At Boeing, a major aerospace company, a team leader and his R&D group recently found themselves in uncharted territory as they faced a new project. They needed to create a leadership infrastructure to bridge the learning that happens in the workplace with more structured classroom learning. The framework would span multiple organizations, missions, locations, and personnel. The temptation to leap into action was hard to resist. But the project team realized that taking the time to develop an implementation strategy would help them to be more effective in the long run. In order to do so in a systematic way, they chose to develop an Operational Strategy Map to guide their efforts.

The Operational Mapping Methodology

Developing a map of strategy isn’t a new idea. Most organizational improvement methodologies (such as total quality management, reengineering, and the balanced scorecard) recommend some form of mapping in order to facilitate understanding of an organization and its processes. All mapping methodologies have benefits as well as limitations. Because maps are necessarily a representation of reality — and not the reality itself — it’s important to choose a framework that captures the essence of the system in a way that helps the organization most effectively navigate through the unfolding strategy.

The Operational Strategy Mapping (OSM) framework synthesizes elements from three disciplines — system dynamics, skilled facilitation, and balanced scorecard—to create a process and product that can enhance the creation and implementation of organizational change efforts (see “Operational Strategy Mapping”). Using OSM, a strategic planning and implementation team clearly articulates what the strategy should accomplish, how it works, and what unintended consequences might result. In the process of developing the map, team members generate understanding of, and commitment to, the overall plan.

System Dynamics. OSM uses system dynamics mapping and its underlying paradigm of the world. System dynamics incorporates two different visual languages: causal loop diagrams and stock and flow maps. In order to quickly get up to speed on the terminology and launch into the mapping process, groups may begin with causal loop diagrams. Causal loops can be extremely useful for eliciting important interdependencies that will impact and be impacted by the strategy.

Because OSM requires exploring questions such as “How does/will it work?” the strategy team will eventually need to build stock and flow maps to generate this “operational” focus. Although doing so may initially require a little more effort than creating causal loops, the value derived from this additional effort of differentiating between conditions and activities that change those conditions will dramatically increase the rigor and quality of any strategy discussions. Using stock and flow maps, groups can look at the factors inherent in the strategy that may contribute to unintended consequences during implementation.

OPERATIONAL STRATEGY MAPPING

The Operational Strategy Mapping (OSM) framework synthesizes elements from three disciplines — system dynamics, skilled facilitation, and balanced scorecard—to create a process and product that can enhance the creation and implementation of organizational change efforts.

The paradigm of system dynamics asks us to move from thinking about our organizations in terms of one-time events and isolated functions to considering them in terms of continuous, dynamic, integrated processes. To implement OSM, a team needs to look at the strategy as something that will unfold over time, with natural ebbs and flows, and will likely require adjusting in terms of the magnitude and timing of different elements. The system dynamics approach also suggests the need to identify forces that might slow or impede implementation. It offers guidance in predicting natural delays in the system; knowing about these delays is vital to generating an effective implementation plan.

Skilled Facilitation. Skilled facilitation, based on the work of Roger Schwarz, provides the framework for the process of building OSMs. It offers tools for assessing if the appropriate stakeholders are involved, how effective the group dynamics are, and how to facilitate conversations around building and testing the usefulness of the map. Because skilled facilitation applies an explicit approach to developing shared mental models (both about the content of the project and the group’s process), it is a natural fit with the system dynamics approach to mapping.

The Balanced Scorecard. The third discipline built into the OSM methodology, Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard (BSC), has become popular for helping businesses and public-policy organizations build and revise visual strategic “bubble maps” as part of an ongoing, iterative learning process. The BSC’s four quadrant perspective — Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning — provides a useful guide for ensuring that the strategy map covers the organization’s different facets. (Although not all OSMs cover the four quadrants, groups should be conscious about choosing to eliminate one or more quadrants from the map.) However, the stock and flow language is better able to depict how processes work than “bubble maps” and can serve as the basis for computer simulation at a point in the future if the team finds this additional step helpful.

The steps for building an OSM are the same as those described for the BSC. In their book, The Strategy Focused Organization (Harvard Business School Press, 2000), Kaplan and Norton describe strategy management as following four principles:

1. Translate the Strategy to Operational Terms
2. Align the Organization to the Strategy
3. Make Strategy Everyone’s Everyday Job
4. Make Strategy a Continual Process

As you’ll see, the distributed learning team at The Boeing Company followed these steps as they developed and used an OSM.

Building an OSM at Boeing

The Boeing Company is an organization widely distributed across geographies, business segments, and product lines; it also includes several engineering disciplines. The decision to sponsor a leadership initiative in the company reflected an understanding that, although the culture focused primarily on formal learning events, more than 80 percent of learning and leadership development occurred on the job. The “Workplace Leadership Initiative” would integrate formal and informal learning and would support participants in pursuing their individual learning agendas on their own time. In turn, employees would contribute their own content/expertise through a personalized web site and a community space that would be integrated into the leadership program’s learning experience. Putting together the various pieces of the program was a challenging opportunity. The development team decided to create an Operational Strategy Map to help them “mentally simulate” how they might execute the initiative.

Translating the Strategy to Operational Terms. The first phase of developing the OSM was to get background information on the project and develop a “strawman” map of the strategy. Getting background information usually requires phone interviews with a few stakeholders/experts. This interviewing process serves two purposes: (1) Gathering information from throughout the system of interest, and

(2) Generating understanding and commitment from the stakeholders for the process and subsequent map.

For this project, the team leader possessed the knowledge to provide enough input for the initial map.

The team leader was concerned about the following areas of execution: creating the initial workplace leadership system, generating enthusiasm among potential users, and building support among senior managers (who might not be users, but who would likely encourage or discourage the use of the system among their staff). He had several hypotheses about how the system might work, but felt that the OSM process would force him to better articulate those assumptions, integrate the team’s assumptions more effectively, test the accuracy of the combined assumptions, and ultimately communicate them to management.

Based on initial conversations, the group chose to focus the core structure of the map on the system’s end users. In this case, the core structure (often referred to as the spinal cord or main chain of the model) assumes that users can move from being Unaware of the WL (abbreviation for “Workplace Leadership System”) to being Aware of and May Use WL. (See the section labeled “Core Structure” in the diagram “A Virtuous Cycle” on p. 4.) After experiencing the Workplace Leadership System, they might become an Advocate for WL — or they might become Resistant to WL.

The stocks and flows visually represent the movement of people from one state to another. The stocks (boxes) are the accumulation of people (how many in each state at any point in time), and the flows (circles) are the processes that advance people through the various stocks. The initiative would need to carefully manage the movement from Unaware to Aware and then ensure Advocates were generated while simultaneously limiting the flow into Resistant to WL. The team spent hours further defining attributes associated with the stocks: What type of person was in each stock? Is there a better name for the stock? Is there anything missing in the main chain?

After focusing on the stocks, the team was ready to begin thinking through strategic implications by analyzing what might drive each of the flows. They quickly realized that they couldn’t directly affect the stocks — they needed to design policies directed toward the processes that move people from one state to another. The group determined that they could have a direct impact on awareness by having focus groups and other public relations-type events. People would move into the Advocates stock through word-of-mouth; their experience with the WL system would influence the level of Advocates and Resistant folks, because the more positive the experience, the faster the rate of acquiring new Advocates.

As always happens, the team identified weaknesses in the draft map’s assumptions. Foremost among these was the map’s aggregation of the learning initiative’s attributes into a single stock. The team suggested three categories of attributes: Useful Content, Features, and Ease of Use. The discussion around the development of these features was heated. Through it, the team found an appreciation for the level of precision that OSMs bring to what’s often a fuzzy process.

As a result of the conversations to improve the assumptions in the map, the team identified a virtuous cycle they wanted to set in motion. An important element of the Workplace Leadership System is users’ ability to add their own content, wisdom, and expertise—and Advocates would likely contribute the most. The greater the content that the program has to offer, the greater participants’ overall satisfaction will be (the team called this the “Wow!” effect). High levels of satisfaction in turn create more Advocates. A nice loop to get going! The team realized, however, that a limit to growth for this loop would be the ease of use. If it’s not easy to add content, then Advocates probably will not do so, making it difficult to set the cycle into motion.

The team found that the mapping process surfaced a dark side of implementation that they hadn’t consciously discussed before: the buildup of folks resistant to the initiative. At first, the group was dismayed to think about the potential for Resisters to develop in

A VIRTUOUS CYCLE

An important element of the Workplace Leadership System is users’ ability to add their own content, wisdom, and expertise. The greater the content that the program has to offer, the greater participants’ overall satisfaction will be. High levels of satisfaction in turn will create more Advocates.

the organization. But after some discussion, they realized that because they now knew the possibility existed, they could look out for it.

