The reactions to the report by solid waste industry constituents varied widely. This mixed response convinced MN OEA leaders that, in order to decide how to move ahead, they needed to conduct a participative forum. They felt that systems thinking and related organizational learning practices could help a group of representatives from different sectors identify leverage points for change and address the social and dynamic complexity inherent in such an intricate system.

Systems thinking tools can provide a vital and sorely missed perspective on the complex matters with which our legislators grapple.

That spring, MN OEA gathered 27 participants, representing citizens, businesses, government, recycling centers, and solid waste processing industries statewide, to think together about Minnesota’s solid waste system. A Blue Ribbon Panel of legislators, industry officials, and community representatives would then recommend legislation based on this group’s suggestions. Participants were asked to be leaders and experimenters, to look beyond their familiar areas of expertise in order to understand the whole system, to adopt a view with a longer time horizon than their organization generally used, and perhaps to reach conclusions that would not necessarily be in their organizations’ best short term interests.

A Historic Opportunity

Systems thinking tools can provide a vital and sorely missed perspective on the complex matters with which our legislators grapple. Although there have been many systemic analyses of public sector issues, the challenge is to discover innovative methods for encouraging public policy making institutions to accept and implement the conclusions that arise from these analyses. At least initially, there may have to be trade offs between being right from a systemic perspective and being effective from a political standpoint.

MN OEA employed a highly participative process to help the working group come to adopt as their own the findings of the solid waste policy report. The facilitators and MNOEA did not direct the participants’work; they simply brought together a capable group of people and provided them with tools for dealing with the complexity of the issues they were asked to address. This “hands-off approach, new for public policy discussions, was a critical factor in the project’s success.

MN OEA also carefully selected participants, identifying the various sectors for representation and soliciting nominations for people “in the trenches” who really understand their industries. The agency excluded registered lobbyists to try to minimize the political element in the process. Final participants were chosen through a voting procedure, based on their potential to see beyond themselves, their knowledge, and their work ethic.

The Participative Process in Action

The process began with an introduction to systems thinking and organizational learning (see “Tools for Change” on p. 8). The facilitator also told participants how different this work would be from their previous experiences, defined the notion of respect, and made explicit expectations about respectful behaviors.

In the nine days the group met, participants engaged in the following activities:

• They used the hexagon technique (see “From Ideas to Variables” by David Kreutzer, THE SYSTEMS THINKER V8N9, November 1997) to identify issues and concerns regarding the solid waste disposal system. Writing their observations on sticky notes and posting them at the front of the room allowed participants to be fully present, incorporate emotional responses as relevant data, separate issues from the individuals who articulated them, and create a complete picture of the system.
• The participants then identified variables and learned the language of causal loops. They worked in small teams to explore the issues represented on the hexagons, using systems archetypes, free form causal looping, and stock and flow diagrams.
• They began and finished each day with a dialogue style check-in/check-out (see “Check-in, Check-out: A Tool for ‘Real’ Conversations” by Fred Kofman, THE SYSTEMS THINKER V5N4, May 1994).Through this process, each participant could voice his or her state of mind, thoughts, and concerns. Sometimes supportive, sometime divisive, check-ins/check-outs and shared luncheons were critical to building trust.
• The participants synthesized the smaller causal loop diagrams into one large causal map, making the relationships across the entire solid waste system visible at a high level.
• They developed options and strategies for moving forward. The group tested these strategies using causal loops and stocks and flows by identifying and considering the unintended side effects of proposed actions.
• Lastly, the group developed recommendations for the Blue Ribbon Panel. As they did so, they identified guiding principles for themselves as well as for the state, such as “We must protect the environment and public health,” “We must reduce waste generation,” and “We must collect better data over time.” They also employed a six-level agreement model to discern how much support each recommendation received from members.

In previous participative processes, this was the point where some participants sat back and waited to see what would happen; others, who disagreed with the majority, worked to undermine the final results; and still others voiced their distrust of the political system to carry out the suggestions. This time, all concerns were considered openly. Most participants came to realize that if they didn’t give the process their best effort, they would be contributing to the self fulfilling prophecy that real change cannot be created within the political system.

