This article will explore the manifestation of generations in the workplace through the lens of a compelling model that considers generational “personas” throughout history and their cyclical relationship to each other. By examining the dynamics of the generations present in today’s organizations, including their collective strengths, limitations, and the generational biases they may hold, I hope to provide a fresh perspective on workplace conflicts, leadership blind spots, and the promise of intergenerational collaboration as a means to elevate organizational potential and future success.

Generations Theory

There are a number of research studies, articles, and books that describe the historical and socioeconomic trends that influence the traits of different generations. Foremost, however, is the research conducted by historians William Strauss and Neil Howe. Strauss and Howe’s seminal book, Generations: A History of America’s Future 1584 to 2069 (William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991), examines the socioeconomic, cultural, and political conditions throughout American history and their impact on the formation of distinct generational characterizations, or “peer personalities.” A number of factors influence peer personalities, including the cultural norms for childrearing at the time, the perception of the world as members of the generation start to come of age, and the common experiences the generation encounters as it enters the adult world. In this way, a generational identity is formed that has distinct effects on the environment and, in turn, younger generations.

After examining the history of the United States, Strauss and Howe maintain that each generation falls into one of four archetypes that repeat in a fixed, cyclical pattern, roughly every 80 years. The archetypes are Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist (see “Generational Archetypes”). At a macro level, generations in each archetype tend to share similar experiences and have comparable impacts on the culture as they move through the four stages of maturity: childhood, young adult, midlife leader, and elder. For instance, Prophet generations tend to be indulged as children, immersed in spiritual self-discovery as young adults, preoccupied with moral principles as midlife leaders, and vision-driven as elders. Artist generations, on the other hand, are inclined to be smothered and overprotected as children, sensitive and conforming as young adults, tolerant and indecisive as midlife leaders, and empathetic to younger generations as elders. These archetypal tendencies impact the culture as they surface in social activism, leadership styles, organizational priorities, and national policy.

Each generation overcorrects what it perceives to be the excesses of its predecessors. Accordingly, at any given time in history, each archetype’s collective reaction to the social climate of the times, together with its related influence on those times, creates a predictable and repetitive pattern of both generational personas and social phases (see “Generational Cycles,” p. 2). In essence, the cyclical recurrence of the four archetypes serves as a natural balancing process that manages the inevitable tension between two powerful and polar social forces — civic order and personal fulfillment. The effect of this loop is to impel the evolution of society forward in a spiral process not unlike the seasonal changes of nature: from summer’s heat to autumn’s harvest, followed by the cold of winter and the eventual germination of spring (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_ Howe).

The Strauss and Howe model asserts the possibility that, at some level, we as a society have been here before. If history repeats itself, it does so because of the complex tensions and ongoing negotiations between the equally important human precepts of order and freedom, secular stability and spiritual fulfillment, communal good and individual rights. If our relationship to these core principles is informed by our generational experience, then many of our own mental models, biases, and behaviors will, to some degree, be tied to our place in time and reinforced by our peers. In addition, this model suggests that each generation has a crucial place in this evolutionary cycle, a particular contribution to make, one that may not be obvious to those blinded by their generation’s limited perspective. Generational theory and the data that supports it can expose the intergenerational biases that covertly occupy our workplace and illuminate the cooperative potential that exists in our current place in time, as we confront the future and strive to tackle the looming issues of our day.

With the implications of this theory in mind, let’s take a closer look at the four generations currently in the workforce.

The Generations of Today’s Workplace

The landscape in today’s workplace includes four different generations, each with a distinct set of defining experiences and attributes — both strengths and limitations — that characterize its overall leadership and cultural impact. There are of course individual exceptions to and variations from this big-picture model; nonetheless, I invite you to consider how your generation’s collective characteristics might, in some respects, be true for you, and whether that insight can inform the way you perceive and interact with others.

There are differing opinions on the birth years that define the generations; however, the dates given below reflect those published by Strauss and Howe, who present strong justification and sociological relevance for the ranges they cite.