Further, they decided that if budding Resisters were identified early enough and were listened to, two things would happen. First, they would likely have feedback that would improve the overall system. More importantly, they might move over into the stock of Advocates. The team believed that people who cared enough to be Resisters could become strong Advocates — the energy would just be directed differently. The team referred to this as an aikido approach to resistance: Rather than push directly back against critical feedback (the natural tendency of a design team), they would redirect the energy behind the criticism — and apply it to improving the product. The team also strongly believed that the process of listening would generate Advocates.

The group developed a large wall hanging with crisp high-resolution graphics. Over the course of a couple of weeks, they used the map in their meetings and presented it to managers and other stakeholder groups within Boeing. In discussions and presentations, team members were able to walk up to the map, point directly at the area of strategy they were describing, and quickly get everyone’s reactions.

As a result of these meetings, the map was modified slightly — yet the core structure remained the same. The team found they could present the map without the aid of the project consultant. In that sense, they owned the map, its assumptions, and the implications it had for their strategy — it provided a common framework that guided their discussions.

Aligning the Organization to the Strategy. The second step in the process is to align the organization to the strategy. The team did so by using the map to develop a team project plan. They focused on the flows in the map and assigned tasks to different individuals. Although the group could have used sophisticated project planning software, for this effort they imported snapshots of map segments into Excel worksheets and added roles and responsibilities (see “The Project Plan”).

Results from the Initiative

The project is still underway, but the team has already reaped several benefits from developing the OSM. The most significant impact is that the team focused their early effort on a seven-day process to set in motion a virtuous cycle around the project. The goal of this experiment was to learn as quickly as possible about potential Advocates and Resisters. The team tested the initiative’s ease of use, features, and useful content in order to assess the “Wow!” factor, identify the number of individuals in various categories, and analyze the quality of their experience in moving to being an Advocate or a Resister.

As a result of this exploration, the team reconceptualized the project’s web interface. If they hadn’t learned from this experiment with setting a virtuous cycle in motion, they might have wasted a large portion of their 2005 budget in trying to implement a system without thoughtful consideration of Advocates and Resisters.

The team was pleased to find that the map was still valid even after the shift in emphasis. This process confirmed that the level of aggregation was sufficiently useful, that is, it allowed them to examine the implications of their implementation strategy at a high level, without becoming so specific that they needed to modify the map every time they made minor modifications to the actual program.

Making Strategy Everyone’s Everyday Job. Another result of the OSM process was that the team developed a shared language. This terminology improved the quality of conversations, because it made implicit assumptions about the strategy explicit. It created an environment for making

THE PROJECT PLAN

The team developed a project plan by focusing on the flows in the map and assigning tasks to different individuals. They imported snapshots of map segments into Excel worksheets and added roles and responsibilities.

strategy everyone’s everyday job. When people pointed to a piece of the map to describe the impact of a certain proposal, everyone understood what they were referring to. Having a shared language also had the unintended benefit of increasing camaraderie.

In most cases of strategy development, management knows the underlying assumptions, but the implementation team is left in the dark. The OSM process integrates assumptions from the entire team. The group as a whole owns the strategy, the implementation, and of course, the results. Talk about empowerment!

Another benefit of the process was that the team found it easier to be brutally honest during implementation. For example, as word of the Workplace Leadership Initiative spread during the development of the map, the team not only heard from folks with a favorable impression of the project but also from those with an unfavorable view. In other circumstances, the group might have filtered out the negative input. But because the map suggested that they pay attention to potential resisters, and that by doing so they could generate a positive trend, the team accepted the early criticism and incorporated some of the constructive comments in their implementation plan.

Making Strategy a Continual Process. As part of continual learning, the Boeing team may choose to go into more detail in some areas of the map. They are exploring the potential benefits of developing simulation models of certain aspects. Further, the group may build additional maps or revise the current one. Even so, they will continue to use the OSM they’ve developed in building and implementing strategy for months to come.

Using the Methodology in Your Organization

If you’d like to use an Operational Strategy Map to help guide your strategic planning and implementation, here are a few things we’ve learned:

• You won’t get the map perfect the first time. The process of building the map is where the learning is. Create a prototype (what we’ve called the “strawman map”) as quickly as you can. Then let the strategy development team critique, modify, and ultimately own it. The process of their owning it will make it better. Trust us!
• Identify as quickly as possible the “main chain” of the map. Use the main chain to ask questions about how the system in question works and what might be some unintended consequences of any activities.
• Focus on analyzing the major dynamics in the map. In the case described here, the team focused on the major virtuous cycle for a week. They asked questions about it, tested its usefulness and likelihood of occurrence — and in the end, they developed a whole new approach to the overall project.
• Fit the map on one page if you can. The Boeing team struggled on occasion as it tried to add nuances to the map that added complexity. The understanding generated from these incremental add-ons was usually minimal. You can always create separate maps of more detailed processes at a later date.
• Once the strawman map has been developed, modify it only in the presence of the whole team. Otherwise, you will not have the buy in needed to implement any new insights. Plus, you’ll likely miss something important when making the change.
• Develop simulation models only to the point where doing so provides an adequate return for the time and money invested. The process of simulation modeling is often a laborious one; it may take months to develop a reasonably sophisticated computer model of the strategy. The siren call of “We’ll find the answer” often tempts teams to try to develop the Mother of All Models. But this quest can become a journey of diminishing returns, in that simulation modeling may not generate enough additional insight to be worth the investment. The team in this article will develop a few small models to deepen and refine their understanding of implementation dynamics.

The OSM methodology holds potential for all organizations. The process of developing a simple, one page stock and flow map of the organization’s strategy generates strategic insight and commitment to implementation. If your organization has been struggling to execute its strategy — or even to develop a good one — you will find building an OSM useful. It’s a perfect tool to get everyone on the same page so that when you come to a fork in the road, you’ll be more likely to take the better path.

Chris Soderquist (chris.soderquist@pontifexconsulting.com) is the founder of Pontifex Consulting. He consults to organizations and communities in order to build their capacity to create and implement sustainable, high-leverage solutions to their most strategic challenges. Mark Shimada (mark.s.shimada@boeing.com) is a program manager in The Boeing Company’s Leadership Development and Functional Excellence Group. He supports his peers to accelerate business results through extraordinary leadership development programs.

The post Operational Strategy Mapping: Learning and Executing at The Boeing Company appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Is that a good thing? Well, it depends on the quality of the meeting. Educational professionals concur that most of the time they spend in “meeting mode” could be better used otherwise. Are we to conclude, then, that meetings should be abolished? On the contrary, an understanding of systems and learning suggests that meetings can and should be powerful vehicles of positive change, leading participants to common understanding that results in authentic engagement and alignment.

A Systems Perspective

The fault is not in the meeting form itself but in our approach to meetings. According to Fred Kofman and Peter Senge (in Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace, edited by Sarita Chawla and John Renesch, Productivity Press, 1995), “the main dysfunctions in today’s organizations are actually by-products of their past success.” As a culture, we have become accustomed to going to meetings that are rarely interesting, much less opportunities for learning and community development. Nevertheless, those poorly constructed gatherings have managed to move us forward as schools. Any hint of doing away with or dramatically changing them is often perceived as heresy, heard as “that’s not the way we do things here.”

As a culture, we have become accustomed to going to meetings that are rarely interesting, much less opportunities for learning and community development.

The solution? Looking at the school district from a systems perspective. In a systems worldview, as we move from the primacy of the pieces to the primacy of the whole, each meeting provides an opportunity for participants to develop a collective understanding of their connectedness and interdependence. As people evolve from focusing on self to focusing on self as a member of a larger community, the purpose of meetings shifts from solving problems to creating, from defending absolute truths of the moment to achieving coherent and collective interpretations of what they want their school to be.

Gone are the gripe sessions, the meetings that take place simply because it is the appointed time for the appointed group to convene, and the gatherings that subtly pull a subsystem (department, grade level, staff sector) off the track of established vision and mission. Participants no longer come to the table with the traditional burning questions: How is my job to be redefined today? or How can I use this meeting to get what I want within the system? Instead, every meeting within the entire school district centers on aligning people’s efforts to help achieve the system’s vision and mission.

This new meeting paradigm enables leaders to steward the system rather than control it. Instead of poking around in unfolding educational and administrative processes, the facilitator clarifies and aligns the action of the group. Time is redirected from typical “administrivia” and ritual actions to the development of shared meaning, as each participant experiences personal learning through conversation. This shift enables meeting leaders to “identify problems that can best be addressed through collective action and then involve others in finding solutions” (Liebman and Friedrich, “Teachers, Writers, Leaders” in Educational Leadership, 65(1) September 2007). The leader of such a meeting is now a community agent helping to align his or her group with the system’s goals and facilitating the design of methods for achieving those goals.