Outcomes

In the end, the group made 10 recommendations to the Blue Ribbon Panel, with some suggestions about funding sources. The final report included several causal loop diagrams for explanatory purposes. The group elected representatives to provide context for the report during the presentation to the panel. The panel unanimously accepted most of the recommendations are substantial achievement. A major reason for this consensus was that there commendations were intentionally worded at a fairly high level, with little specificity. Nonetheless, the groundwork for this level of agreement was laid during the time the working group had spent together, talking about their assumptions and concerns, from their vantage points within the system.

Interestingly, one of the group’s recommendations was that they continue to meet periodically to assess how the system has changed and whether the actions taken on the recommendations worked the way they had anticipated, and to tackle some of the more difficult issues. Participants felt it was important to build on the foundation they had created, both from the content of their work and the relationships they had established.

They also expressed cautious optimism about the ability of the political system to act on these recommendations while preserving their original intent. As the participants move forward, their exposure to and growing understanding of systemic processes and group learning tools should contribute to improving the political process.

Governmental bodies like MNOEA play a vital role in protecting vulnerable resources, and yet they face staggering levels of complexity. Ultimately, we hope to see an increasing use of these tools in the areas where they have the most value in the stewardship of our societal systems.

The post Minnesota Takes the Long View of Its Solid Waste System appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Reflection is the practice of pondering the meaning to self and/or to others of what has recently transpired in the immediate environment. It thus constitutes the ability to bring to light and make explicit to oneself and one’s colleagues what has been planned, observed, or achieved in practice. In particular, it privileges the process of inquiry, leading to a level of understanding of experiences that may have been overlooked in the heat of the moment. This deep understanding, in turn, provides a basis for future action.

Three Aspects of Reflection

There are three aspects of reflection in work settings that are often overlooked but potentially vital to ethical inquiry: first, reflection should be collective or public; second, reflection should be contemporaneous; and third, reflection should be critical. Let’s begin with reflection’s collective nature.

1. Reflection Should Be Collective or Public. Plato had the idea of relationships in mind when, in Apology, he quoted Socrates’ now famous phrase, “the unexamined life isn’t worth living.” Although people usually interpret this maxim as a call for introspection, it actually means that we need to discuss our life’s experience and meaning with others. As human beings, we learn about ourselves in relation to others through language; communication allows us to validate our behavior.

In reflection, we examine others’ responses to our actions to determine if our participation in our social communities has been helpful. Accordingly, our self is formed as much from how others respond to us as from what we do. The self, then, is linked to the social communities that give it definition.

In this age of Enron and WorldCom, how can we jump-start much-needed ethical inquiry within the corporate world?

The process of reflecting together and sharing our individual insights in the safe presence of trusting peers constitutes a learning dialogue. The data that come out of these exchanges often involve the interpersonal dynamics at play; when these are acknowledged and dealt with, true inquiry and insight emerge. Learning dialogues also serve to create mutually caring relationships.

2. Reflection Should Be Contemporaneous. Reflection should also be contemporaneous, that is, it should occur in the moment. For example, a team is just about to launch an advertising campaign featuring a comic depiction of a bumbling old man. At seemingly the last moment, a member chimes in with the comment: “It appears as if we have made our decision. But even though it feels right to me, I still have a nagging reservation that the scene may come across as offensive. What would you say to our taking one more look at it? I’m afraid we may have overlooked something.” This “reflection-in-action” can help a group reframe standard ways of operating so as to see experience in a different light.

Other forms of reflection relating to time serve different needs. Anticipatory reflection occurs prior to the experience, often in the form of planning, as learners suggest to themselves and to their peers how they might approach a given situation. In retrospective reflection, an individual or group recalls a recent experience, often with the goal of assessing or evaluating it so as to gain insight for future tasks.