Silent Generation (Artist Archetype) Born: 1925–1942

The Silent Generation still maintains a small presence in the workforce, although most make up today’s senior citizen demographic. Silents were children during the Great Depression and World War II. Largely overprotected by their parents, they were quiet and obedient, living with food rationing and the daily fear of bad news, be it a foreclosure, a layoff, or a war casualty. Outflanked in both numbers and stature on one end by the great sacrificing war heroes of the older G. I. generation, and on the other end by the indulged new generation of postwar “victory babies,” Silents were expected to do little more than tow the line of progress. As a generation, they married early, had children quickly, and subsequently endured the highest divorce rate in history. Nonetheless, many Silents went from penniless children to affluent elders. Committed to public interest advocacy, the Silent Generation produced Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, and while they still hold approximately 25 percent of national leadership positions in state and federal government, they have yet to produce a U. S. president.

As leaders, Silents tend to focus on process and protocol, endlessly refining approaches, mediating differences, and seeking elegant ways to build compromise. They were the fine-tuning engineers who put Neil Armstrong on the moon, the expert proponents of Total Quality Management, and the tolerant designers of integrated school systems. Often viewed by other generations as timid, unconfident, and ineffective, the Silent generation nonetheless exhibits the kind of modesty and poise that serves as a quiet reminder of the enduring virtues of respectful process, genteel behavior, and inclusive conduct, standards that will likely have a crucial role in our global future.

Baby Boom Generation (Prophet Archetype) Born: 1943–1960

Both in size and prowess, the Baby Boom is the dominant generation of our time. Boomers grew up in an era of indulgent parenting and prosperous times. As “Leave It to Beaver” youth, they were expected to follow in the G. I.s’ footsteps and build the next golden age. Confident and filled with the potential of creative independence, Boomers have not, however, embraced the grand civic destiny that their parents envisioned for them. Rather, the “Me” generation has rebelled against authority, resisted conforming to the status quo, and taken the notions of individualism and generational identity to a new level. From the “consciousness revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, to the “yuppies” of the 1980s, to the polarized culture wars of today, the Baby Boomers as a generation are known for their fixation on self, youth, individual expression, and intractable moral convictions about right and wrong. Communal and well-networked, their collective passions and values have become a mainstay in our culture and are squarely reflected in our nation’s consumer, corporate, and leadership trends.

Baby Boomers inhabit the most powerful leadership positions throughout the United States — including the presidency — and hold much of the experiential, institutional, and political knowledge in the workplace. As leaders, Boomers tend to be vision- and mission-focused, sometimes to the point of being unwilling to move ahead without a highly principled course of action in place. As transformers, they frequently seek to reorganize, redefine, or overhaul their organizations. In every sector, Boomers often want to make their mark through an improvement, distinction, or change. Many lack the discipline, however, to see transitions through or are intolerant to the resistance that comes with change.

Often married to their work, Boomers have embraced the 24/7, driven, competitive work ethic and, as a result, tend to remain short-term focused — be it the end of the quarter, the budget cycle, or their term. For many, this pressure-driven mentality can trigger reactive decision-making, trumping more systemic, long-term strategic thinking. As they retire, the Baby Boom generation will enter their Elderhood — the phase of life during which past Prophet generations have made their most potent leadership contributions.

X Generation (Nomad Archetype) Born: 1961–1981

Xers came of age in the 1970s and 1980s, when the prevailing message of the day was to grow up fast. Primarily children to working, in many cases divorced parents from the Silent generation, Xers were deemed “latch-key kids” for the adult-centric childrearing practices that left many youngsters largely unsupervised by today’s standards. Self-reliant and street-wise at an early age, leading-edge Xers graduated from college in greater debt than any previous generation. Many were forced to take low-level, low-paying “McJobs” as they sought entry into the Boomer dominated, “leaner and meaner,” competitive marketplace. Criticized as “slackers” by the media, Xers learned to rely on their finely honed survival skills and comfort with the fast-paced, changing landscape of the Information Age. Independent, pragmatic, and technologically resourceful, Xers are currently some of the most sought-after employees in the workforce.

As casualties of the era of corporate downsizing, Xers tend to be skeptical of promises and grand policy visions and, hence, demonstrate little organizational loyalty. Their pragmatism leads them to measure their success on their most recent accomplishments or acquired skills versus contributions to a greater vision. There are relatively few Xers in leadership positions today, with the exception of the high-tech industry and entrepreneurial ventures. Xers tend to be highly pragmatic, no-nonsense, action-oriented, good at learning on the fly, and opportunistic (which can appear to Boomers as unprincipled). They can be good team collaborators when not bogged down with idealistic debates and tend to be proficient with deliverables and project management. Accustomed to fending for themselves, most Xers prefer to focus on their own sphere of influence — family and friends. Many aren’t willing to embrace the 24/7 work ethic, and often put work-life balance over income and career advancement. Xers have little awareness of their greater collective force as a generation, and as such often lack the networks and connections needed to influence institutions and the power to make beneficial changes.