A FOCUS on Conversational Leadership

To make this shift, in school systems across the country, district and school-level leaders regularly engage people in results-oriented, focused meetings based on a communication model called “conversational leadership,” a phrase to my knowledge coined by Carolyn Baldwin, an elementary principal from Winter Haven, Florida. Conversational leadership (CL) uses multiple learning tools to develop a common understanding and aligned action in an organization. The philosophical foundations of this approach lie in Malcolm Knowles’s adult learning models, the total quality work of W. Edwards Deming, Peter Senge’s learning organizations, Edward Schein’s ideas of process consulting, leadership philosopher Robert K. Greenleaf’s servant-leadership, and effective communication theory.

Using the conversational leadership model, the designer and steward of each meeting is responsible for helping to achieve the organization’s desired outcomes through learning. The successful meeting, then, will have as its particular outcome some type of personal or team structural change — i.e.,a change in thinking, acting, or interacting. As this change occurs, the group becomes realigned with the system’s goals, identifying and committing to methods it can adopt to help achieve those goals. As each and every meeting is focused on supporting the success of the system as a whole, the meeting leader — whether teacher, principal, PTO president, or curriculum supervisor—crafts and stewards the meeting in alignment with the system’s mission and goals.

Each meeting begins with ground rules, which can be posted and referenced as needed. We recommend FOCUS (each of these items is defined and explained below):

F: Follow the learning conversation guidelines (see “Five Guidelines for Learning Conversations”)

O: Open with Check-in and CPO (Context, Purpose, Outcome)

C: Clarify each agenda item with CPO

U: Use Closing-the-Learning-Loop protocols

S: Support safe space

Begin with a simple check-in procedure, inviting each participant to make a short statement that bridges the gap from their previous task/experience to the one at hand, ending with “I’m in.” Once participants have been reminded of the ground rules and have centered themselves, the leader provides a quick but essential overview to put the meeting in the context of the larger picture: How does today’s meeting fit into our larger, ongoing efforts and vision? He or she then states the purpose of the meeting (which should never be “because it’s the day of the month we always meet”) and tells participants exactly what outcome they can expect.

Context: How this meeting/agenda item fits into the overall mission/vision

Purpose: What common understanding or shared meaning we intend to develop

Outcome: What we will each know or be able to do when the meeting concludes

Some examples of context might be:

• An incident involving student rights has occurred that needs our attention.
• We are three months out from our ten year accreditation filing deadline.
• The Board has requested our input on a matter of policy at its next meeting.

Using those three examples, a purpose statement might be:

• I want to share the details of the incident and build consensus for a response.
• Today we’ll look at our timeline and make course corrections.
• I want your opinions on this matter to help me make a recommendation that represents your interests.

Finally, with those purposes in mind, the outcome might be stated in one of these three ways:

• At the close of this meeting, each of us will know the Board’s position and how we can support it.
• By the end of the meeting, we’ll have identified a handful of target areas and the steps we’ll take, collectively and individually, to bring them up to speed.
• I hope to have a rough draft of my recommendation, with your help, before we adjourn.

Once the CPO is clear, the leader can engage the participants through conversational learning techniques, clarifying for understanding as needed. Some organizations devote numerous meetings and retreats to truly mastering the concept of “learning conversation.” The leader’s efforts to confirm for common understanding are critical in developing shared meaning that leads to purposeful action. She does so by closing the learning loop — inviting participants to share their understanding about the information presented thus far. And, through it all, the facilitator must work to create a safe space, a team setting that promotes forthright sharing and discussion because participants feel comfortable and trusting.

Groups often apply three steps of this four-step process over and over throughout the meeting, bringing each topic of interest through the stages of learning conversation, clarity, and confirmation. When all business has been concluded, it is important to invite participants to assess the meeting’s effectiveness for the purpose of improving on the process at the next meeting. Such a protocol, in partnership with a new understanding and appreciation of the meeting as a valid way for a system to learn and grow, can turn your gatherings into meetings that matter.

One Voice

Once all the leaders at all levels within the system are able and willing to use conversational leadership to facilitate meetings that move the system toward its goals, the system begins to speak with one voice. That does not preclude disagreement. Vigorous disagreement among leaders using learning protocols does not damage effective communication. Conversely, disagreement allows for learning and enhances understanding, which leads to shared meaning. Sincere disagreement should not be construed as disloyalty or as a threat to the system’s unity. Difference of opinion marks an opportunity to deepen understanding, enhance the quality of working relationships, and accomplish alignment. Disciplined meeting conversation is one of the answers: “If we cannot talk together, we cannot work together” (William Isaacs, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together, Doubleday, 1999).

Through conversational leadership, participants are gradually able to recognize the interdependence of the varying subsystems and appreciate the value of constructive interaction with others. The steady stream of documents for approval disappears from the regular agenda as the “approval” syndrome becomes inconsistent with proper delegation. Everyone does his or her own work instead of pretending that endlessly supervising the day-to-day action of others is a meaningful contribution.

Meetings no longer aim at managing individuals or incessantly redefining operational details. The executive team learns that what it previously thought was “monitoring” was merely wandering around in the presence of data. Meetings no longer focus on complaints. Problems are expected to be resolved locally; if not, the issue is viewed as symptomatic of a system flaw. All players get to “have their say,” but they maintain the priority of the school’s performance outcomes and common mission.

More meetings are spent learning diverse points of view regarding the heart of the school’s responsibility —  supporting and nurturing the student body by projecting future needs and garnering wisdom for long-term decision making about performance results and structures. On a daily basis, teachers learn from one another through conversation with their peers; this becomes the predominant meeting structure. Gone is the preoccupation with what schools do in favor of clearly defining what schools are for. Finally, leadership becomes visionary, focusing on the shared dreams of the community, because it is no longer forged in a flurry of trivia, micromanagement, and administrative detail.

Successful meetings in schools and school systems, at all levels and for all purposes, can become significantly more effective and productive if they follow a carefully tested protocol. A good meeting is highly structured in its core processes, but fluid in nature, welcoming and encouraging participation. Ironically, the more carefully structured the meeting, the easier it is to invite dialogue and allow meaningful conversations to take their course. Following the format outlined above, meetings will achieve clear communication and common understanding — something vitally important in today’s educational institutions.

Raymond D. Jorgensen, Ph. D., consults, facilitates, and conducts workshops for public and private school systems, city and county governments, hospitals, banks, branches of the military, physicians’ offices, and a variety of private businesses. He spent 30 years in private and public schools as a teacher, coach, department head, collegiate faculty member, and school administrator. Ray holds an M. S. in Teaching and wrote a doctoral dissertation on learning organizations and organizational change.

For Additional Reading

Brown, Juanita. TheWorld Café: Shaping Our FuturesThrough ConversationsThat Matter (Berrett-Koehler, 2005)

Caine, Renate Nummela, and Geoffrey Caine. Education on the Edge of Possibility (ASCD, 1997)

de Geus, Arie. The Living Company: Habits for Survival in aTurbulent Business Environment (Harvard Business School Press, 1997)

Gardner, Howard. Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People’s Minds (Harvard Business School Press, 2006)

Schein, Edgar., “Dialogue and culture,” Organizational Dynamics (1993, autumn)

Senge, Peter, et al. Schools That Learn: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Currency Doubleday, 2000)

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. Building Community in Schools. (Jossey-Bass, 1994)

The post Meetings That Matter: Conversational Leadership in Today’s Schools appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

A Self-Organizing Event

The virtual conference was the brainchild of Holger Nauheimer, creator of the Change Management Tool book. It was the simplest of acts; Holger put out an invitation to his contact list, and RTVC was born. The conference was the collaborative design of a self-organizing group of independent consultants, facilitators, and technologists who met online; most still have not yet met face-to-face. In addition to Holger, who is from Germany, the RTVC steering team consisted of Stephan Dohrn, (Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Lucy Garrick (Seattle, US), Hans Gaertner (Bremen, Germany), Suresh Fernando (Vancouver, Canada), and Sofia Bustamante, (London, UK).

The hosts created an online portal where participants organized before, during, and after the event (see “Online Portal”). Links led people to conference registration, pre-session preparations, places to post session topics, and technical help. Because this gathering was an experiment, conference registration was free.

We used principles from Open Space Technology because of its simplicity and flexibility. Ironically, Open Space Technology, as originally conceived, has nothing to do with computer technology, but is a convening methodology consisting of a space to meet, a group with a shared theme or topic around which conversations can be focused, and time to achieve a desired result. Before our conference began, participants posted sessions related to our conference theme on an online discussion board. Time was scheduled for two tracks of self-organizing breakout sessions, where interested parties would participate using a variety of social media.

Imagine, if you will, a sort of virtual conference hotel where Skype Chat is the lobby and general convening space. Participants from around the globe arrive and sign into the opening session on Skype Chat. Other virtual rooms are designated as self-service places to get information on how the conference is organized, how to convene an Open Space session, technical support, and so on. Two tracks of breakout sessions are posted and convened in other virtual spaces using free social media such as virtual white boards, writing spaces, and mind maps as well as online video, audio, and text chat. In a closing session back in the general convening space, participants post outcomes from each breakout session.

