began aligning participants around common beliefs and a deeper, broader understanding of the issue.

Step 3: Integrate Diverse Perspectives

Systems maps integrate diverse perspectives into a picture of the system and provide an understanding of a problem’s root causes. Participants in F&F came to see that the obesity epidemic in children was the result of national, state, and local systems failing to support healthy living, rather than a consequence of accumulated individual behaviors. They began to recognize the interrelationships among systems such as the food system, the quality of food in schools and neighborhoods, the natural and built environment and its role in supporting active living, safety, and public policy such as zoning. They also started to understand how individual organizations’ good intentions and actions could actually undermine one another’s efforts. These conversations paved the way for collaboratively creating strategies and tactics in later phases of the work.

Step 4: Support Responsibility for Unintended Consequences

One characteristic of social systems is that people often unintentionally contribute to the very problems they want to solve. Systems thinking enabled communities working in the F&F initiative to uncover potential unintended consequences of their efforts.

For example, marketing the concept of eating locally grown food without developing a food system that can provide it can lead to increased prices for that food, putting it out of reach for schools, children, and families in low-income communities and thus decreasing the consumption of good food among that population. Pushing for policies to allow open space to be used for community gardens could have the unintended consequence of reducing access to outdoor areas for children to play and be active.

If people understand how they contribute to a problem, they have more control over solving it. Raising awareness of responsibility without invoking blame and defensiveness takes skill – yet it is well worth the effort.

Step 5: Commit to a Compelling Vision and Develop Strategies
Once a foundation for change has been developed and the collective understanding of current reality has deepened, the last planning step is to affirm a compelling vision of the future and design strategies that can lead to sustainable, system-wide change. This step entails

1. committing to a compelling vision,
2. developing and articulating a theory of change,
3. linking investments to an integrated theory of change, and
4. planning for a funding stream over time that mirrors and facilitates a natural pattern of exponential growth (for details about each of these processes, see David Peter Stroh and Kathleen Zurcher, “Leveraging Grant-Making—Part 2: Aligning Programmatic Approaches with Complex System Dynamics,” Foundation Review, Vol. 1, No.4).

The systems approach to this work resulted in unanticipated positive consequences. Developing relationships, engaging in high-quality conversations, and committing to a common vision during the planning phase produced immediate results in many of the communities. In Northeast Iowa, Luther College, the public school district in Decorah, and the city council created a proposed community recreation plan under which Luther College would grant a no-cost lease on 50 acres of land for a citywide sports center and would raise the money to build an indoor aquatic center; the city would build soccer and tennis courts; and the school district would raise money for maintenance. Documenting these results during each phase of work is critical to maintaining momentum and funding for long-term system change.

A Pause on the Quick Fix

Our continued work in applying systems thinking to social change in such areas as homelessness, early childhood development, K-12 education, and public health affirms the importance of integrating approaches for acting and thinking systemically. Many people have become familiar with tools such as stakeholder mapping and community building, and methodologies for getting the whole system in the room to bring together the range of interests and resources vital to social change. These are positive steps toward overcoming the pitfalls of the failed interventions referenced at the beginning of the article.

However, unless we drastically shift the way we think, bringing diverse stakeholders together all too often fails to surface or reconcile the differences between people’s espoused (and sincere) commitment to serving the most vulnerable members of society and the equally if not more powerful competing commitment to optimizing their individual contributions and maintaining their current practices. For example, shelter directors want to end homelessness, but they actually get paid according to the number of beds they fill each night. Donors want to end homelessness, but their benefactors get more immediate satisfaction from housing people temporarily. Service providers who specialize in helping the homeless may find themselves competing for funds that might otherwise be allocated toward prevention.

