Karen suspected that these conflicting styles had a lot to do with personality differences. She had once taken a survey that showed she was a “Feeler,” and she was pretty sure that Jenny was a “Thinker.” Knowing this, though, didn’t change the frustration she felt when problems arose.

Because the challenges with Jenny seemed so minor, Karen thought they should be easy to fix. It was obvious that Jenny shared Karen’s passion for their work. Plus, Jenny had brilliant ideas that often led to breakthroughs on tough issues. Karen only wished that Jenny weren’t so cold and distant.

Although they may seem trivial, the personal differences that Karen experienced in her relationship with Jenny had a significant impact on their working relationship. Fortunately, while these opposing styles may generate conflict, they also offer great richness in tackling complex issues. But in order to get out of counterproductive patterns of interaction that have created problems in the past, Karen needs a new way of viewing differences: one that enables her to live with the tensions differences generate, create a rich vision of what she wants to create, and be flexible in the pursuit of her vision. Otherwise, Karen’s current way of thinking will continue to limit her ability to respond constructively to Jenny and others.

No doubt you, too, are aware of differences between you and others in your organization. How can you deal with these differences in productive ways? And how can you use them to build your own self-knowledge and interpersonal skills? One promising approach stems from a school of thought known as “Dilemma Theory.”

A dilemma is a choice between two options, both of which are attractive but appear to be mutually exclusive: an “either/or” scenario.

Dilemma Theory

Differences have always been a basis for learning. When people travel, they find themselves stimulated by the cultural differences they encounter, often returning home with new understanding and appreciation of themselves and their communities. But differences can also serve as the basis for intractable conflict and struggle. When we encounter someone whose worldview is diametrically opposed to our own, we often fall into an “us” versus “them” and “good” versus “bad” dynamic.

Dilemma Theory, based on the work of researchers Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars, seeks to help us overcome these barriers and learn from differences. Hampden-Turner summarizes the philosophy as follows: “We can never grow to become great business leaders until we actively strive to embrace the behaviors and attitudes that feel most uncomfortable to us. The most effective management practices are those that gently force engineers, managers, and employees to embrace the unthinkable.” Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars focus primarily on cultural differences, but the concepts they developed can help to explain the dynamics associated with any kind of differences.

As they point out, a dilemma is a choice between two options, both of which are attractive but appear to be mutually exclusive: an “either/or” scenario. You face dilemmas every day: whether to work on a project alone or with others; whether to give attention to details or focus on the “big picture”; whether to confront someone’s inappropriate behavior or pass over it; whether to stay with what you know or try something new.

While such dilemmas may seem straightforward, they are rich with dynamic complexity. The dynamism stems not from the simple choice that a dilemma presents, but from the mechanisms that people and societies develop for making such decisions. How we become skilled at handling dilemmas has an enormous impact on the outcome. In this context, being skilled means competently performing a task without needing to consciously focus on it. When we repeatedly do something, we eventually reach the point when we no longer need to call to mind the steps it requires; we just do them. I have become skilled in the use of computer keyboards, so as I type, I do not have to deliberately hunt for the right keys to make words. I think of the word I want and my fingers make it happen without any apparent thought on my part.

Just as we become skilled at physical tasks such as typing, we gain mastery in handling dilemmas. If we repeatedly resolve dilemmas by choosing one option over the other, the option we choose becomes an unconscious preference. Over time, we stop being aware that we are making a choice — we simply assume it is the best course of action. These deeply internalized preferences become values that shape the decisions we make and the actions we take.

Many people believe that their way of dealing with something is obviously superior, even when they encounter others who routinely make the opposite choice. In this situation, it is easy to characterize different choices as absurd or based on ignorance. For Karen, the rightness of working collegially and expressing her emotions was something she felt from deep within and found hard to put into words. Little wonder she found it perplexing when Jenny worked in a contradictory way.