ONLINE PORTAL

The hosts created an online portal where participants organized before, during, and after the event. Links led people to conference registration, pre-session preparations, places to post session topics, and technical help.

On the day of the event, we had no idea what would happen. About 30 minutes before the posted start time, 53 participants representing 19 different countries began to “arrive” and greet each other with no assistance from the facilitators (see “Participants from 19 Countries”). After the opening session, conveners held nine breakout sessions using a variety of social media platforms.

To be candid, I expected chaos. After all, in chat rooms, everyone can post simultaneously. Each social media tool has its own idiosyncrasies. To my surprise, the event was at least as orderly as any physical gathering I have attended, maybe more so. During the closing session, I asked participants for one-word reactions to the conference. Their reactions ranged from “thrilling, encouraging, and engaging” to “like riding a roller coaster, technically challenging, and disruptive.”

Our team was delighted by the responses and the success of the collective experience of conference attendees. We believe that virtual collaboration holds tremendous promise for code signing solutions to some of society’s most challenging issues, and because social media is a co-dependent environment, its strategic potential will continue to unfold as more and more people learn how to convene and co-create in it.

Lessons Learned

We realized somewhere along the way that we had been virtually collaborating in order to design our virtual collaboration conference. Since the conclusion of the RTVC conference, our team continues to work together on new projects. We still have not met in person. We get together daily in a private Skype Chat that we call our “office” to plan projects and discuss business matters. We recently facilitated an online brainstorm with people from around the world on the topic of participative government. We are openly sharing our expertise, learning from new experiences, and developing strategies to help individuals and groups who might otherwise have no way of working together.

Here are some of the things we’ve learned from convening the conference and other experiences with social media:

Ten Tips for Virtual Collaboration

1. Make It Cost Effective: You can do a lot with free and low-cost online tools. You can run global real-time meetings and automatically record the contents effectively and efficiently. Our first public conference was designed and implemented in four weeks with six volunteers and two part-time contractors at various levels of technical skill. You could not put on a physical conference in that timeframe for that budget. Our second event was a much more elaborate design and took approximately the same amount of time to plan.
2. Wade Before You Dive In: There is a dizzying array of social media. Pick a couple of platforms and experiment, ask questions, and get comfortable. This can be a time-consuming effort, so be patient.
3. Google It: Take advantage of free advice published on blogs and websites about how to use social media.
4. Prepare by Writing: If you’re a convener, consider pre-writing some text ahead of time in a simple text editor. Having prepared material that you can easily cut and paste into a chat or discussion can allow you to focus on the conversation instead of on the tool.
5. Hold a Technology Orientation: Allow time in advance of a meeting or conference as well as at the beginning of breakout sessions to familiarize participants with the tools being used. Test them ahead of time. This is particularly important when running multiple sessions utilizing different social media platforms.
6. Learn to Run Multiple Channels: Collaborating in small groups in virtual space involves running parallel channels simultaneously. Some, such as text chat, are synchronous (real-time), and others, such as wikis, are asynchronous. Some, such as most blogs, are one-way, and others, such as VOIP, are two-way. Experiment and have fun with these different media.
7. Hone Your Facilitation and Virtual Skills: The culture that has evolved from virtual collaboration features openly sharing expertise with a generosity of spirit. People share and help each other. As in the physical world, skillful facilitation supports communication, makes meaning, and creates the conditions for people to take conversations beyond talk to achieve goals. Your prowess in virtual-land will be aided by unlearning old beliefs about protection and control, and learning new ways to contribute and share the work. It is a practice—something you will never completely master but will improve with experience and curiosity.
8. Share Your Systems Thinking Skills: The virtual world is nothing if not self-organizing and emergent. Those lessons we’ve learned about being aware and present and testing assumptions are essential for successful leadership and engagement in the culture of virtual collaboration.
9. Designate Communication Conventions: Designating a few simple communication conventions can be enormously helpful when communicating via text. We use “ALL CAPS” to get the attention of the group; we use “@name” to address a comment to a specific person; and we use “#” at the end of a sentence as a virtual talking stick to indicate we’re through speaking. Abbreviations and incomplete sentences are common and part of the online chat culture.
10. Document and Keep the Conversation Alive: One advantage of all social media is that most of it automatically records the content of a meeting, whether text, voice, or image. To keep a synchronous conversation alive, we synthesize key themes and next steps, then cut and paste them into a community discussion board, blog, microblog, or community website.

Different and the Same

Virtual convening is part of virtual collaboration, but holding a meeting with geographically distant participants is just the tip of the iceberg. Conveners and participants have varying perceptions about what it means to collaborate. Our model of virtual collaboration continues to evolve in the virtual world, and so will yours. We change the virtual tools as they change us. Collaboration implies that real value is created for both conveners and participants.

In the virtual space, value is rarely limited to finances. It includes things like openness, generosity, respect, and reputation. Creating real value with virtual collaboration, as with in-person collaboration, is greatly enhanced through a thoughtful design and skilled facilitation process linked to the purpose of your gathering.

What is surprising is that an amazing amount of real material value is not only possible but has already been generated from virtual collaboration without the benefit of the traditional organizational systems and structures. By this I mean things like no org chart, no department heads, and no decision trees. These are emergent qualities in the virtual world.

In the virtual space, value is rarely limited to finances. It includes things like openness, generosity, respect, and reputation.

Consider what has already happened with Wikipedia and the Mozilla browser, Firefox. Wikipedia is a high-quality global encyclopedia published in 10 languages and three alphabets that was created by volunteers with a passion for its subject matter. For more than 10 years, Mozilla has been an open source, non-profit community creating and innovating on key Internet technologies where large commercial vendors could not. Mozilla has become the software provider of choice for more than 170 million people, creating products such as the Firefox browser and the Apache web server. Something revolutionary is going on in terms of what open social media can accomplish, and I have no doubt that in ways both subtle and obvious, it is likely to transform our institutions and organizations around the world.

In the closing epilogue of his book, Here Comes Everybody (Penguin Press, 2008), Clay Shirky tells the story of Aldus Manutius, a Venetian printer who in 1501 published the first translation of Virgil’s works in a format small enough to fit into a gentleman’s saddle bags, thus making the written word portable. Shirky, who studies the impact of media on society, goes on to say, “The lesson from Manutius’s life is that the future belongs to those who take the present for granted . . . The mistakes that novices make comes from lack of experience. They overestimate mere fads, seeing revolution everywhere, and they make this kind of mistake a thousand times before they learn better. But in times of revolution, the experienced among us make the opposite mistake. When a real once-in-a-lifetime change comes along, we are at risk of regarding it as a fad.”

Virtual collaboration is here to stay. It provides a bridge that goes well beyond geography. It is a way to connect what we have in common across space, time, generations, and organizations of every type and style. Virtual collaboration calls upon those of us who are learners to unlearn things because they have stopped being true and to tap into collective sources of wisdom facilitated by breaking through arbitrary institutional boundaries.

Lucy Garrick is a founder of NorthShore Group, a Seattle-based consulting and coaching practice in leadership and organizational change, and a cofounder of Radical Inclusion, which provides international education, social media strategy, and consulting services in the use of social media for positive organizational and social change.

For Further Reference:

Slide Show of Lessons and Outcomes from Real-time Virtual Collaboration Radical Inclusion Blog 50 Social Sites That Every Business Needs from Focus.com Skype: How To Make Free Calls Anywhere How To Participate in a Twitter Chat from TwitTip.com

The post Opening Space for Virtual Global Collaboration appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

What we may not realize is that the best way to get our point across is often counterintuitive. To be successful, we have to try less and listen more.

Understanding As a Goal

Have you ever been in a restaurant that has a swinging door in and out of the kitchen? Ever pushed (or watched someone push) on that door when another body is trying to get through from the other direction? What happens? You push, they push, and nobody gets through, right?

The same push-push back phenomenon occurs when two people want to get their differing viewpoints across at the same time. It usually sounds something like: “Yes, but you’re wrong because . . .” or “No, you weren’t listening. What I’m trying to say is . . .” and so on. If you want to get through to the other side and they’re not creating an opening, you either let them talk first or push hard enough to get them to hear you. If we extend the metaphor, they’re probably not listening. The more you force, the more they resist.

When you push for your way, you virtually guarantee failure, because the harder you try to persuade, the harder the opposition will do the same. He wants to be heard, too — just like you.

If you want to get your point across, don’t make getting your point across the goal. Make understanding the goal. When you try to understand your conflict partner’s view, you create an opening for him to do the same. The door swings toward you as you receive his energy, beliefs, and vision, and benefit from a peek at an alternate reality. You’re able to see both views simultaneously while you reflect on how differently this person perceives the world from his side of the door.