Most organizations have failed to recognize the need to prepare Xers to take the lead in the coming generational shift. Lacking much formal leadership training or mentoring, Xers often struggle with the subtle nuances of leadership and can appear draconian when making decisions. History, however, holds a promise to leaders who strive to earn the trust of this talented generation. The X generation’s collective life skills and deep devotion to the future welfare of their children will arouse for many the courage to commit to meaningful challenges and the endurance to see through hard times.

Millennial (Y) Generation (Hero Archetype) Born: 1982–2002

The oldest Millennials (or “Gen Y,” as some call them) are just now entering the workforce. They have a different set of childhood experiences than the other three generations, and while they are still quite young, they are nonetheless making themselves known. Largely children of Baby Boomers, Millennials were born at a time when there was a tremendous social investment in children and childhood programming. From “baby on board” stickers announcing their presence to fully scheduled days being bustled from one adult-led activity to another, Millennials have led highly protected and programmed lives. They were indoctrinated into the paradigm of standardized testing and are byproducts of the self-esteem movement that infiltrated school curricula in the 1990s, proclaiming all children to be “winners.” As such, Millennials are accustomed to frequent praise for all activities and accomplishments. The digital communication age is their birth right, and they are technologically superior to older generations, including Xers. Because of the on demand capability to access information, many Millennials have a global understanding of the world and value diverse cultures, experiences, and environments. They tend to be accepting of differences and measure people on the quality of their talent and output, rather than on physical or cultural characteristics (for additional details, see Managing Generation Y by Carolyn A. Martin and Bruce Tulgan, HRD Press, 2001).

As they enter the workplace, Millennials bring enthusiasm along with a sense of entitlement. Many expect career-track guidance, supervisory oversight, and regular, appreciative acknowledgement. They are confident, bold, and willing to speak up for what they want. As employees, they will seek environments that address their needs for structure and adequate direction, balance between personal and professional pursuits, up-to-date technology, and a socially conscious mission.

The challenge of this generation lies in their heavy reliance on external stimuli and direction from above. They tend to lack the self-reliant skills of the Xers, and have little internal aptitude to process and effectively learn from failure. Given the demographic reality of the workforce over the next 20 years — according to the American Society of Training and Development, 76 million retiring and 46 million entering — skilled Millennials will have their choice of employers. Optimistic, technologically masterful, and civically focused, the Millennial generation promises to be a competent and highly productive workforce; however, they will need sufficient oversight, on-the-job training, and clear direction from older leaders—and they have the demographic power to demand it!

Intergenerational Conflicts in the Workplace

When considering the diverse perspectives, values, and competencies that exist in our multigenerational workforce, it becomes easier to glimpse the many possibilities for collaboration and cooperation that may be present. But collaboration of this magnitude will require some changes in the status quo. Before we can move into a productive future of shared vision for an intergenerational workplace, the two groups with the greatest leadership leverage— Boomers and Xers — must each take stock of the biases and mental models they hold in order to discover their intergenerational synergy.

Generational Biases. Intergenerational conflicts arise primarily from the biases that each peer group has about the others. Individually, we may be unaware of the insidiousness of these biases. Left unacknowledged, they have a profound effect on our ability to recognize areas of compatibility and work toward common purposes. Focusing on the Boom and X generations, “Boomer and Xer Biases” gives examples of commonly held biases each has of the other.

In essence, the biases each group has of the other reflect a generation centric perspective, one that fuels a belief that “my way is the right way” and “your way doesn’t measure up to my values.” These biases are further substantiated by peer reinforcement, as members of each generation talk among themselves about the way they see others. This dynamic interferes with the capacity of individuals to listen to and respect the perspectives and contributions of others, thereby blocking meaningful collaboration in teams, supervisory relationships, and between colleagues. Conducting candid discussions in mixed generational groups about the biases that exist can be an effective way to disarm the negative impacts they may have on collaborative thinking. Exposing biases can also illuminate important social issues that need to be addressed.