As one nonprofit noted, the greatest challenge in creating social change can be mustering the courage to ask different kinds of questions, such as, “What is our organization willing to give up in order for the system as a whole to succeed?” Thinking systemically helps people answer that question in a way that serves their higher intentions. It does so by enabling them to see the differences between the short and long-term impacts of their actions, and the unintended consequences of their actions, on not only other stakeholders but also themselves. The result might be that one shelter director decides to close his facility, while another reinvents her organization to focus on helping the homeless build bridges toward the safe, permanent, affordable, and supportive housing they ultimately need to heal. The net outcome is that people act in service of the whole because it naturally follows their thinking about how the whole behaves.

Ann Mansfield, co-director of the F&F program in Northeast Iowa, summarized the benefit of using systems thinking: “The tools helped us put a pause on the quick fix.” Systems thinking provides frameworks and tools that can enhance organizations’ efforts to achieve lasting systems change results by making a few key coordinated changes over time. By following the five-step change process for achieving sustainable, system-wide improvement as spelled out in this article, we can increase the chances that our interventions will have the results we fervently desire.

David Peter Stroh, Master’s Degree, City Planning, was a founding partner of Innovation Associates. He is currently a principal with Bridgeway Partners, an organizational consulting firm dedicated to supporting social change through the application of organizational learning disciplines. dstroh@bridgewaypartners.com

Kathleen A. Zurcher, PhD, Educational Psychology, partners with communities and organizations to achieve their desired future by applying and building capabilities in organizational learning and systems thinking. In 2008 she retired from WKKF. She was previously a senior administrator for Family Medicine, and a faculty member in the University of Minnesota’s extension service and at Lehigh University. kzurcher33@gmail.com

The post Acting and Thinking Systemically appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Brainstorming Tools

DOUBLE-Q DIAGRAM

Based on “fishbone” or cause and effect diagram. Captures free flowing thoughts in a structured manner, and distinguishes between “hard” (quantitative) and “soft” (qualitative) variables that affect the issue of interest. Is structured during a brainstorming session; helps participants see the whole system in question.

Dynamic Thinking Tools

BEHAVIOR OVER TIMEGRAPH

Can be used to graph the behavior of each variable over time and gain insights into any interrelationships between them. (BOT diagrams are also known as reference mode diagrams.) Can include past, current, and future behavior.

CAUSAL LOOP DIAGRAM

Captures how variables in a system are interrelated, using cause and effect linkages. Can help you identify reinforcing (R) processes, which magnify change, and balancing (B) processes, which seek equilibrium.

SYSTEMS ARCHETYPE

Helps you recognize and manage common system behavior patterns such as “Drifting Goals,” “Shifting the Burden,” “Limits to Success,” “Fixes That Fail,” and so on all the compelling, recurring “stories” of organizational dynamics.

Structural Thinking Tools

GRAPHICAL FUNCTION DIAGRAM

Captures the way in which one variable affects another, by plotting the relationship between the two over the full range of relevant values. Useful for clarifying nonlinear relationships between variables.

STRUCTURE-BEHAVIOR PAIR

Consists of the basic dynamic structures that can serve as building blocks for developing computer models (for example, exponential growth, delays, smooths, S-shaped growth, oscillations, and so on).

POLICY STRUCTURE DIAGRAM

A conceptual map of the decision making process embedded in the organization. Focuses on the factors that are weighed for each decision, and can be used to build a library of generic structures.

Computer-Based Tools

COMPUTER MODEL

Lets you translate all relationships identified as relevant into mathematical equations. You can then run policy analyses through multiple simulations.

MANAGEMENT FLIGHT SIMULATOR

Provides “flight training” for managers through the use of interactive computer games based on a computer model. Users can recognize long term consequences of decisions by formulating strategies and making decisions based on those strategies.

LEARNING LABORATORYA

A manager’s practice field. Is equivalent to a sports team’s experience, which blends active experimentation with reflection and discussion. Uses all the systems thinking tools, from double-Q diagrams to MFSs.