Giving Way to Get Your Way

Don’t give in; give way. There’s a difference. Giving someone the freedom to deliver his message is a gift and a model. You’re not saying you agree with the message; you’re saying you’re willing to entertain an alternative view to facilitate solving the problem.

Sensing a receptive audience, the speaker relaxes. His energy and ideas have an outlet. He worries less whether you agree with him, simply because you’re willing to let him talk. His need for you to understand him is less critical than your willingness to try.

Eventually he has nothing left to say, and now he is opening the door for you. In fact, he’s eager to hear your reflections. He’s thinking, “Wow, I just made some great points. I can’t wait to hear what she has to say about them!”

Offer Information That May Be of Value

So don’t start with, “You are really out of line, you don’t know what you’re talking about” or “Your reasoning is full of holes!”

If you want to get your point across, start by acknowledging his argument and appreciating his position. Specifically:

• Summarize his thoughts for him.
• Compliment his reasoning.
• Speak first to his positive intentions.
• Look for one thing you can agree with.

For example:, “John, you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this and care a great deal about the outcome. I liked what you said about . . .” You must be sincere. We’re not talking about manipulation, but rather a willingness to step into another human being’s shoes.

By listening and acknowledging, you’ve let your partner come through the door, and it’s starting to swing in the other direction. Here’s the place where you might get your point across. But one more admonition: change your thinking from getting your point across to offering information that might be of value to him. He may take advantage and he may not. He’s more likely to receive your offer favorably if it helps him achieve his goals, look good, or save face.

For example, “John, from what you’re saying, you believe you’re doing a good job and living up to the requirements of the job description. I have a slightly different take on it. Would you like to hear it? As I see it, you put a lot of thought into preparing our meetings and organizing staff, and I think you want to do a good job. I have some ideas about how you can go further in your career, if you chose to, by making a few simple changes.” The door is swinging back. It’s your turn to walk purposefully through it.

Six Steps for Creating a Willing Listener

In the end, you may find that “getting your point across” is language that presumes a contest of wills and that there are more efficient ways to achieve your objective. You are less likely to create defensiveness in the listener when you disclose your thinking, acknowledge his, maintain respect and safety, and establish consequences.

Keep in mind there’s a problem on the table to be solved. He’s offered his view. And now you will present yours. As you do this, keep the door open. The following steps will help you:

1. Understand Your Story and Their Story. Rashomon is a 1950 Japanese movie involving four people, each of whom tells a story about how a specific event unfolded. Each story is a little movie that looks completely different from the others. Rashomon reminds me that my story may vary widely from my partner’s, even when we’re looking at the same facts. It helps me exercise caution about how much I think I know about someone else’s motives. I try not to presume. How could I? It’s not my movie. My goal is to see his movie through his lens.
2. Educate, Don’t Sell, Blame, or Accuse. When it’s time to tell my story, I have to teach the listener what things look like from my perspective. I don’t assume he can see my movie either; in fact, I know he can’t. When an employee, student, or loved one acts contrary to expectations, I respectfully describe the feelings that ensued or the resulting impact on the environment or on our relationship. I assume the person has positive intent, and I try to help him to live up to that assumption.For example, “I think you were trying to help the customer as best you could, given the complexity of the request. However, from my experience, when I put the customer on hold for more than a minute, he usually becomes frustrated and hangs up. Let’s talk about how to get answers without putting the customer on hold.”
3. Communicate Your Hopes and Goals. If I’m disappointed, it helps to let others in on my hopes (for the relationship, the workplace, or the task at hand). For example, “When you said you would have the spreadsheet ready Tuesday, I took you at your word. My hope is that we all recognize the importance of deadlines on a project that’s as time sensitive as this one. Can you tell me what happened and what we can do to remedy the situation?”
4. Stay Interested. Remain curious and childlike. Look at each situation with new eyes. Don’t forget that everything you experience is filtered through your perception, your lens. As Stephen Covey says, “Seek first to understand.”
5. Center Yourself and Extend Positive Energy. I practice and teach the martial art aikido, often translated from the Japanese as “the way of blending with energy.” In aikido, as the attack comes, we center ourselves and extend our life energy (ki) to meet the attacker, align with him, and redirect his energy. We lead without force. In life and business, you do the same thing when your language and manner are poised and focused, when you exercise both power and compassion, and when you make your adversary a partner by honoring his energy and positive intent.
6. There Are No Guarantees. What if you’ve tried to find a creative solution through joint problem solving and the situation doesn’t improve? For example, after several conversations and promises to improve, a direct report continues to be disrespectful. Or after your numerous requests to be prompt, an important member of the team continues to show up late or not at all.

Did I forget to mention there are no guarantees? You may not get your point across, ever. You can, however, remain respectful, interested, and purposeful. In the final analysis, this is where your power lies. You can also employ your company’s performance management system as early in the process as possible and hold your staff accountable to its guidelines. At this stage, the point you want to get across changes. You are no longer asking for behavior change. Instead you’re making sure the employee understands the consequences of the road he is traveling.

At home, if getting your point across with your teenager means gaining agreement, you will almost never succeed. However, you can set limits and expectations. For example, “I hear you when you say that your friends can stay out until midnight. Nevertheless, you have to be home by 11:00.”

“But, Mom!”

“I realize this seems hard to you. But I expect you to be home by 11:00.”

Establishing limits and consequences is usually a more practical and effective way to be heard than attempting to gain agreement.

In any case, remember that winning a contest and solving a problem are usually two different things. When you find yourself pushing through that metaphorical door, stop and ask yourself whether it’s the winning or the solving you’re most interested in.

© 2006 Judy Ringer, Power & Presence Training

Judy Ringer is the author of Unlikely Teachers: Finding the Hidden Gifts in Daily Conflict, containing stories and practices on the connection between aikido and conflict. As the founder of Power & Presence Training, Judy specializes in unique workshops on conflict, communication, and creating a more positive work environment. She is a black belt in aikido and chief instructor of Portsmouth Aikido, Portsmouth, NH. Subscribe to Judy’s free e-newsletter, Ki Moments, at http://www. JudyRinger.com.

For Further Reading

Unlikely Teachers: Finding the Hidden Gifts in Daily Conflict, by Judy Ringer How to Get Your Point Across in 30 Seconds or Less, by Milo O. Frank The Magic of Conflict, by Thomas F. Crum Difficult Conversations, by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen) Crucial Conversations, by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and l Switzler FAQs about Conflict, by Judy Ringer (www.JudyRinger.com)

The post Being Heard: Strategies for Getting Your Point Across appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

That’s the challenge Al Gore has faced each of the more than 1,200 times he has personally delivered his presentation on global warming depicted in the film, An Inconvenient Truth. As an educator, I am fascinated by how elegantly he communicates complex systems thinking concepts — without ever actually mentioning systems thinking. By any measure, he has been successful: He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the film has won an Academy Award, and many believe that Gore’s work has caused a sea change in U. S. attitudes toward climate change. How did he do this?

What follows is an analysis of how Gore met this challenge, as well as ideas for how the rest of us might apply these techniques in our own work. Some of these observations have come from my participation in a training session with Gore in Nashville in support of his non-profit organization, The Climate Project, which is funded by proceeds from the film. While these ideas may not work for all speakers and all audiences, I think there is wisdom here for all of us.

Tips for Presenting Complex Concepts

Use Everyday Analogies to Reduce Complexity.

• Gore makes the case for why we should be concerned about the bleaching of coral reefs from higher ocean temperatures by calling them “the rainforests of the oceans.” “Rainforest” instantly evokes a rich, colorful, and complex habitat that serves as a linchpin of the environment. Coral reefs are equally full of life — and equally threatened.
• In describing moulins, streams that tunnel down through the middle of glaciers, Gore describes them as behaving “like termites.” This analogy elegantly communicates the idea that such melting will eventually cause ice sheets to break apart, just as termite damage can cause a house to collapse.

Avoid Technical Jargon Like the Plague, and if You Do Use It, Make Fun of It.

• After explaining the greenhouse effect in terms of solar radiation, Gore introduces a cartoon version by saying, “That’s the traditional explanation. Here’s what I think is a better explanation.”
• At another part in the film, he says, “Scientists tell us that the earth is a ‘non-linear system. ’That’s just a fancy way they have of saying that the changes are not all just gradual. Some of them come in big jumps.”In this way, Gore connects with the audience. He’s implicitly saying, “I’m just like you. If I can understand this, so can you.”

Explain Reinforcing and Balancing Loops in Plain Language.

