My knowing continued all the way through graduate school and eventually into my first few jobs. Even as my knowing continued to grow, I felt I had it under control. I was young and had the stamina to know late into the night and still work the next day. I received recognition from my peers for these exploits. Sometimes, I would secretly go out and study a subject, even in the middle of the work day, just so I could control a conversation better, appear as if I knew all along, or protect myself from admitting that I really didn’t know what to do next.

Being a knower started out as a harmless way to get noticed and applauded, but it continued as a habit that complicated my life. The pressure increased to keep providing the right answers. I sometimes took panicked action in an attempt to maintain the appearance of effectiveness. I sensed that something wasn’t right, but I never recognized that being a knower was hurting me. Besides, everyone else was doing it, too.

Being a knower finally caught up with me, though, when I lost a job. Even though I presented my case to the people in authority with an abundance of facts, evidence, and documentation, my defense fell short, and I was let go. I had finally hit bottom (more about that later).

Knowers and Learners

When I use the term “knower,” I’m not referring to a person who is somehow defective and will forever carry around that label or implying that what he or she knows is not important. A knower is simply someone who adopts a “knower stance.” A stance is a mental posture, point of view, or particular thinking habit. It is possible to move back and forth between a knower stance and a learner stance.

The difference between a knower and a learner is that a learner is willing to be influenced.

The difference between a knower and a learner, very simply, is that a learner is willing to admit, “I don’t know” and be influenced. Knowers believe that they know all they need to know to address the situations they are responsible for. But, at an even deeper level, knowing is so central to who they are that they sometimes act as if they do know something, even when they don’t. In his excellent article “Learning, Knowledge and Power” (www.axialent.com), Fred Kofman defines a knower as “someone who obtains his self-esteem from appearing to be right.”

As a consequence of adopting this knower stance, knowers can easily become defensive. If they are responsible for addressing an unsatisfactory situation but don’t actually have the ability to get the desired results, in order to hide their not-knowing, they will blame someone or something else, hide the evidence, ignore the situation, or deny that the situation was unsatisfactory in the first place.

Learners are people who operate from a “learner stance.” They choose a mental posture that includes, at a minimum, three decisions: (1) They admit they are not currently achieving desired results — they want something more or better; (2) They take responsibility for addressing the current unsatisfactory situation; and (3) They admit that what they are presently doing is not producing the desired results. Learners often go deeper and make two more decisions: (4) They admit that, to achieve the desired results, they must go beyond the repertoire of actions they can reliably use; and (5) They are willing to be influenced. These five decisions motivate learners to seek new knowledge (see “Learning Path Decision Tree” on p. 3).

“Having Knowledge” vs. “Being a Knower”

Now, you might be thinking, “What’s wrong with being a knower? Knowers possess valuable knowledge. In fact, employers hire people to a great degree for ‘what they know.’ Therefore, it seems that being a knower actually enhances, rather than hinders, success.” Good point. Knowledge, or the ability to produce desired results through effective actions, is essential for being successful in the world. However, “having knowledge” is not the same thing as “being a knower.”

LEARNING PATH DECISION TREE

When faced with any improvement situation, you can follow the Learning Path Decision Tree to clarify what type of learning will be required in order to achieve your desired results. As you progress through, you are called upon to increase your levels of responsibility, ownership, and self-reflection. This diagram highlights the choices you must make, as well as the accompanying consequences you must accept, as you move further along toward the results that you truly desire.

Both learners and knowers can “have knowledge,” they just use it differently. Knowers effectively apply their knowledge to current situations that are static, definable, and knowable. For example, when a nurse discovers a patient in need of resuscitation, she assesses the situation within seconds and applies her knowledge to that static, definable, knowable situation. She knows what to do in that situation and acts skillfully and confidently. In that circumstance, knowing what to do is a good thing. Most people know exactly what to do in certain defined situations, which is fortunate — especially if you are the patient in that bed.

However, when the current situation changes or if the standard actions are no longer producing desired results, both of which happen frequently in today’s world, knowers become ineffective. In other words, it’s O. K. to be a knower, but not to stay a knower. To paraphrase Eric Hoffer, “In times of change, learners will inherit the earth, while knowers will be perfectly equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.”