3. Reflection Should Be Critical. Finally, reflection must be critical. When reflection engages our critical consciousness, it probes to a deeper level than trial-and-error experience. It leads to “double-loop” and “triple-loop” learning, both of which seek to go beyond habitual approaches to problem-solving. In double-loop learning, we challenge our assumptions about the applicability of learning from one context to another. In triple-loop learning, we learn about the “context of contexts” as we question the entire frame of reference for approaching an issue.

Consider an example: Executives often assume that, in order for their companies to stay lean and productive and to cut costs, they need to reduce headcount. A traditional, single-loop approach to the issue would be to research how to rationally restructure the company; i.e., lay off workers across-the-board, concentrate on weak operating units, rely on natural attrition, or make specific cuts. Double-loop learning would involve questioning the assumption to begin with that layoffs will improve productivity. Finally, triple-loop learning might address why executives automatically turn to reductions-in-force or restructuring as the set of usual alternatives whenever they are concerned about productivity.

Putting Reflection into Action

Acknowledging the importance of collective, contemporaneous, and critical reflection can help us understand its contribution to ethical inquiry. Through civil discourse about the values that drive the choices we make, we can begin to reach agreement about the standards our organizations should uphold. Critical consciousness enhanced through public reflection helps us recognize the connection between individual problems and the social context within which they are embedded. Once learners make this connection, they acquire intellectual humility, empathy, and courage to challenge standard ways of operating. They learn to consider data beyond their personal taken-for-granted assumptions and begin to explore the historical and social processes that foster universal ethical principles.

Let’s consider the hypothetical case of Charlie, a young professional who was considering whether to accept employment in a military laboratory known to sponsor research in biological warfare. Charlie considered this form of research reprehensible, but the offer was lucrative. With the money, he would be able to start to pay off nine years of student loans and contribute to a critical transplant operation that could save his mother’s life.

Charlie contemplated the offer for nearly two months without coming to a decision. The pros and the cons seemed to balance each other out. Fortunately, he was able to call on the wisdom of an informal group of colleagues that had met casually after work for two years. Although the group originated as a social gathering, it soon became a support network in which people felt free to reveal personal and professional problems for deep consideration by the others.

Charlie introduced his dilemma, and the group helped him work through the decision. His colleagues listened intently to his predicament and offered their support as well as a range of possible solutions. Although some had strong views about the laboratory’s mission, they were most concerned about helping Charlie think through the countervailing ethical principles that could ultimately guide his decision. For example, how would he balance the utilitarian value of possibly saving his mother’s life against the destructive use of the weapons he would be contributing to producing, not to mention the drain on his own conscience? His colleagues also probed a number of Charlie’s assumptions; for example, whether the lab’s agenda could be reformed or whether he was the only source of funds for the transplant operation.

We see in this example that Charlie was able to use all three aspects of reflective practice: his thought process was public, contemporaneous (as well as anticipatory), and critical. Likewise, human resource departments can design practice-oriented learning experiences to emulate the conditions reported in this example. For example, facilitators can assemble learning teams to help employees inquire collectively with their peers on matters of personal and professional consciousness. They can build reflection into learning experiences using techniques such as learning histories, after-action reviews, or group dialogue.

To ensure its practice in day-today management experience, coaching may be needed to encourage individuals to develop their insight by becoming mindful of why things occur in a certain way, scrutinizing differences between others’ perceptions and their own perception of self, becoming curious about how forces below the surface shape actions and outcomes, examining discrepancies between what is being said and what is being done, or just becoming open to feedback from others. By adopting a minimalist intervention style, coaches and facilitators can permit learners to manage their own process of self-discovery.

In this way, employees such as Charlie can learn to cope with real ethical dilemmas that can have both personal and professional consequences and, with the support of others, bring those issues into public dialogue. Such dialogue can go a long way toward preventing the erosion of integrity that has plagued the corporate world in recent years.

Joe Raelin holds the Asa. S. Knowles Chair of Practice-Oriented Education at Northeastern University. Portions of this article have appeared in his recent book, Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone (Berrett-Koehler, 2003) and in Northeastern’s Center for Excellence in University Teaching Newsletter, Teaching Matters.