The post Palette of Systems Thinking Tools appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

This long and broad view is in direct opposition to the “quick-fix” mentality that increasingly dominates our complex world. Perhaps the reliance on “band aids” results from our economic system, in which managers focus on short-term results to keep stock prices and option values high, and shareholders care more about quarterly returns than long-term corporate health (accentuated by technology that provides instant access to massive amounts of data). Perhaps it comes from our political system, in which politicians invest in symptomatic rather than fundamental solutions—which take longer to show results than the person’s term in office—in order to ensure reelection. Or perhaps it is an outcome of our educational system, which fails to expose people to the basic ways in which feedback processes work in the world.

Whatever the reason, despite the promise of systems thinking, its impact has been surprisingly limited. But I fear that, unless a critical mass of people and organizations adopt a systems view, our organizations will continue to fall short of their potential. Even worse, the dire consequences of non-systemic approaches to issues such as global terrorism, the environment, and poverty will threaten the world for us, our children, and future generations. By offering the perspectives that follow, I hope to widen the circle of systems thinkers by attracting newcomers and convincing experts to stay the course.

The Systems Thinking Difference

Let me start with a personal story. As a student, I attended a lecture by Norbert Weiner, the famed mathematician. He discussed a key project in which scientists of the day were working—unsuccessfully—to get computers to translate text from one language to another.

Weiner identified a possible breakthrough in the project: The goal should be to create a system for excellent translation by including a computer component to perform routine elements and a human component to handle the non-routine tasks. Together, they could elegantly and affordably achieve the overall goal. The fundamental idea of a system as an entity that was different from its components—and not merely the sum of the components—was, to me, original, new, and powerful.

Over the years, I have heard many people say that the simple act of thinking systems rather than components, the whole rather than the pieces, enables them to better understand why things behave as they do and take more effective actions. I have seen, for example, executives who are dealing with a critical product issue come to the realization that the answer is not in making marketing or manufacturing work better, but in improving the quality of interaction and influence between the two functions. The notion of recognizing the interactions among component parts as critical to the system’s performance leads people to accept the system as the major determinant of the behaviors and events that occur.

Once we can see the whole (the system) as something different from its parts (the components), it isn’t too far a leap to accept Deming’s observation that optimizing a system requires sub-optimizing its components. This idea is profoundly paradoxical. It says that functional excellence will not guarantee overall success and that working “across the stovepipes” provides the greatest possibility for superior performance. Bridging the gap between functions requires compromises from each department for the benefit of the firm as a whole. My observation is that once people “get” the concept of systems, they become sensitive to the harm the stovepipe mentality can bring, and they open themselves to seeing linkages among the pieces that may be important, even in areas beyond their control. Because talking across stovepipes is not easy, the mastery of dialogue, skillful conversation, and concepts such as the ladder of inference—all part of today’s organizational learning focus are essential to fundamental and sustainable performance improvement. A dozen years ago, I scoffed at such things as too soft and fuzzy. Now I am convinced that these tools play a critical role in improving systems. (Of course, Peter Senge already understood this point in 1990 when he popularized systems thinking and integrated it with team learning and other skills in his surprise best-selling management book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization!)

The ability to visually represent the interrelationships among the components of a system through different kinds of diagrams represents another benefit of systems thinking. These “maps” reveal the cause and effect linkages thought to underlie behaviors by depicting the “system behind the story.” Causal loop diagrams are especially effective in displaying the feedback processes at play. By recognizing the behaviors associated with each of the two kinds of loops (balancing and reinforcing) and through the process of collaborating on creating the diagrams, people are able to reach important and sometimes profound insights. Stock and flow diagrams are especially effective in displaying the dynamics among accumulations or stocks (such as backlog, inventory, or morale) and the flows (such as orders, shipments, and successes) that increase or decrease them. By identifying stocks and flows, we gain knowledge about a system’s behavior and take a step toward building simulation models. We know that the “map is not the terrain,” but maps of structure predictably add insight to our ability to better know the real terrain by giving us a shared view of its complexity.