In contrast to knowers, learners effectively use their knowledge and expertise not by applying autonomous, unilateral solutions but by inquiring further into the situation. They attempt to implement what they know in order to find out whether or not they actually know it. Learners see their knowledge as only a part of the whole realm of insight surrounding a given situation and not as the single, silver bullet answer.

Secrets of a Knower

As I said earlier, I am a recovering knower. Part of my recovery process is to admit where I have fallen short. These are things that knowers are not particularly proud of, but I share them in the hope that you might recognize some of these tendencies in yourself and seek the help that is prescribed later in this article.

When I am operating from the full-blown knower stance, I adhere to five particular thinking habits; we might refer to these as the “five secrets of a knower”:

1. I Live My Life on a Problem-Solving Treadmill. My life is dominated by solving problems. It is how I feel effective and make progress. I derive energy from opportunities to immediately apply what I know against a definable, existing situation. I solve problems to attempt to eliminate the symptoms I am experiencing, rather than to seek any long-term, fundamental solutions. I resist creating lasting solutions to problems because doing so would require me to design something that does not yet exist, thereby admitting that I don’t have the whole picture, and to eliminate the very source of my effectiveness in the world — problems!
2. I Force Groups to Comply with My Way. I know that groups work best when all members operate from the same page. Therefore, when I work in groups, I must convince others that I have the “right page” and that all they have to do is follow me. If they suggest alternatives, I try to shut them down or point out problems with their ideas, because we might be headed into untried territory. If I am part of a group where I have authority, I manipulate the members through rewards, punishments, policies, memos, and so on to instill a culture of compliance.
3. I Must Protect Myself During Conversations. My objective in every conversation is to win. If I can be seen as right, rational, and not responsible, I have successfully protected my image as a competent person. Any conversation that points out how I may be inaccurate, may be missing something, or may have contributed to a problem must be stopped. I use conversational strategies that counter such threats. I defend my beliefs and conclusions at all costs, because a chink in my self-created armor could cause extraordinary stress for me. It would threaten the core beliefs upon which I base all my knowing.
4. I Focus Exclusively on My Own Little Piece of the World. Because my aim is to control things as much as possible and to make things around me predictable, I focus almost exclusively on my team, department, group, family—in short, my realm. If I can make sure that my areas of responsibility perform well, then I can blame areas outside my domain when problems occur.I must also keep the internal workings of my area a secret in order to ensure that I can do things my way. If others suggest how I could do my work better, I react negatively. I resist interacting with outside entities unless I can get something from them that will make my area function more effectively. Even if a suggested change would benefit the organization as a whole, I am resistant to sub-optimizing anything from my realm.
5. I Direct and Debate During Group Interactions. I expect group members to interact by playing out predictable, consistent roles, which I reinforce by directing the interaction and controlling the agenda as much as possible. If I can put people in little boxes, then I can better control the process and predict the outcome of our conversations. I constantly bring up what worked for me in the past as a way of maintaining the focus of attention on areas where I have expertise. If I have position power in a group, I use it to manipulate the conversation, so that the outcomes are in line with what I want. And I will often work out the details of a plan in advance and then present the plan for approval. When someone challenges my plan, I make them prove why their approach is better than mine.

Moving Toward the Learner Stance

As I mentioned earlier, about eight years ago, I lost a job, in part because I was a knower and not a learner. I supervised a woman who under-performed, played solitaire, and slept on the job. I tried six different methods to improve her performance, all without success. Both the personnel committee and the full board would not even consider my perspective on this issue. Instead, the board launched a “fact-finding” inquiry, culminating in a final determination meeting. I was pleased to finally be able to tell my side of the story at that meeting, but when I arrived, I discovered that it had already been adjourned. Three board members stayed behind and relieved me of my position.

I had done everything I could think of to improve my situation — including having open and honest conversations, collecting and studying data, experimenting with different tools and techniques, attending workshops, reading books, seeking advice and counsel. But there was one thing I lacked: the willingness to be influenced. I spent a lot of time and effort busily learning all this information, really, just so that I might influence others. I tried to protect myself and focus on my little piece of that world. I didn’t reflect on the bigger picture. I tried to shape groups to conform to my notions, and I moved persistently toward compliance. In short, I displayed classic knower behaviors.