Generational Mental Models and Blind Spots. Our generational perspective contributes to the mental models we hold about ourselves, the world, and the way things “should” be. These beliefs create blind spots that can become our undoing as we pursue our values and seek to accomplish our goals. Likewise, they can have a powerful effect on our culture.

The generational mental models held by the Baby Boomers are clouded by the assumption that others see the world as they do. This is a typical perspective of powerful and dominant generations who, having had such a massive impact on the culture, are often unaware of how that impact is experienced by other generations. A prominent mental model shared by many Boomers is the tendency to view the rebellious era of their youth as their generation’s greatest contribution. This belief is reflected by Boomer obsessions with 1960s nostalgia, retro fashion, classic rock, and youthful enhancements like Botox and Viagra. There is a sense in which Boomers still view themselves as children, rather than the adult leaders and authorities that they are.

This self-immersion in the glories of the past — in which many Boomers “Questioned Authority” and waged adolescent wars against “The Man” — stands in stark contrast to the fact that, today, they are the establishment. The systemic impact of this reality is profound: If the collective attention of the leading generation appears to be focused on youthful notions of a time long gone, then who is attending to the present reality and the responsibilities of leading for the future? Certainly some individuals are doing so, but at the macro level, from the perspective of younger and older generations looking on, Boomers have all the positional and cultural power to affect change for the future. Yet as a generation, they appear fixated on preserving their youth, focused on competitive one-upmanship, mired in intractable positions, and inattentive to what is required for long-term sustainability. Such a perspective has eroded trust, respect, and confidence in Boomer leadership and colors the mental models of younger generations.

Accordingly, the mental models held by the X Generation are clouded by distrust and pessimism. As a less dominant and younger generation, they are naturally attuned to hypocrisy, and use any evidence of it to justify their cynicism and detachment. Disconnected from their own collective power, a mental model common to many Xers is the perception of themselves as loners who are on their own and have little in common with those outside of their intimate circles. As a result, most Xers see no point to activism and the spurring of institutional change. Rather, they prefer private solutions to public issues and seek to improve the quality of life within their own small sphere of influence. Practical and perhaps initially effective, the systemic impact of this perspective has its dysfunctional qualities. If this generation indeed has a deep commitment to family and the future of their children, yet remains apathetic about influencing the vision and direction of the institutions that affect them (employers, public schools, national agenda), then how will that bode for the future of their children? If Xers continue to opt out, they will in effect be leaving that future to chance.

Thinking Systemically About Workforce Demographics: A Case Study

Five years ago, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) at the U. S. Food and Drug Administration surveyed its workforce and discovered that most employees had been there for more than 25 or less than 5 years, and that the Center would be facing large numbers of retirements in the near future. This data impelled CFSAN leadership to prioritize the task of preparing their organization for the future. A high-level task force was appointed to study the situation and come up with concrete recommendations for a credible succession plan. After a year of investigation and with strong commitment from the entire organization, CFSAN created a Leadership Legacy Steering Committee. This group became responsible for designing a leadership development program that accounted for the needed skill sets and demographic reality of the Center’s workforce.

Rather than starting at the top (as is more typical), CFSAN began training first-line supervisors in the art and skills of leading people. Not only did this decision address the greatest need, it also signaled to more junior employees that they mattered and that this initiative was not just another perk for top management. As well as a solid training component, the program features mentoring and shadowing opportunities with senior leaders, promoting deeper intergenerational relationships and increasing the transfer of vital institutional knowledge. In addition, participants have opportunities for developmental assignments in different units and special team projects, both of which enhance collaborative relationships across Center departments.

The second level, for middle managers, which began last year, is aimed at emerging leaders who demonstrate the savvy and potential to lead at an organizational level. The third level focuses on senior managers and will emphasize strategic leadership skills.

CFSAN is accomplishing this effort despite severe budget cuts and increasing workloads. The organization continues to be led by Baby Boomer administrators who have committed to securing the future of the organization. They recognize that the best hope for ongoing success will come from younger employees who are motivated to take on larger responsibilities and feel empowered by the earnest attention paid to their development.

History’s Promise: Intergenerational Collaboration?