Personality differences also play an important role in the formation of values. We are each born with innate characteristics that shape our preferences and interests (Sandra Seagal and David Horne’s work on Human Dynamics is one framework for understanding variations). So both nature and nurture give rise to the differences we encounter.

Universal Dilemmas

Just as people develop a set of values based on the cumulative effect of the choices they make, so do communities. All communities encounter dilemmas, and some dilemmas are universal. Universal dilemmas include:

• Whether (a) rules should apply to everyone or (b) exceptions should be made depending on who is involved.
• Whether status should be awarded (a) on the basis of one’s position in the community or (b) on the basis of what one has achieved.
• Whether (a) the needs of the community should outweigh the rights of individual members or (b) vice versa.

While these dilemmas are universal, the ways in which communities resolve them are not. Each society will develop its own pattern of values, perhaps putting (a) ahead of (b) with one dilemma but (b) ahead of (a) with another.

What determines which values develop in a particular community? It depends on the conditions that exist when the community first encounters a dilemma. All manner of variables have an effect. The personality dynamics of influential community leaders — the “core group,” to use the term coined by Art Kleiner — play a key role. The history of the community and its present needs all shape how it resolves a dilemma. When a community repeatedly resolves an issue by giving priority to one option, what was once a conscious choice becomes an unconsciously held value.

We generally don’t examine taken-for-granted ways of doing things until we encounter someone who does things differently.

Values are self-perpetuating. For example, if we value achievement — rewarding people for what they accomplish rather than who they are — we are naturally interested in how we can measure it. Having established a way of measuring achievement, we start to do so. In this way, we create an infrastructure to support a value that started off as a preference for one way of acting over another. As we use the infrastructure, we reinforce the value and strengthen our preference for it.

On an individual level, when children grow up, they take for granted that the way their family operates is the norm — how they celebrate holidays, deal with money, resolve conflicts, and so on. In the same way, people do not usually question the values of the community in which they live. We generally don’t examine taken-for-granted ways of doing things until we encounter someone who does things differently, whether at an individual or group level.

Dynamics of Difference

What happens when people with opposite values — such as Jenny and Karen — interact? The outcome is typically not what we would hope. Because a dilemma involves options, both of which are advantageous, the values represented in the dilemma are also complementary. The more one of the values is expressed, the greater the need for the other becomes. Jenny and Karen have the potential to balance one another, making up for each other’s shortcomings and supporting each other’s strengths, and we might hope that they would find ways to capitalize on their complementary skills. But two phenomena often prevent that from happening: skilled incompetence and schismogenesis.

Skilled Incompetence. The reason a dilemma is challenging is that both options are attractive: Each provides real — though different — advantages. In our story, Karen benefits from being expressive, and Jenny benefits from keeping her emotions in check. But when one option becomes an unconscious preference, it is at the expense of the other. So the more that Karen pursues the value she derives from acting expressively, the more she misses out on the advantages of objectivity.

While Karen values subjectivity, she isn’t blind. She can see that Jenny benefits from her objectivity. She may think, “I wish I was more like Jenny,” and decide to change in that direction. But despite her determination, Karen may still operate off an unconscious preference for subjectivity. For this reason, she may say one thing while at the same time do the opposite and not be aware of the discrepancy. Chris Argyris coined the term “skilled incompetence” to describe the mismatch between what people say and what they do.

This pattern of behavior can also happen at an organizational level. Companies may publish lists of values, but these often express qualities that people think are needed rather than ones that the organization actually possesses. In all probability, a quality will make it onto the list of “corporate values” because it is something the organization does not value!