My next job was as organizational development facilitator for Gerber Memorial Health Services. One of my responsibilities was to teach leaders the five disciplines of organizational learning. As a good knower, I set out to learn all that I could about the disciplines, determined to know just a little more than those whom I was teaching. But a funny thing happened —I actually learned this material. And by “learned,” I don’t mean that I merely accumulated more information (which is what knowers think of as learning); I mean I increased my ability to produce desired results. I tried the disciplines out, and, to my amazement, they actually made a difference in my life and work. Below, I will describe how I used them to overcome the five secrets of a knower mentioned earlier (see “Shifting from Knowing to Learning” on p. 4).

Personal Mastery

The discipline of personal mastery helped me move from reacting to creating my way through life. As I studied the concept of the creative versus the reactive orientation, as articulated by Robert Fritz in The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life (Ballantine, 1989), I realized that there are two kinds of energy that prompt people to take action: pressure or desire. As a knower, my energy came from pressure, so I always operated from a reactive (problem-solving) orientation. I came to understand that there was an alternative to living my life on the problem-solving treadmill, and that was to bring new things into existence (see “Reacting vs. Creating”).

I became interested in this new framework but had no idea how to go about living from a creative orientation. Fritz’s creative tension model gives structure to the ethereal idea of bringing something new into existence. Creative tension juxtaposes an honest and accurate awareness of current reality with a precise mental picture of your vision or the desired results you want to create (see “Creative Tension Model” on p. 6).
Knowers have a hard time looking at current reality when the results are inadequate and they have some responsibility for them. The concept of creative tension helped me see less than-desired results as just one part of a larger scheme of success.

Shared Vision

Groups operate more effectively when they are aligned around an idea or goal. As I progressed in my knowledge of shared vision, I moved from using a short-term compliance strategy to a long-term commitment one.

The compliance strategy can work, but only for a short while. Four conditions are necessary for employees to feel a sense of dedication to a future direction or desired result: (1) Access to valid and relevant information; (2) Free, informed choices from a series of alternatives; (3) Participation in discussions and decisions; and (4) Alignment of the chosen direction with personal vision and values. If any one of these elements is missing, people will feel manipulated, their trust will be diminished, and their commitment to the decision will plummet.

These four conditions spread control among the members of the group, rather than maintaining it in my hands alone. This is a difficult transition for knowers to make. I must move from having “control over” to having “control with” others. However, breaking the commitment strategy down into four elements is very comforting for a knower—I can get my head around it.

Mental Models

The essence of the discipline of mental models is moving from having conversations in “protection mode” to having them in “reflection mode.” In protection mode, I believe that I must protect the “fact” that I am right, that I have all the information I need, and that I have not contributed to the problem. In reflection mode, I ponder my thinking and actions and ask questions such as “Why did I react so strongly just now?” “What information am I missing?” and “Have I somehow contributed to this problem?”

CREATIVE TENSION MODEL

Using Robert Fritz’s creative tension framework, learners juxtapose an honest awareness of current reality with a precise mental picture of the results they want to create. By doing so, they are able to identify the actions required to move from current reality to the desired future state.

Operating in reflection mode is a huge leap for knowers to make. Knowers feel they must protect what they know — they can’t be wrong or have incomplete knowledge. However, through the discipline of mental models, I have come to admit that there are multiple views on a given subject and that these other views can be valid and rational, too. When I was introduced to concepts such as “left-hand column,” “ladder of inference,” and “learning conversations,” I discovered a way to understand how people think and interact. This is great information for a knower! It takes some of the mystery out of difficult conversations.

Systems Thinking

The essence of systems thinking is moving from focusing exclusively on “the parts” (especially my part) to focusing on “the whole.” As a knower, I focus on “my part” because it is knowable, controllable, and containable, and I pride myself on my ability to address problems. But what if the cause or effect of a problem does not fall within my realm of control? If I pride myself on problem solving, I had better be able to fix this problem. But because I have focused exclusively on my area, I really don’t know how to go about addressing it. Should I admit that I don’t actually know all about my area after all or that I really can’t solve this problem because it falls outside my realm? I can’t be both an expert in how to run my area and a problem-solver extraordinaire when a cause or effect of a problem falls outside of my domain.