Historical trends show that major secular crises recur every 80 years or so, the last one beginning with the Great Depression in 1928. The leadership combination of an elder Prophet generation, providing vision and a strong moral compass, together with a mid-life Nomad generation, fortified with sturdy persistence and expertise, was ideally suited for enduring the crisis and forging a new order. The Prophet and Nomad generations of that time were able to face the extreme difficulty through collaboration and generational cooperation. Their leaders found the courage to tell the truth, call forth needed sacrifice, and provide the hope that led the nation through the ordeal.

The challenges that face the nation’s institutions and communities today are deeply complex. No single generation can adequately address these issues without the cooperation and contributions of the others. The best hope for the future of our organizations and our culture rests on our capacity to form a shared vision that encompasses the best of what each generation values and has to offer. Whether Boomers and Xers can overcome the self-serving biases and limiting mental models that keep the two generations from collaborating for the future is unknown. It may require that external conditions worsen so that the stakes become higher. And perhaps the young Millennials — in seeking clear direction and oversight from leadership — will call the others to task, necessitating Boomers and Xers to come together to effectively lead this emboldened and demographically powerful workforce.

We have seen the systemic opportunities that can come from collaboration in communities, businesses, government offices, and nonprofits. By seeking to build the intergenerational connections that will lead to shared understanding, knowledge, and vision, we can elevate the potential of our organizations by harnessing the natural balancing forces inherent within the generational mix. This process, however, starts with a leader’s willingness to ask important questions about the future, questions that seek to understand the complexity and truth arising from diverse perspectives. In this way, the path forward will be much clearer and the solutions more promising.

Deborah Gilburg is a principle of Gilburg Leadership Institute, a leadership development firm specializing in generational dynamics and organizational succession planning. For more information, visit www.gilburgleadership.com. Deb will be presenting a concurrent session at this year’s Pegasus Conference.

The post Empowering Multigenerational Collaboration in the Workplace appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

In the West, we typically attribute success to individual factors: a person’s innate intelligence and drive to achieve. But why do some so-called geniuses rise to the top of their professions while others fail to have an impact? To answer this question, Gladwell delves beneath the conventional wisdom and finds that factors such as a person’s birth month or year, family background, or even random opportunities play more of a role in people’s achievement than we previously thought.

Birthday Bonanza

To illustrate his point, Gladwell cites a study of Canadian youth hockey players that reveals a surprising fact: In any elite group in this league, “40 percent will have been born between January and March, 30 percent between April and June, 20 percent between July and September, and 10 percent between October and December.” A similar trend, with a weighting toward different months, shows up in U. S. baseball leagues and European soccer teams. What explains this strange phenomenon?

It turns out that, in Canadian hockey, the cut-off date for eligibility for a certain age bracket is January 1. At age 10, kids born right after the cut-off date have an advantage over those born later in the year in terms of size, speed, and coordination. As a result, the older 10-year-olds are more frequently chosen to participate in elite leagues, receive better coaching, play with more skilled teammates, and participate in more games and practices. Over the long run, these “more talented” players are more likely to make it to the professional ranks.

This pattern of behavior describes what in systems parlance is known as a “Success to the Successful” dynamic (see “Success to the Older Child”). As Gladwell says, “The professional hockey player starts out a little bit better than his peers. And that little difference leads to an opportunity that makes that difference a bit bigger, and that edge in turn leads to another opportunity, which makes the initially small difference bigger still—and on and on until the hockey player is a genuine outlier. But he didn’t start out an outlier. He started out just a little bit better.”

SUCCESS TO THE OLDER CHILD

This same dynamic also plays out in education. Children who are on the older end of the spectrum tend to have an advantage over their younger peers that amplifies over time. In a study by economists Kelly Bedard and Elizabeth Dhuey, older fourth graders scored significantly higher on a test of math and science skills than younger fourth graders. Gladwell comments, “That’s the difference between qualifying for a gifted program or not.” And once students land in gifted programs, they are likely to benefit from the best teaching, the highest-quality materials, the most up-to-date technology, and so on.

Inadvertent Privileging

So, what’s the solution to this inadvertent privileging of some over others? Gladwell suggests setting up two or three youth hockey leagues per age bracket, divided by months of birth. For the lower grades, school systems could create separate classes for kids born January through April, May through August, and September through December. Another solution would be to follow the Danish system of not assigning kids to different academic tracks until they are out of elementary school, when their maturity levels out.