Schismogenesis. Another dynamic that occurs when opposites interact is what anthropologist Gregory Bateson termed “schismogenesis”: the splitting apart of complementary values. Schismogenesis happens when an initially small difference gets progressively bigger. Imagine that Karen has come up with a breakthrough on a project that she wants to share with Jenny. She goes to Jenny’s office and excitedly blurts out that she has news. Jenny is overwhelmed by Karen’s energy, thinks Karen should calm down, and tries to encourage her to do so by lowering her own voice and speaking slowly. Karen thinks Jenny doesn’t understand the importance of the message, so she ramps up her level of enthusiasm. Jenny gets quieter and calmer. Karen gets louder and more excited. What started off as a small difference has become enormous through the course of the interaction.

Something else has happened, too. Karen and Jenny have become polarized, with a distorted view of what their values represent. How so? When seen through the lens of Dilemma Theory, a value is a preference for acting one way rather than another. This difference also depends on who else is involved. Karen values expressiveness because this term describes the difference she sees between herself and others she interacts with. But in many communities throughout the world, Karen would be viewed as the least expressive person.

Nevertheless, Karen has come to consider expressiveness as something that defines who she is. She doesn’t think, “I have a stronger preference for expressing and acting on my feelings than Jenny.” Rather, she says to herself, “I am a Feeler.” Thinking of herself in this way makes a tremendous difference to the repertoire of actions that Karen allows herself to use. Viewing her own and Jenny’s values as permanent characteristics, Karen feels compelled to act in harmony with her values. She shuns the alternative way of acting.

How will this pattern of behavior affect Karen when it comes to learning and personal mastery? Our values influence what we are ready to learn. Karen is attracted to forms of learning that support her preference for emotional expressiveness. She may reject opportunities to learn what she does not value, such as the use of rigorous analytical decision-making tools. She is not naturally interested, and it just feels wrong somehow.

By bounding the scope of her inquiry, Karen limits her capacity to create what is really important to her. Her values push her to learn some things and neglect others. While she may be aware of her need to gain competency in those other areas, what she sees as personal characteristics play a crucial role in shaping how much effort she invests in her learning efforts. This process represents a “Success to the Successful” archetypal structure, in which Karen reinforces the values she already has and neglects areas in which she could benefit from growth (see “From Preference to Value”).

Reconciliation

To reap the benefits from diversity, Dilemma Theory encourages people to look for ways of reconciling the conflicting values they encounter. While the dynamics of culture and personality often lead people to value one option and neglect the other, a dilemma is a dilemma because both of the options are important and needed. Reconciliation involves understanding the circularity of the relationship between values. The two options involved in a dilemma — the potential values — are complementary. The more we do one, the more we need to do the other. We could diagram the relationship as shown in “Complementary Values”.

Schismogenesis is a process that disrupts the connection between the two values. Reconciliation does the opposite; it strengthens the connection. Rather than encouraging one or other of the values to be expressed, it encourages the flow of movement between the values so either or both can be expressed, depending on what the situation demands.

COMPLEMENTARY VALUES

The two options involved in a dilemma the potential values—are complementary. The more we do one, the more we need to do the other. Reconciliation involves understanding the circularity of the relationship between values.

Imagine what would happen to the relationship between Karen and Jenny if they reframed their values in ways that still indicated their individual preferences, but showed an appreciation for both parts of the dilemma. Karen might move from thinking “I’m a Feeler” to “Before making a decision, I like to test ideas by experiencing how they affect my emotions.” By reframing her image of herself in this way, Karen recognizes that if she exercises her capacity for feeling, she can improve the quality of her own and others’ thinking. And improving the quality of thinking has a positive impact on the emotional environment in which she works.

Jenny might move from the stance “I’m a Thinker” to “I prefer to articulate thoughts in ways that enable people to examine and express their feelings and opinions.” Jenny recognizes that her capacity for thinking enables her to invite others to express their feelings in productive ways. Doing so stimulates and challenges her to increase the quality of her thinking.

In this way, while Karen and Jenny retain their own preferences, they can design a way of working together that they both find satisfying. Imagine we were to watch them at work. While they were getting used to this new way of framing their values, we might see rather deliberate shifts between thinking and feeling. They might verbalize the need to move from one mode of operation to another:, “Perhaps we should generate some new thoughts based on what we’ve heard” or “Let’s take some time to check out our feelings about what’s been said.”