The essence of team learning is developing an ability to move from debating who has “the truth” to generating collective insights together.

The solution to this dilemma, I found, was to broaden the scope of what I pay attention to beyond my little piece of the world. I need to focus on “the whole” rather than just “my piece.” Systems thinking tools and principles help in this regard.

Team Learning

The essence of team learning is developing an ability to move from debating who has “the truth” to generating collective insights together. When I debate, I am pursuing the right answer — the correct answer. I am talking about things I know. Within the realm of what is actually knowable, this can work well. We run into trouble, however, when what is “known” becomes outdated and obsolete as the world continues its rapid change around us. Therefore, I gradually recognized that it is necessary to generate new insights in order to make progress. I just had to find a way to do so that wouldn’t threaten me.

I was exposed to a conversational technique called “dialogue,” which is often used to generate collective insight. When I began to try it out in groups, I realized that, at a certain critical point, there is, literally, nothing to debate. We are seeking “emerging knowledge,” which are ideas that have not yet fully emerged. It is impossible to debate who has the “right” emerging knowledge. When new ideas are being revealed, there is no debate.

Team learning does have some attractive and practical qualities for knowers. Knowers are always interested in uncovering new things that can be “known” — they just have to overcome their hesitancy to accept them if they come from someone other than themselves. Dialogue can also be employed as part of a problem-solving process, but it should not be used for making any final decisions — dialogue must precede decision-making. In addition, team learning is a great way to introduce collective responsibility to a group (“how did we each contribute?”), which is particularly attractive to knowers, who are very sensitive to being blamed.

Learn, Unlearn, Relearn

Alvin Toffler wrote, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Can you imagine the day when people’s competence is based not on their ability to be knowers, but on their ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn? Will you be ready? Will you be “literate”? By understanding the pitfalls of being a knower and diligently practicing the five disciplines, you will place yourself squarely on the path to success in the 21st century.

Brian Hinken (bhinken@gmhs.org) serves as the Organizational Development Facilitator at Gerber Memorial Health Services, a progressive, rural hospital in Fremont, MI. He is responsible for leadership development, process facilitation, and making organizational learning tools and concepts practically useful for people at all levels of the organization.

The post Confessions of a Recovering Knower appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Spiral of Silence

But how can simply keeping our opinions to ourselves undermine organizational success? Perlow and Williams describe a destructive “spiral of silence” that begins when someone chooses to keep her mouth shut about a problem or issue. The reasons for doing so usually involve preserving a relationship, maintaining one’s status within a group, conforming with the consensus perspective, or avoiding conflict. In other cases, a superior may actually try to stifle concerns or criticisms from a direct report to expedite the work on a project.

But rather than resolving anything, this kind of censorship—either internally or externally imposed—can lead an individual to experience a series of negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, or resentment. Such strong feelings can cause him to feel disconnected from and distrustful of the person or group involved in the discussion and to become increasingly defensive in interactions with others. This sense of insecurity can bring more acts of silence and even higher levels of anxiety and other unproductive emotions.

According to the authors, the ultimate irony of this dynamic is that “we don’t speak up for fear of destroying our relationships, but in the end our silences create an emotional distance that becomes an unbridgeable rift.” When that happens, thinking remains stagnant, alternative courses of action remain unexplored, and the quality of work falls. In this way, trying to avoid rocking the boat can actually sink the ship.

Speaking Up

If the spiral of silence is so pervasive in our workplaces, then how can we overcome it? First, we need to create an organizational climate in which people feel they can speak up without fear of repercussions. As Perlow and Williams say, “Managers with a lot of authority need to be especially careful not to punish people, explicitly or implicitly, for speaking out.” At the same time, individuals can take the courageous step of expressing themselves in a constructive manner as well as valuing different opinions and perspectives. In addition, asking tough questions can be easier with the support of others who share the same perspective. Finally, taking these steps can be easier if we remember that we’re doing so for the good of the company as a whole. As the authors say, “Don’t forget: Your boss needs you, too. And knowing that should empower you to speak up and help him appreciate your point of view.”

—Janice Molloy

Causal loop diagrams don’t need to be complex to offer insights—hone your skills by drawing some of the loops described in this article. Also consider the following: Where are the leverage points for change; that is, how might a small change in the structure lead to big results?