The takeaway is that simple policy decisions often have powerful unintended consequences. By looking at patterns of behavior, we can identify those effects and find ways to improve the system. Breaking free from the “Success to the Successful” dynamic would create truly equal opportunities for all, to the benefit of all.

Janice Molloy is managing editor of The Systems Thinker and content director of Pegasus Communications.

The post How Does Malcolm Gladwell Spell Success? appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

While this scenario is highly improbable, it illustrates how facile our minds usually are at seeing patterns. The human brain is able to assemble trillions of pieces of data into recognizable objects and relationships that allow us to navigate through the world. Similarly, our minds are good at storing and retrieving linked chains of cause and effect. For example, it doesn’t take a child very long to realize that touching a hot stove means hurting a finger. Without this fundamental ability to recognize familiar patterns, every moment would be a new experience, and we could never learn from the past.

In order to see such patterns quickly, however, we must have reference structures that help us recognize similar situations. Such references allow us to go beyond the details of a situation and see larger patterns (e.g., touching hot objects will cause pain). Systems archetypes provide a powerful set of reference structures that allow us to see beyond the level of individual events in our organizations to the larger forces that are at work.

Seeing the Structures Behind Events

Once we are able to look beyond individual events and begin to see the underlying structural patterns that are producing them, we can make more fundamental improvements in our organizational systems. In particular, systems archetypes—a set of templates for identifying common patterns of behavior—can help in this process.

The “Drifting Goals” archetype represents a pattern of gradually eroding goals caused by two balancing processes that are trying to achieve equilibrium between a goal and the actual state.

The archetype diagrams provide a visual representation of a pattern of linked causes and effects. For example, “Drifting Goals” describes a pattern of gradually eroding goals that occurs over a long period of time. The storyline of the archetype says that if there is a gap between a desired goal and our actual performance, we can close the gap in one of two ways—by taking action to reach the goal, or by lowering our goal to be more in line with the current reality (see “‘Drifting Goals’Archetype”). The critical difference between these two approaches is that lowering the goal immediately closes the gap, whereas corrective actions usually take time. The tendency, therefore, is to let the goal gradually drift until a crisis occurs that focuses organizational attention on the problem.

Mapping out the specific loop structures of “Drifting Goals” and other archetypes helps us identify the structures creating the behavior patterns that we observe. We can then use the structural pattern template to see similarities across seemingly diverse situations. For example, “Drifting Goals” shows a pattern of gradually eroding goals caused by two balancing processes that are trying to achieve equilibrium between the goal and current reality. The problems of lengthening delivery times or an increasing aging chain of receivables are both very different, yet each demonstrates a pattern of drifting goals and can be addressed using similar corrective actions. This ability to transfer lessons from one setting to another enables us to accelerate learning across the organization.

Seeing Loops and Nothing Less Than Loops

By using systems archetypes as structural patterns, we can begin to see the world in terms of interrelated factors. Loops, not the component variables, become the smallest unit of analysis. We are no longer satisfied with explanations listing isolated factors as causal agents. Instead, we want to know how those factors relate to other parts of the system.

FROM FACTORS TO LOOPS

Looking at a situation from a “Limits to Success” structural pattern forces us to go beyond simply listing success factors. We must actually map them into reinforcing and balancing loops. For example, new product introductions lead to higher sales and boost revenue (R1), but revenue growth puts a strain on the organization’s internal systems, which leads to lower service quality and, ultimately, lower sales (B2).

If we are looking at a rapid growth situation, for example, and are concerned about becoming caught in a “Limits to Success” archetype, we might begin by looking at the growth drivers. In such situations, it is common to list linear factors (A causes B causes C, etc.). Mapping the situation through an archetype, however, forces us to map the factors into a loop that tells a coherent story. For example, if we identified new product introductions and service quality as key success factors, we could incorporate those into the “Limits to Success” diagram. This diagram includes both the engines of growth and the potential limits to that growth (see “From Factors to Loops”).

In working through this process, we are, in essence, looking for loop structures that capture a fuller story. In the case of “Limits to Success,” we are looking for a structural pattern of one or more reinforcing loops that are generating growth, coupled with one or more balancing loops that are slowing down the growth. Through continual practice with the archetypes, we can develop our perceptual capabilities and move from seeing isolated factors, to seeing loops, to seeing whole archetypal structures.