The post Reflection as the Engine of Ethical Inquiry appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The statistics are sobering: As documented by the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2000, an estimated 64 percent of U. S. adults were overweight or obese. Today, almost three times as many adolescents are overweight as in 1980. With these developments has come a rise in diabetes, heart diseases, and other chronic health problems; approximately 300,000 Americans die each year from factors related to being overweight, at a cost of around $100 billion.

Some groups argue that the solution to the problem lies in the realm of personal responsibility—Americans need to curb their appetites, keep themselves from giving into temptation, and exercise. But several news sources, including ABC anchorman Peter Jennings and Consumer Reports magazine, have gone beyond pointing the finger at individuals for their immoderation to delve into the social, economic, and political trends that make it easy for us to pack on the pounds. The findings may help explain why so many people find it difficult to maintain a healthy weight and hint at systemic solutions that would help all of us make wiser lifestyle choices.

Battle with the Bulge

Americans’ struggle to stay slim isn’t new, but health statistics show that, during the mid-1970s to early 1980s, something changed in our battle with the bulge. What occurred was likely the confluence of a number of different factors, among them:

• The Growth of Low-Cost Fast Food. The number of fast-food restaurants per capita doubled from 1972 to 1997
• Supersizing. According to a study by nutrition experts Marion Nestle and Lisa R. Young, “Portion sizes began to grow in the 1970s, rose sharply in the 1980s, and have continued in parallel with increasing body weights.” Vendors found that they could increase profits by charging slightly more for larger helpings.
• The Expansion of Food Choices. New candy, snack, cereal, soda, and other high-calorie food products have flooded the market in recent years. At the same time, the food industry has spent around $33 billion a year on advertising, especially to children.
• The Reduction in Smoking. According to “Finding Fault for the Fat” by Daniel Akst (The Boston Globe Magazine, December 7, 2003), “Giving up smoking was responsible for about a quarter of the increase in the number of overweight men over a decade and for a sixth of the increase in overweight women.”
• The Reliance on Cars. Especially in the suburbs, people now spend more of their time driving than walking.

According to some experts, these factors have been exacerbated by certain public-policy decisions. Federal farm subsidies have led to an over-abundance of corn, rice, soybeans, sugar, and wheat in this country.

These staples are then used to create processed foods and fatten hogs and cattle—the foods we should eat less of to maintain a healthy weight. Because of subsidies, the prices of products high in calories and saturated fat have risen much less quickly that those of fresh fruits and vegetables.

If the majority of Americans are struggling with weight issues, then clearly larger forces are at play than lack of individual resolve.

The USDA food pyramid is also under attack for leading Americans to bulk up on refined carbohydrates while rejecting all fats. Government officials thought the distinction between a good and bad fat and a good and bad carbohydrate was too complicated. They simplified the message and gave license to unbridled consumption of white bread, white rice, pasta, and potatoes—foods that the body metabolizes much more quickly than their whole-grain cousins—while preaching wholesale rejection of fats, even unsaturated fats, which are important for good health.

Even school officials have contributed to the problem through efforts to balance their budgets. To save money, some school districts have reduced or eliminated physical education classes. And with so-called “pouring contracts,” soft-drink makers pay fees to put vending machines in schools. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently called for a ban on soda in schools as part of an effort to battle childhood obesity.

Food for Thought

Whenever we see a pattern of behavior that escalates over time, we can be pretty sure that some strong reinforcing processes are at work. We all need to take responsibility for our own actions and choices. But if the majority of Americans are struggling with weight issues, then clearly larger forces are at play than lack of individual resolve. And unless American society finds ways to intervene in the escalating obesity problem, according to pediatric nutritionist Keith Thomas Ayoob, “This may be the first generation of kids [in the United States] that has a life span shorter than that of their parents.” That’s some sobering food for thought.

The post Americans’ Struggle with Weighty Issues appeared first on The Systems Thinker.