• Gore never uses the word “exponential” to describe population growth. Standing next to a graph showing the level of population growth in just the last generation, he simply says, “In one human lifetime, something profoundly different is going on.”
• In describing why melting of the polar ice cap is accelerating, Gore explains, “As the surrounding water gets warmer, it speeds up the melting of the ice.”
• In describing how warmer ocean temperatures make hurricanes stronger, he states, “If you add energy to a system, it becomes more energetic.”
• Gore describes the Earth’s atmosphere as “a big engine for redistributing heat” from the warmer equator to other latitudes—one big balancing loop.

Don’t Take Yourself Too Seriously.

• Use self-deprecating humor. When Gore uses a worker’s lift in the film, he says, “. . . if I don’t kill myself here.”
• Risk using a few constructions that would get points off from your English teacher, such as “Communicate this real clearly.”
• And yes, even use a folksy accent if it comes naturally to you: New “Orlens” instead of New “Orleens.” I am certainly not saying that we should all talk with a Southern accent; I just noted that Gore doesn’t hide his.

As the actor Peter Ustinov once said, “It is our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously.”

Tie Your Message to Personal Stories. Throughout the film, Gore traces his personal learning journey about the Earth from growing up on a farm, to college, to traveling around the world in support of continually learning.

• The death of his only sister to lung cancer forced Gore and his family to confront the mental models of tobacco use. His father finally stopped being a life-long tobacco farmer as a result of her death.
• Gore’s son almost died in an automobile accident. Gore learned from this experience that it is possible to lose what is most precious to you. He reports that this realization changed “my way of being in the world,” a shift that enabled him to confront the reality that we could also lose the Earth. This personal experience is the source of the passion that has sustained him in telling the story of global warming for 30 years.

When I first heard how long Gore had been advocating on this issue, I reflected on the fact that I’ve been trying to tell the story of organizational learning for two years and feel as though nobody’s listening. If Al Gore can tell his story for three decades, then maybe I can keep at it a little longer, too.

Don’t Vilify Your Opponents (but Some Good-Natured Poking Fun Might Be O. K.)

• Regarding some in the petroleum industry, Gore quotes Upton Sinclair as saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
• Regarding skeptics, he cites a lyric from the band Dire Straits: “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”
• Gore implores us to rise above party lines in order to respond to this challenge: “We must remove global warming from the partisan framework.”

Sometimes, through their anger, activists end up recruiting the half of the audience who already agrees with them at the expense of alienating the other half who does not. We cannot afford such an outcome with an issue like global warming. This problem will require all of us.

Confronting Mental Models

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” — Mark Twain

In designing his presentation, Gore invested the most time trying to understand the mental models of skeptics: “I guess the thing I’ve spent more time on than anything else in this slide show is trying to identify all those things in people’s minds that serve as obstacles to them understanding this. And whenever I feel like I’ve identified an obstacle, I try to take it apart, roll it away, move it, demolish it, blow it up.”

• One technique he uses to try to win converts is to draw parallels with history. Gore relates denial of global warming to the rise of Hitler in the 1930s: “How do we react when we hear warnings from scientists” about something awful but that has never happened before?
• In one section of the film, he explores old habits that are hard to change through technology, such as nuclear technology: “New technology brings a responsibility to think about its consequences.” This is an unassuming way of addressing the systems thinking adage of asking, “And then what?”
• To prompt the audience to examine the inertia of the status quo, he invokes the story of the frog in the pot of boiling water—that is, if you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump right out, but if you put it in a pot of lukewarm water and slowly raise the temperature, it will stay in and boil to death.
• In an aside during training, he offered this additional thought on why elected officials can be slow to change:, “If an issue is not on the tips of their constituents’ tongues, it’s very easy for them to ignore it.”

Rhetoric As a System

Gore crafts his presentations by managing three stocks or, as he calls them, “budgets”:

A Time Budget: How long will the audience stay interested? Gore operates under the premise that if he periodically throws in an interesting aside or an arresting image, he “buys” more time from the crowd.

A Complexity Budget: Is the information too complex? By simplifying concepts, he buys more capacity to learn from the audience.

A Hope Budget: Is the graphic depiction of what will happen if we don’t act soon balanced by concrete actions people can take? Fear leads to paralysis. If we replace fear with concern, we motivate action, and in action there is hope.

The main thing that surprised me about Mr. Gore in person was how funny he is. I laughed throughout the training with him. As one of his asides, he then shared this fourth budget:

• A Humor Budget: Show a cartoon or share a funny quotation, and you make deposits in pretty much all three “accounts” above simultaneously.

Sharing a Vision via Affect

Gore also connects through emotion. Here are a few examples that relate to the genesis of his personal vision and his efforts to inspire that vision in others.

• Gore conceives of collective will as a stock: “We have everything we need — with the possible exception of political will. But in America, political will is a renewable resource.”
• “I set myself a goal: Communicate this real clearly. The only way I know how to do it is city by city, person by person, family by family.”
• “Are we capable of doing great things even if they are difficult? The historical record says that we can. . . . It is our time to rise again to secure our future.”
• “There’s nothing that unusual about what I’m doing with this. What is unusual is that I had the privilege to be shown it as a young man. It’s almost as if a window was opened through which the future was very clearly visible.‘See that?’ he said.‘See that? That’s the future in which you are going to live your life.’”

Peter Pruyn is an Organizational Development and Training Consultant at Tufts University. A member of the Society for Organizational Learning and graduate of Rick Karash’s Systems Thinking Development Program, he lives contentedly in Cambridge, MA. He can be reached at pwp [at] airmail.net.

The post What I Learned About Teaching Systems Thinking from Al Gore appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

First, relax and take a deep breath. (You probably need it, if you think a stock and flow diagram is cute!) Then consider some lessons I’ve learned, as I’ve tried to advance the use of systems thinking in many different organizations over the past 15 or more years:

Lesson 1: Except in rare circumstances, don’t tell your managers that they must adopt systems thinking. Most senior managers are eminent pragmatists, focused on their goals (or the goals they’ve been given). To them, as good as it is, systems thinking is just a means to an end. Your bosses will be more likely to hear you if you help them achieve their goals than if you ask them to adopt your tools.

Listen to them, and discover what their problems and goals are in their words. Ask questions. Be curious. Don’t fake curiosity so they’ll open up; instead, really be curious (people can often tell the difference, and taking this approach also affects your levels of perception). When they’ve stated a clear problem that systems thinking can address, ask them if they’d be interested in finding a solution. Then show them the way forward, perhaps without ever mentioning the words “systems thinking.”

Your bosses will be more likely to hear you if you help them achieve their goals than if you ask them to adopt your tools.

As an analogy, think about the times you’ve called the help desk to solve a problem with your personal computer. You don’t want the technician to tell you all the gory details about the technology you’re using; you just want her to solve your problem now. That’s the way your manager will likely regard systems thinking.

If you work for an innovative manager who sees the strategic advantage in simulation, you may again be tempted to start talking about systems thinking. Careful! I had a manager like that when I was starting in organizational simulation, and the situation initially seemed great. What I forgot was that the other managers I was serving, his peers, didn’t share his enthusiasm, and I needed to work on solving their problems, not talking about my technology.

Lesson 2: Don’t do your work in a vacuum. When I first started out, I’d ask managers what their biggest problem was. They’d tell me, and then I’d head back to my desk and computer to start working on it. A week or so later, I’d drop by the managers’ offices again to get more data, only to hear that they had solved the problem two days earlier! When I would ask what they did, it was clear they had found an acceptable but often quite mediocre bandage to apply. That is, they fixed the problem well enough so that they could turn to another area of concern that was crying out for help, but they hadn’t necessarily fixed it for good.

It took me a few loops through this process before I discovered that, if I didn’t change my approach, I would always be working on a problem someone had declared was their biggest bugbear one day and that they had “solved” two days later — not a way to feel good about my contribution or to ensure my long-term job security!

If a manager presents you with a problem, work with him to solve it. Solicit the information you need while you’re sitting with him, and capture the key aspects of the situation on paper in front of him. Scribble down statements, data, and fragments of stock and flow diagrams. Accept the manager’s input about the diagram. If it’s the sort of issue and situation where it’s appropriate to pull together a group, do so and use any of the facilitation techniques created to help with such work.

You’ll probably need to do some of the more detailed modeling on your own, but don’t stray long from involving the others in giving you data or reviewing and guiding your progress. You’ll have to judge how long you can stay apart, but in most cases, you should be interacting several times a week.

To maintain that openness and pace, you’ll need to be good at modeling. If you don’t feel comfortable working in front of your managers or internal customers, and if you have to spend more time studying than doing, get some support, whether it means taking a course, bringing in outside consultants to help, or allying yourself with others in your company who can help you deliver the services your internal customers expect. You might find a consultant who will collaborate with you so that you deliver the value together while you simultaneously increase your skills.