Visual Structures

The value of a clear and unambiguous description of a complex situation can’t be overemphasized. When talking about complex organizational issues, it is easy for a team to stray from the main topic into many interesting details that are not very relevant to the issue at hand. Without the clarity of focus provided by a common picture, the conversation can turn into a storytelling fest where much is shared and little is actually accomplished. At its worst, those discussions can turn into counterproductive finger-pointing sessions.

The archetypes, however, can help focus a group’s attention on the heart of an issue by providing a structural pattern and a process for identifying and drawing out each of the requisite loops of that pattern. Diagramming an archetype provides an explicit visual form that can depersonalize issues by focusing attention on a system’s structure, not on the individual players in the system. In addition, the language of links and loops provides a disciplined way of specifying relationships between factors by identifying them as part of a reinforcing or balancing loop.

The “Archetypes as Structural Patterns” chart shows the loop structures of each of the archetypes. Highlighting the basic reinforcing and/or balancing loop patterns of the archetypes provides a starting point for identifying those dynamics in our own organizations. This chart can help us see broader structural patterns at work, rather than viewing each event as a unique individual occurrence.

ARCHETYPES AS STRUCTURAL PATTERNS

Seeing Structures Across Diverse Situations

As we internalize the structural patterns of each of the archetypes, we begin to see the world in terms of larger “systemic chunks” instead of unrelated bits and pieces. When we see a competitor responding to one of our company’s pricing promotions, for example, we won’t just see it as a one-time reaction, but will recognize how each player is operating in his or her own balancing loop process that is perhaps part of a larger “Escalation” structure.

A Chinese philosopher once said, “One cannot step into the same river twice.” Although the river is slightly different each time we dip into it, for most practical purposes we can treat it as if it were the same. Likewise, from a systemic perspective, we can look beyond the myriad details that makes each situation look unique and recognize the underlying structural patterns that produce the same dynamics in a variety of situations. This ability to leverage learning across many different situations is one of the most powerful benefits of the systems thinking approach, and one of the most significant distinguishing characteristics of the human mind.

Daniel H. Kim is co-founder of Pegasus Communications, founding publisher of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and a consultant, facilitator, teacher, and public speaker committed to helping problem-solving organizations transform into learning organizations.

Colleen P. Lannon is co-founder of Pegasus Communications, Inc.

The post Systems Archetypes As Structural Pattern Templates appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The better we understand the structure of a system, the better we can predict the future behavior of that system.

Another deep-rooted assumption is that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior—hence our never-ending attempts to forecast, anticipate, and otherwise guess at future outcomes by looking at historical data. Without a deeper understanding of the underlying structures that produce the observed behaviors, forecasts fail when we need them the most—when the future deviates from the past.

Inaccurate forecasts stem from two causes: either we do not understand the mechanisms governing the actions we are trying to predict, or the situations themselves are inherently unpredictable. In the latter case, there isn’t much we can do other than take our best shot with whatever methods seem to produce the best results. But before we throw up our hands in despair, we should be careful to differentiate between true uncertainty and predetermined elements—those things we can predict if we have an adequate understanding of the underlying structure.

Scenario Planning

Planners at Royal Dutch Shell recognized the importance of distinguishing between true uncertainty and predetermined elements as part of the scenario planning process. They defined a predetermined element as an event that has already occurred—or most certainly will occur—but the consequences of which have not yet materialized. For example, if there is an auto accident on a major highway at rush hour, we can predict that traffic jams within the city and ripple effects on secondary roads will be the predetermined outcomes of that event. The structure of the system— number of lanes, alternative routes, speed limits, rush hour traffic volume, population density— makes the outcome very predictable. Identifying such predetermined elements is fundamental to the planning process, because it allows us to predict future outcomes based on the structure of the current situation.

Structure-Behavior Link

The better we understand the structure of a system, the better we can predict the future behavior of that system. This is one of the most important principles of systems thinking—structure, to a large extent, determines behavior. Although there may be uncertainty about the exact timing and duration of the outcome, the nature and eventuality of it is clear. Knowing this, we can greatly improve our ability to influence the behavior of a system.

Together, systems archetypes and Behavior Over Time diagrams (BOTs) can help us identify predetermined outcomes of a particular situation. Systems archetypes can help us see the structures within a complex system, while Behavior Over Time diagrams offer a glimpse into the expected behavior of that structure over time.