The post Breaking the Organizational Code of Silence appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

“[T]he emerging world requires a new foreign policy agenda, and fresh faces to execute that agenda. The trouble is, the same old ‘experts’ are still running foreign policy and most of them only dimly understand the world they preside over. Indeed, few people today, in or out of Government, have the background and skills to grasp, let alone direct, the new agenda.”

Reform will not do it; transformations are required, two kinds. First, a transformation of the way nations and international institutions handle global affairs, and second, a transformation in the way systems thinkers collectively conduct the systems movement. The second must come first if we hope to have any effect on the global mess.

Doing the Wrong Thing Right

Reformations and transformations are not the same thing. Reformations are concerned with changing the means systems employ to pursue their objectives. Transformations involve changes in the objectives they pursue. Peter Drucker put this distinction dramatically when he said there is a difference between doing things right (the intent of reformations) and doing the right thing (the intent of transformations). The righter we do the wrong thing, the wronger we become. When we make a mistake doing the wrong thing and correct it, we become wronger. When we make a mistake doing the right thing and correct it, we become righter. Therefore, it is better to do the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right.

This is very significant because almost every problem confronting our society is a result of the fact that our public-policy makers are doing the wrong things and are trying to do them righter. Consider a few examples.

The United States has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country, and simultaneously has the highest crime rate. We have more people in prison than are attending college and universities, and it costs more per year to incarcerate them than to educate them. Something is fundamentally wrong.

Almost every problem confronting our society is a result of the fact that our public-policy makers are doing the wrong things and are trying to do them righter.

Most who are imprisoned are subsequently released. As criminologists have shown, those released have a higher probability of committing a crime when they come out than when they went in, and it is likely to be a more serious crime. Prison is a school for learning criminality, not a correctional institution.

In quality, the healthcare system of the United States is ranked 37th by the World Health Organization. We are the only developed country without universal coverage; about 42 million people in our country have no healthcare assured. Moreover, study after study has shown that much of the need for the care that is provided is created by the care that is given: excess surgery, incorrect diagnoses, wrong drugs prescribed or administered, unnecessary tests. The fact is that the so-called healthcare system can survive only as long as there are people who are sick or disabled. Therefore, whatever the intent of its servers, the system can only assure its survival by creating and preserving illness and disability. We have a self-maintaining sickness- and disability-care system, not a healthcare system.

The objectives that must be changed in transformations are not usually those that are proclaimed; rather they are the ones actually pursued. For example, most corporations proclaim maximization of shareholder value as their primary objective. Any objective observer of corporate behavior knows that this is an illusion. As a study conducted a while back at GE showed, the principal objective of corporations is to maximize the security, standard of living, and quality of life of those making the decisions. Recent disclosures at Enron and WorldCom, among others, made this abundantly clear.

A similar discrepancy between objective proclaimed and objective practiced can be observed in most organizations. For example, one could mistakenly believe that the principal objective of universities is to educate students. What a myth! The principal objective of a university is to provide job security and increase the standard of living and quality of life of those members of the faculty and administration who make the critical decisions. Teaching is a price faculty members must pay to share in the benefits provided. Like any price, they try to minimize it. Note that the more senior and politically powerful teaching members of the faculty are, the less teaching they do.

Transforming How We Think

Transformations not only require recognition of the difference between what is practiced and what is preached—a transformation called for years ago by Donald Schön in his book Beyond the Stable State (Random House, 1971)—it also requires a transformation in the way we think. Einstein put it powerfully and succinctly: “Without changing our patterns of thought, we will not be able to solve the problems we created with our current patterns of thought.”

I believe the pattern of thought that is required is systemic. It is difficult if at all possible to reduce the meaning of “systemic thinking” to a brief definition. Nevertheless, I try. Systemic thinking is holistic versus reductionistic thinking, synthetic versus analytic. Reductionistic and analytic thinking derive properties of wholes from the properties of their parts. Holistic and synthetic thinking derive properties of parts from properties of the whole that contains them.