Lesson 3: Respect the data. As I was listening to an explanation of a problem recently, I developed an intriguing hypothesis regarding the cause of the behavior being described. Back at the office, I started working on a simple model to explore that hypothesis. The harder I looked, the less I could find quantitative evidence that my theory was true. After a bit of struggle, I managed to let go of my intriguing idea, focused on the data, and ultimately discovered what I think is an even more important story.

Remember that data comes in many forms, not all of which are quantitative.

Lesson 4: Develop a knack for seeing patterns and recognizing likely underlying structures. One of the key mantras of systems thinking is that events are part of patterns, and patterns are created by structures. Most people look at events and see events. When you see a notable happening, see if it’s part of a pattern. If it is, think about the type of structure that might create such a pattern — such as exponential growth or cyclical behavior — and look at the organizational system to see if it has such a structure. Then think about modifications to the structure that might fix the recurring events. Finally, test your hypothesis by creating a simple simulation model.

This approach will help you offer effective services faster, and your managers will appreciate that you can help them solve their problems well and quickly. Of course, you get better at recognizing the structures that create specific patterns by doing lots of simulation.

Some years ago, I watched a manager talk about bouts of overspending followed by bouts of underspending. To him, it was an event of overspending that lasted several months, then a pause, then another event of several months of overspending. I saw this as a type of simple oscillation, and I began to look for a structure that could create this kind of behavior. Knowing what to look for expedited my search for a structure in the organization that could generate such a pattern. It wasn’t too far from discovering the structural problem to proposing the cure, and then testing it, submitting it for approval, and implementing it. Incidentally, out-of-control spending dropped by 95 percent when we installed the new process in the real world.

Lesson 5: Remember that systems thinking is ultimately about helping people. No matter how ironclad your model seems to be, you’re doing this to make the world (or your piece of it) better for people. Most of us don’t want to be told what to do; we prefer being involved in the process of deciding what to do. When you keep others involved and make it clear that your goal is to help them, not simply to create a technological marvel, people are more likely to provide insights you need and help the implementation succeed. Besides, it’s the right thing to do.

In the out-of-control spending case, I created a simulation model and persuaded the manager to try the approach. As we implemented the solution, we created a team that met weekly to discuss progress and to guide mid-course corrections. Even though I had created the model and implemented some necessary software, I made sure my influence was only equal to that of the others. To keep that message of equality in the forefront, we rotated responsibility for leading our meetings so no one appeared to be the de facto leader.

Involving the entire group was key to our success, for everyone involved knew that they had a say in the matter and that we’d do what worked in the real world, not just what worked in my model. Everyone, from the administrative assistants to the finance department representative to the managers, understood that this system was in place to help them do their work more effectively and to help the organization be more successful, and they knew by example that their insights could and would be adopted to further refine our process. I credit the project’s success half to the insights from modeling and half to the way we involved the people doing the work.

Lesson 6: Plan on course corrections; systems thinking doesn’t end when you’ve got a model. Your model was only a model; you’ll probably discover unforeseen problems as you implement the solution. Because models produce hard numbers, while life often seems messy, it’s sometimes tempting to hold on tightly to the lessons of the model when the two seem to diverge.

Remember that you’ve just sold your organization on the importance of a systems view and on the importance of understanding feedback. Now it’s your turn to deal with feedback — feedback from the real world. Listen, observe, and reflect, and be willing to incorporate what you learn into the implementation.

Now, take another deep breath, stand up, and go make your organization and the world better! Don’t sell systems thinking; be a systems thinker!

The post Introducing Systems Thinking into Your Organization 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.

Unchecked and unmanaged, conflict can be negative and corrosive. But when the competition of ideas is suppressed, conformity stifles creativity. The challenge is to reduce the corrosion while stimulating the creativity.

Conflict has many sources:

• Disputes about inequities, broken promises, preferential treatment
• Competition for diminishing resources
• Fault lines of age, gender, race, craft, status, authority
• Expectations, especially when they are unclear or unmet

Fear sustains conflict, often the fear of failure. Employees who lack the competence or confidence to take on a challenging assignment will resist in order to avoid potential failure. Newly appointed managers with high potential but limited management experience will often precipitate conflict as a way of diverting attention from their own deficiencies.

Resolving conflict is seldom easy, but the failure to confront it is often more damaging than the conflict itself. The problem will persist, and the reluctant leader will be seen as timid or inept. This also holds true when we send the problem up the ladder of authority. Not only do we clog the ladder, we miss opportunities to learn how to manage effectively.

Every workplace should have a “conflict-management plan,” a prescribed and widely understood method for dealing with conflict. Most don’t; they depend on the experience and intuition of individual leaders. In the absence of a plan, here are some ideas that will help managers resolve conflict:

Stop Blaming. Pinpointing responsibility for past actions can lead to learning, but doing so can easily cross the boundary to blame, where accepting responsibility becomes difficult. Marilyn Paul, writing in The Systems ThinkerV8N1 (February 1997), reminds us, “Blaming leads to fear, which increases cover-ups and reduces the flow of information by stopping productive conversation.”

Manage Your Emotions and Ego. In Adversity Quotient: Turning Obstacles into Opportunities (John Wiley & Sons, 1999), Paul Stoltz suggests that the emotional “noise” of conflict interferes with its resolution:

“Filter out the internal static caused by anger and worry. These emotions cloud your judgment. Detach, in the Buddhist way. Acknowledge the emotion; it was appropriate for a few moments, so don’t fight it. But you need to put it away ‘on the shelf. You can still see it, but you control it rather than having it control you. Focus on the things that can really help you.”

When you’re steamed, conflict resolution tends to be more conflict than resolution. Turn the “noise” down as you try to hear what’s really going on.

And don’t let your ego get in the way. Bosses hate to admit when they’re not skilled at something; they think they look weak and ineffective. In coping with conflict, however, admitting a difficulty may be the smartest strategy, a sign of perceptive self-evaluation and, ironically, authentic confidence.

Deal with the Impact, not the Intentions.You may think you know why someone did something you didn’t like, but you may be wrong, so don’t attribute motives. Instead, deal with the impact and consequences of the actions.

Focus on Interests, not Staked Out Positions. People in conflict will come to you declaring their positions (, “I was only exercising my authority as team leader”) or (, “She doesn’t know what she’s doing”). Acknowledge those positions, but understand that they are not the path toward resolution.

Instead, get people to talk about underlying interests—their needs, desires, concerns, and fears. The positions people take in a conflict are driven by these interests. If an employee is not confident about his skills in a certain realm, his abiding interest in not making a fool of himself will lead to a public position to avoid taking on assignments in that area.

Repeat, Rephrase, Reflect. When someone would rather continue the conflict than resolve it, you need to be patient. One way to hold on is to repeat what they are saying, rephrase it in your own words to show you have heard and understood, and then invite the other person to join you as you reflect on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Here are five tactics for that conversation:

1. Explain the consequences and benefits of his actions.
2. Explain how his actions conflict with your values.
3. Explain how the long-term disadvantages outweigh short-term convenience.
4. Explain how his actions are hurting others.
5. Explain how he is eroding his professional reputation.

Skilled leaders can follow these guidelines to prevent conflict from damaging the relationships in the workplace.

Edward D. Miller is the managing director of The Newsroom Leadership Group, a coaching and consulting consortium that produces the popular APME Leadership Development Workshops. This article is adapted from “Managing Conflict,” part of Edward’s “Reflections on Leadership” series on newsroom management. Learn more at www.newsroomleadership.com /Reflections/s-redesign.html.

The post Creating a Conflict-Management Plan appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

By following these simple guidelines, you can make the time you and others spend in meetings satisfying, build productive relationships with your partners, and ultimately create rewarding outcomes. And isn’t that why we schedule meetings to begin with?

Deborah Reidy (deborah@reidyassociates.org), president and founder of Reidy Associates, has worked with many kinds of organizations since 1977. Along with her work as a consultant, she founded several businesses and was director of training for the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation. For additional resources, go to www.reidyassociates.org

The post Facilitating Constructive Meetings appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

I think of this process as being a soft introduction to the value of systems thinking for addressing complex problems. I have been putting systems thinking into practice and teaching it to others for close to 15 years. During that time, I have developed a spectrum of approaches for softly stimulating acceptance and learning while helping people tackle their most daunting performance challenges. The following are some ways in which I have successfully used systems thinking with a wide variety of organizational clients.

Drop-In/Ad Hoc Applications

For a consultant or facilitator, the use of strategic moments to introduce systems concepts can be powerful. These are those spontaneously occurring situations in a business meeting when the drop-in use of a simple balancing or reinforcing loop can explain or illuminate a previously murky situation. For example, to illustrate the point that organizations get the behavior they reward, I draw the following loop:

The key in such situations is to use natural language to bring the point across. For example, say “these two things affect each other” rather than “these two variables are interdependent” or “this causes the behavior to spiral out of control” versus “this is a reinforcing loop.” The use of systems thinking jargon right off the bat can be off-putting and perhaps even perceived as hostile (, “sit-up, pay attention, you’re not smart enough yet to realize this”). Metaphors (, “this process works in the same way that a thermostat controls the temperature in the room”) assist people in feeling they have discovered something useful or relevant rather than something they “must know” or “must do.”