Identifying Predetermined Elements

REINFORCING GROWTH WITH NEW PRODUCTS

A reinforcing dynamic of new products increasing revenue, which is then invested in additional new products (R1), will initially produce a growth curve.

For example, in many companies, new product development is the main engine of growth (see “Reinforcing Growth with New Products”). As new products are released, customer orders and revenues increase, which provides more funds to pump back into new product development (R1). In this situation, our sales data would show that we are on a healthy growth curve, and most forecasts would predict more of the same. If we look at the situation from a “Limits to Success” perspective, however, we can go beyond straight line projections by better understanding the structural forces at play. In reality, there are many different possible outcomes that can never be predicted by historical data alone (see “Multiple Futures”). Revenues could grow at a slower rate (F2), plateau (F3), or collapse (F4). Given these possibilities, what kind of prediction can we make for future outcomes? The answer is determined not by looking at past data, but by looking at the underlying structure.

MULTIPLE FUTURES

There are many possible outcomes for revenues, given our current reinforcing structure of increasing product offerings: forecasted growth (F1), continued growth at a slower rate (F2), plateau (F3), or decline (F4).

When we understand the structural landscape, we can better distinguish between uncertainty and predetermined elements. In a “Limits to Success” structure, we would look for balancing loops that the growth in revenues might trigger (see “Identifying Predetermined Consequences of Limits”).

For example as customer orders grow, the organizational infrastructures needed to service them also grows. As more people are hired, the organizational complexity increases and places an additional managerial burden on those responsible for developing products. If the company’s way of managing its product development effort does not change with the changing needs (which is often the case in a fast-growth environment), a decline in new products is a predetermined consequence of the “Limits to Success” structure. The more the company tries to push harder on the growing action, the stronger the slowing action will become, as long as the structure of the management capacity limit remains unchanged.

From Historical Behavior to Archetype

Behavioral charts can also provide a starting point for selecting an appropriate archetype to use, since each archetype is associated with a particular dominant behavior mode that is characteristic of its structure. For example, imagine you are a marketing manager in charge of a new product launch. You have been running a series of campaigns over the past year, and sales have grown steadily. Last quarter, however, you noticed that the growth in sales was beginning to decline. This quarter you increased your marketing efforts, but it seemed to have little impact.

IDENTIFYING PREDETERMINED CONSEQUENCES OF LIMITS

The “Limits to Success” structure suggests that there are potential balancing processes that could limit future growth. For example, as the organizational infrastructure grows to service the increasing orders, product developers might have less time to devote to creating new products (B2). The result may be a decline in products and a consequent decline in orders (R1)

The historical pattern of behavior can offer clues that help identify possible archetypal structures, which then allows us to predict future behavior given the system structure. It is an iterative process. For example, the historical data of sales growing and then plateauing suggests a “Limits to Success” archetype may be at work. Having identified a “Limits to Success” structure, we can use BOT diagrams to flesh out the particular limits affecting our sales growth. How does the volume of campaigns seem to affect sales over time? Are there pressures building in the organization as a result of the growth? What does the production capacity look like over time? Is the size of the market growing or stagnating? Charting these factors over time can offer insight into the particular balancing processes that need to be addressed in order to eliminate potential limits to growth before they affect future sales.

Or suppose you are a new plant manager of a processed food company and you notice that a oncepopular product has been declining steadily in sales. When you ask other employees for their picture of the situation, they tell you that consumer tastes have changed and the product does not have as much appeal as it used to. The declining sales coupled with a declining level of investment into the product itself, however, makes you wonder if something else is going on. This behavior over time suggests that a “Drifting Goals” archetype may be at work.

Creating (Not Forecasting) Your Future

This link between structure and behavior is critical in our systems thinking worldview. Linking each archetype with a specific set of behavior patterns can help us see into the future with a different set of eyes. We can then see more clearly the difference between true uncertainty and predetermined events that have yet to unfold. By identifying and working on the underlying structures that produce the behaviors, we can better predict the future by helping to create it instead of just trying to forecast it.

Daniel H. Kim is co-founder of Pegasus Communications, founding publisher of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and a consultant, facilitator, teacher, and public speaker committed to helping problem-solving organizations transform into learning organizations.

The post Predicting Behavior Using Systems Archetypes appeared first on The Systems Thinker.