The creation of the department of Homeland Security is a prime example of reductionistic and analytical thinking; the whole formed by the aggregation of existing parts. In contrast, when an architect designs a house, he first sketches the house as a whole and then puts rooms into it. The principal criterion he employs in evaluating a room is what effect it has on the whole. He is even willing to make a room worse if doing so will make the house better.

In general, those who make public policy and engage in public decision making do not understand that improvement in the performance of parts of a system taken separately may not, and usually does not, improve performance of the system as a whole. In fact, it may make system performance worse or even destroy it.

We have not effectively communicated such thoughts to public-policy and decision makers. What should we be communicating to them that would, if heeded, transform our global society into one that is just and equitable, one that would reduce if not eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth, quality of life, and opportunity?

In other words, what should we communicate and be doing that could promote development of the world and its parts by changing the way public policies and decisions are made?

Up to now, those of us in systems have had little or no effect on the global mess. Nevertheless, I believe there is a role that we could play in the dissolution of it. What and how might we contribute to its dissolution? I think we can contribute by making public-policy and decision makers aware of ideas and concepts that would enable them to think more creatively and effectively about the mess the world is in. Here I discuss only a few systemic ideas and processes that I wish they understood. There are many others, but I would settle for their grasping this much.

The ideas and concepts I identify here are familiar to most systems thinkers even if they would express them differently. I include them to call their attention to aspects of systems thinking that I believe they should communicate to public-policy and decision makers.

Development Versus Growth

I hope we can help public-policy and decision makers realize that development and growth are not the same thing. Neither presupposes the other. Rubbish heaps grow but do not develop. Einstein continued to develop long after he stopped growing. Some nations grow larger without developing, and others develop without growing.

Growth is an increase in size or number. Development is an increase in competence, the ability to satisfy one’s needs and desires and those of others. Growth is a matter of earning; development is a matter of learning. Standard of living is an index of national growth; quality of life is an index of its development. Development is not a matter of how much one has but how much one can do with whatever one has. This is why Robinson Crusoe is a better model of development than J. Pierpont Morgan.

The quality of life that an individual or group can achieve obviously depends on both their competence and their wealth. Of two societies with the same level of competence, the one with the most wealth can achieve the higher quality of life. But of two societies with the same resources, the one with the greater competence can achieve a higher quality of life.

Because development is a matter of learning, one cannot do it for another. The only kind of development possible is self-development. However, one can facilitate the development of another by encouraging and supporting their learning. Nations must stop acting as though they can solve other nations’ problems. Nations, like individuals, learn less from the successes of others than from their own mistakes.

One never learns from doing things right because, obviously, one already knows how to do them. What one derives from doing something right is confirmation of what one already knows. This has value, but it is not learning. One can only learn from mistakes, by identifying and correcting them. But all through school and in most places of employment, we are taught that making mistakes is a bad thing. Therefore, we try to hide or deny those we make. To the extent we succeed, we preclude learning.

Furthermore, there are two types of mistakes: errors of commission, doing something we should not have done; and errors of omission, not doing something we should have done. Examination of the failures or crises that organizations and institutions have experienced reveals that errors of omission are the more serious.

For example, in the latter part of the last century, IBM got into serious trouble because it failed to pay attention to the development of small computers, and Kodak got into its current trouble for failing to focus on the development of digital photography until others had successfully staked a claim to it. Our public and private accounting systems record only the less important type of mistake, errors of commission. Therefore, for executives who want to maximize their job security in a public or private organization that deprecates mistakes and ignores errors of omission, the best strategy is to do nothing or as little as possible. This is the root of the conservatism that permeates the world today.

This nation, I believe, has never had an administration as reluctant to acknowledge its errors as the one currently in office. Because of this, it has precluded the possibility of its learning.

Learning About Learning

We need to learn a great deal more about learning. Our schools at all levels are devoted more to teaching than to learning. For example, it is apparent to anyone who has taught others that the teacher learns more than the students do. Teaching is a much better way to learn than being taught. Schools are upside down. Students ought to be teaching and faculty members should be learning how to help others learn and how to motivate them to do so.