In addition, I remain particularly vigilant for problems that recur or never seem to go away no matter what fix the organization applies. This pattern of behavior not only indicates to me that a systemic dynamic is in effect but also that the group is probably ready to try something different. In these instances, because of the team’s frustration with the status quo, their readiness for learning is usually high.

Example. During a strategic planning meeting with the public health department of a large city, the group articulated what had sufficed for a master strategy in the past. I wrote the two items that they had been speaking about on a flipchart and connected them with arrows:

The group recognized this diagram as representative of their implicit strategy:, “To make ourselves indispensable so that we can pursue being progressive in public health matters, and to be progressive so that we will be indispensable.” Without being aware that the diagram was a systems loop, the group understood that it represented their collective thinking in a quick and visible way. The loop became a touchstone as the group made decisions about when and where this master strategy was still in effect and when and where it was not. Through this simple exercise, people from diverse backgrounds were able to reach a sophisticated understanding of the system’s behavior and make better informed decisions than before without feeling pushed to learn something new.

Tutorials

Another method I have found useful is to offer a short tutorial or “miniteach” on systems thinking. This lesson contains the basic elements with examples customized for the business model at hand. Because it links to the organization’s most vexing problems, the mini-teach can create buy-in for the methodology and value for the organization.

Workshop or Systems Think-Tank

For organizations that are more advanced in their readiness and understanding, a formalized workshop approach can further the application of systems thinking tools and methods. The learning objectives of such a workshop are:

• A deep understanding of and experience with the concepts and tools of systems thinking
• Application of systems thinking to key issues in order to uncover leverage points/strategic actions
• Increased capability to apply systems thinking to key issues

The process for such a workshop involves:

1. Introducing systems thinking tools, especially archetype templates, to offer new perspective on the “real” problems and leverage points for doing something about them
2. Thoroughly investigating one problem/area/system as a “laboratory” for whether or not systems thinking will work for the organization
3. Agreeing on fundamental actions to take
4. Assessing where to go/what problem to address next, based on the workshop experience

FAILING TO 'FIX' TECHNICIAN CAPACITY

To free up technician capacity, the company offered incentives for customers to install the high speed modem and software themselves. As the ratio of technician to customer installs declined, technician capacity freed up, reducing the need for additional capacity. However, later self-installers tended to be less computer-savvy than earlier ones; for this reason, the volume of calls for assistance and truck rolls increased, creating a greater need for capacity once again.

Archetypes

Archetypes are useful gateways into systems thinking. Because they represent a “blueprint” of human activity, they are applicable and understandable across a wide variety of individual experience. Many people respond to the stories that the archetypes encompass and recognize current or past problem patterns from the descriptions.

I find that business leaders can easily relate to the universal wisdom contained in “Shifting the Burden” and “Fixes That Fail,” although I seldom use that terminology. These archetypes in particular reveal how quick-fix problem solving fails to address root causes and undermines a team’s ability to utilize more fundamental solutions.

Example. I used the “Shifting the Burden” archetype to help a group of senior vice presidents at the home entertainment division of a movie studio to portray the decision-making process in effect between them and their executive vice presidents, their superiors. The senior VPs felt that decision-making at the highest level wasn’t timely or of high quality, leading to missed deadlines, increased costs, and dissatisfied employees. In conversations with both the senior and executive VPs, I was able to “draw out” the system (see “Declining Decision-making”).

DECLINING DECISION-MAKING

Because executive VPs felt accountable for the organization’s success or failure, they kept tight control over decision-making. The unintended consequence was lack of trust, which undermined shared decision-making in the organization. Senior VPs felt that a more sustainable solution would be for the executive VPs to delegate decision-making authority for individual projects to them.

The senior VPs perceived that the executive VPs felt accountable for the organization’s success or failure. The executive VPs’ response to that accountability was to keep tight control over decision-making—effectively making most decisions themselves. The unintended consequence was lack of trust in the organization. Also, the senior VPs felt that they weren’t empowered to make decisions of any consequence. They believed that a more sustainable solution would be for the executive VPs to delegate decision-making authority for individual projects to them.

The portrayal of the dynamic with this diagram had multiple effects. It allowed the two groups to conduct a depersonalized conversation and to collaborate to “attack the problem, not the people.” The graphic also let the executive VPs explore why they felt that they were solely responsible for the organization’s success or failure. As a result of these discussions, the executive VPs have delegated more decision-making to senior VPs. They now conduct problem-solving sessions with a focus on organization-wide issues rather than product-specific issues— focusing on decisions that only they can make.

It’s important to notice here that I never once termed this diagram an example of the “Shifting the Burden” archetype or introduced reinforcing or balancing loops. I simply identified a natural, recognizable pattern and put it into a picture with terms relevant to the leaders who were exploring the situation. Not only did

Check-ups or maintenance programs use objective measures of a system’s performance to periodically diagnose problems that might not be apparent to someone on the inside

this approach allow the VPs to come to terms with a serious and difficult situation, it also gave me license to continue to use this method elsewhere in the organization.

Organizational Assessments

I frequently use systems loops during organizational assessments, where the purpose is to evaluate what’s working and what needs attention. By presenting my observations in the form of a diagram, I have found that teams of businesspeople can come to quick agreement about the problem, which leads to quicker agreement on solutions.

Example. I conducted an assessment of the relationship between the executive director and the board of directors for a Boston-area community health clinic. The relationship had broken down and resolution was not forthcoming. Using the tools of systems thinking, I revealed in a non-blaming way what I saw to be the current relationship pattern (click here to go to “Assessing Organizational Dynamics”). As a result, the group was able to conduct a difficult conversation in a truthful manner. This process led to breakthroughs in trust, openness, and role clarity between the board and the executive director.

As I saw the situation, the quality of the relationship between the executive director and the board had declined, which in turn had reduced trust and openness about the clinic’s financial and operational situation.

The lack of openness was a reason for the increase in turnover among board members and a decline in the clarity and meaningfulness of the role of the remaining members. That decline reduced the willingness of the board as a whole to contribute and raise funds for the organization. The drop in fundraising and contribution of the board led to the perception that the board was not an entity that added great value to the organization, further eroding the quality of the executive director–board relationship.

An additional loop fed off of the main loop, wherein the decline in trust made it difficult to recruit board members and keep the size of the board at the level that was required by the workload. This rise in the work demands on the remaining board members led to an increase in their sense of fatigue and, ultimately, a surge in board turnover.

This depiction, whether completely accurate or not, got all the variables “in the room” and made them discussable. It also showed the impact that each variable was having on the others, so that all could “own” the system rather than attribute the problem to either the executive director or the board.

In using systems loops in assessment situations, it is important to communicate that they represent just one person’s way of perceiving the situation—it may be right, it may be wrong, but it gives the group a starting point to non-judgmentally consider a situation and what to do about it. In this case, systems thinking is much like a shared vision: it is not so much what it actually is that matters, but what it does for people.

People and organizations change—rapidly, strongly, thoroughly—when ready to change.

Key Lessons Learned

To summarize, here are some of the key lessons I have learned in using systems thinking as a business tool and transferring the capability to others:

• Limit the jargon—it can be off-putting to people. Use as much familiar language as possible.
• Seek out natural applications versus forced ones. Let the teaching and application come out of a current business situation. Drop in the lesson rather than force-feed the group with a systems thinking curriculum.
• Appreciate and validate people’s existing wisdom and experience. Convey that systems thinking is a col- lective language for us to think and act clearly together around that existing capacity.
• Look for instances of frustration with long-standing issues. These situations are ripe for a systems approach, and people will likely be ready to look at them with fresh eyes.
• Help people see the interrelationships that are intuitive but not collectively represented. Use simple loops and build from there.

As one client put it, “This is a means to see the complexity of the business and to recognize that most of the time we can’t do quick fixes and expect to succeed. While our culture supports ‘just fix it, now!’ we must develop a level of understanding and tolerance for complexity.” For me, this kind of understanding is one of the best outcomes of all.

Jack Regan is principal of Metis Consulting Group, Inc., a management consulting and training firm whose mission is to initiate and build workplace communities where individuals and organizations realize the results that most matter to them. Over the past 16 years, Jack has focused on the design, facilitation, and management of organizational change. He has worked with leaders and teams in a variety of industries and communities on strategic thinking, planning, and implementation, and has used his consultation expertise to enable clients to produce both demonstrable business results and relevant cultural renewal.

The post Introducing Systems Thinking to Businesses the “Soft” Way appeared first on The Systems Thinker.