System archetypes also provide a strong basis for learning about systems. Archetypes are a set of relatively simple structures that have been observed to occur again and again in social systems. These structures typically consist of two or three causal loops and have names like “Fixes That Fail” (the story of unintended consequences), “Shifting the Burden” (the story of addiction), “Limits to Growth” (the story of resource depletion), and “Escalation” (the story of violence and war).

It has been interesting to see the rapidity with which relative newcomers can relate to an archetype and apply it to their own experiences. In workshops, the energy and insights that emerge from archetype examples are often startling. More than once, I have heard someone say that the understanding of a single archetype changed his or her life!

Breadth and Depth

The most rigorous end of this spectrum is computer simulation, which stems from the breakthrough work of Jay W. Forrester at MIT in the 1950s. He brought the first application of engineering control theory to social systems, taking advantage of advances in computer technology for simulating non-linear systems. His 1963 book, Industrial Dynamics, provided the initial codification of the ideas, tools, and learnings of the nascent field and remains a classic today. (It was, by the way, my privilege to be a research assistant in Forrester’s group during the early phase of the field. That was how I was hooked!) Simulation enables users to view the system’s behavior in action and to experiment with various scenarios. These are very powerful capabilities.

All approaches that stem from a fundamental understanding of systems—whether broad or deep—can add value by offering insights far beyond traditional linear thinking.

Efforts involving simulation models around specific organizational issues have had a positive impact on corporate decisions and strategy assessment in a number of cases. However, building such simulations takes enormous time, money, and expertise. In addition, decision-makers who don’t fully understand the model may be uncomfortable changing policies based on its outcomes.

A broader or at least more visible source of impact, I think, has come from “models for learning” developed in academic and other non-corporate environments around major social issues and generic problem behaviors. Limits to Growth (by Donella Meadows et al.) and World Dynamics (by Jay For rester) were based on simulations that explore the extent to which our planet’s resources can support the rapid growth of human population and industrial activity. Forrester’s Urban Dynamics deals with the system structure underlying the growth and decay of cities. These bodies of work have created a widespread awareness—with significant controversy—of the critical environmental and social issues facing humankind by demonstrating the potentially catastrophic trends that can result from certain systemic structures.

As another example, my own work on the dynamics of corporate growth (a master’s thesis also published as a monograph) outlines how balance among functional decisions in a growing company can be more important than specific functional expertise. The study used computer simulations to show how a company, by its own actions and with inadequate understanding of its systemic structure, could easily fail even though its market was virtually infinite. It demonstrated how an enormous range of behaviors, from wildly successful growth to stagnation to collapse, depended solely on the firm’s internal decisions! As the cartoon character Pogo said, “We found the enemy and it is us.” I contend, though it is impossible to prove, that this work had a positive impact on the company that sponsored it (which was highly successful for more than 20 years afterward).

The very breadth of the systems arena has created some barriers that I believe have slowed acceptance of the field. From a systems perspective, the obstacles I have seen relate to our own stovepipes, represented by different approaches such as simulation, causal loop analysis, stock and flow diagrams and the like. When practitioners in particular areas imply that their approach is the only valid one, the credibility of the whole spectrum of activities suffers. Here, I have tried to convey that all approaches that stem from a fundamental understanding of systems—whether broad or deep—can add value by offering insights far beyond traditional linear thinking. As in most systems, the right balance among the components is the path to a stronger whole.

Looking Ahead

In closing, my objective in this article has been to present my observations of the compelling potential for creating a better world through applying systems concepts and tools to our own circumstances and issues. Thinking systemically can change lives, improve businesses, help economies, and maybe even save the planet. Equally important, the broad range of approaches for application provides great accessibility. Opportunities for demonstrating the impact of systems thinking should be embraced, wherever they happen, and the diversity of approaches should be used to full advantage! I hope I have provided some incentive for doing just that.

The post Taking a Systems View: A Reflection appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The post Systems Archetypes at a Glance appeared first on The Systems Thinker.