A student once stopped me in the hall and asked, “Professor, when did you teach your first class?” That was easy: I answered, “September of 1941.”, “Wow!” he said., “You have been teaching for a very long time.” I agreed. Then he asked, “When was the last time you taught a course in a subject that existed when you were a student?” This question required some thought but finally I got it and answered, “September of 1951.” He said, “Do mean to say that everything you have taught for about 50 years you had to learn without having it taught to you?” I said, “Yes.”, “Wow,” he said again., “You must be a pretty good learner.” I modestly agreed. He continued, “What a pity you are not that good a teacher.”

He had it right: Faculty members know how to learn better than they know how to teach. Therefore, they should be acting as resources to students who are either engaged in teaching others, or learning on their own or with others cooperatively. One of the great gifts I received from West Churchman is that he let me go through graduate school teaching most of the courses I needed to take for graduation.

Democracy has to be learned. It cannot be imposed on others. It must be learned by experiencing it. It does not come to us naturally. All of us are brought up by adults who, even in permissive families, are authorities who control us or set limits within which we have freedom. In effect, we are raised in autocratic structures, however benevolent they may be. Therefore, in a sense autocracy is more natural than democracy.

Systems thinking produces radical and potentially revolutionary visions of public institutions.

I was once involved in a project in Mexico that taught me how democracy could be learned. A group of us from several Mexican universities and a government agency were able to make available to a very remote Indian village in the Sierra Madras Mountains a substantial sum of money the village could use for its development. It alone had to make the decisions as to how to use the money but it had to make these decisions democratically. The only power the team of which I was a part had was to veto any decisions that were not made democratically and that did not involve development. Town meetings were initiated in the square in the center of the village, and after a series of tries, the village members learned how to make decisions democratically. They also learned the difference between development and welfare.

How Do We Have to Change Ourselves?

“[M]an has been able to grow enthusiastic over his vision of . . . unconvincing enterprises. He has pit himself to work for the sake of an idea, seeking by magnificent exertions to arrive at the incredible. And in the end, he has arrived there. Beyond all doubt it is one of the vital sources of man’s power, to be thus able to kindle enthusiasm from the mere glimmer of something improbable, difficult, remote” (José Ortega y Gasset, Mission of the University, Norton, 1966).

Now, what might the systems community do about the deficiencies I have discussed? Clearly, we must learn how through communication to make public-policy and decision makers aware of these deficiencies and what to do about them. We are not doing so now. Most of our communication is addressed to each other, not to public-policy and decision makers. Our communication is based on our needs, not those of others. With the intent of changing this I have several proposals.

First, our principal professional organization, the International Federation for Systems Research, should publish a journal addressed to public policy and decision makers who can affect the global mess. Through expository articles and case studies, the journal should help them come to understand systems thinking and its use in their work. It should be distributed to them at no cost. The federation should cover the cost, if necessary by voluntary contributions of its members.

The journal, possibly called Systems Thinking in Public Affairs, should be supplemented by at least one conference per year held at a site at which a major multi-governmental institution is located. Public-policy and decision makers should be invited mostly to discuss their problems and listen to unconventional systemic approaches to them.

In addition, those of us who think of ourselves as system thinkers should contribute to those publications that are read by those in public life whom we want to affect. We should also try to make presentations at conferences they attend. Our professional societies should make it their responsibility to facilitate such participation by informing us of relevant opportunities and, where possible, by arranging jointly sponsored meetings.

Finally, we should engage in assisting development efforts of less developed countries, regions, communities, and neighborhoods. This does not mean imposing our solutions on them but assisting them in implementing their proposed solutions to their problems, even if they are wrong. They can develop more by making their own mistakes than by imitating our successes.

Systems thinking produces radical and potentially revolutionary visions of public institutions. Nothing short of such visions can transform the state of world affairs. I believe we have an obligation to the global society of which we are a part to make every possible effort to bring about a radical transformation of that society into one in which our children do not have to contend with the mess we have created and are exacerbating.

Russell L. Ackoff is Anheuser-Busch Professor Emeritus of Management Science at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. He is an architect, city planner, doctor of philosophy, trailblazer in systems theory, best-selling author, distinguished professor, and head of his own management education and consulting firm. Two of his book.

This paper was originally presented at the 3rd International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, May 19, 2004. The conference was cohosted by the Ackoff Center for the Advancement of Systems Approaches and the Association for Enterprise Integration.

The post Transforming the Systems Movement appeared first on The Systems Thinker.