Over time, Jenny and Karen would likely become more skilled at managing the movement between thoughts and emotions. We would observe a fluidity in their work together, with each bringing feelings and thoughts into play as required. When they have truly reconciled the dilemma, we would be hard pressed to classify aspects of their work as expressions of one or other of the original values.

Many of the challenges we face are socially complex: The people affected are diverse and the array of values is wide. Each situation might involve several pairs of opposing values. As we learn to honor all the values pertinent to a dilemma, we increase our capacity for acting in ways that are sustainable within the system. But what behaviors help us to reconcile values?

Changing Patterns

A number of techniques can give you insight into the dynamics of the differences you encounter. These can prompt you to look at conflict in new ways.

Be Aware. A key to achieving reconciliation is awareness of one’s own thinking and behavior. Schismogenesis can seem normal in an environment in which people are rewarded for living at the extreme of one value. A community may reward those members who are “ideologically pure,” focused on one value to the exclusion of all others. But personal, organizational, and social health require the reconciliation of a range of values. If you concentrate your effort around just one value, you are likely going to mobilize people with other values to become more extreme in their opposition to you. Schismogenesis is fueled by unconscious actions; becoming aware of your actions is the basis for reconciliation.

Look for the Whole. People become polarized when they can see only the good in what they value and only the evil in the values of those who oppose them. As we have discussed, values arise because of dilemmas, and in a dilemma, both options offer something attractive. It follows that there will also be a downside to any value. If a person pursues a value in a single-minded way, then he or she is neglecting a complementary value, and undesirable consequences will likely follow. Practice seeing the whole picture by noticing the gains to be made by pursuing each value represented in a dilemma. Then list the disadvantages of each: what will be lost if you pursue each of the values to an extreme.

SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS

This causal loop diagram shows how you might move through a sequence of actions that give priority to one value and then another, and so on. In this case, reflection improves our actions, and actions provide new data for reflection.

Bring Values to the Surface.Values often lie hidden beneath the surface, making reconciliation difficult. In a meeting, participants may arrive ready to advocate for the action they believe needs to be taken, based on their underlying values. They will likely push for a variety of actions, and some will be diametrically opposed to others. By asking questions such as “What will we gain from that action?” and “What is it you are interested in?” the group begins to see the values behind the different activities. In addition, teams often make progress by (a) noticing the various actions being advocated, (b) noticing the interests behind each of the actions, (c) consciously scrapping the actions first suggested, and (d) asking “What new action could we design that would address the values that are important to us all?”

Practice Sequencing. Reconciliation involves seeing the relationships between complementary values. We want to create a fluid movement between different ways of acting. To see how this movement might take place, create causal loop diagrams that express how you might move through a sequence of actions that give priority to one value and then another, then back to the original and so on (see “Sequence of Actions”). Practice your sequencing skills on the common dilemmas shown in “Common Dilemmas.”

The Journey of Dilemmas

Imagine we could go forward in time to revisit Karen and Jenny, who have worked hard to reconcile the collision between different personal styles that was such a challenge to their working relationship. What will we find? Having dealt with this challenge, will they have freed themselves from all dilemmas? Will conflict be a thing of the past?

Hardly. A dilemma can arise around any difference. Karen and Jenny are unique individuals; they differ from one another in myriad ways. Expressiveness and objectivity were the most prominent differences at the time we became interested in their story. When they resolve that dilemma, new ones will surface. Their work is dynamic, too. It keeps changing, throwing up new situations that bring new dilemmas to the surface. We could say that Karen and Jenny —  both individually and in their relationship — are on a journey in which they regularly encounter opportunities to learn from dilemmas.

Does this mean that Dilemma Theory offers nothing but a legacy of ongoing conflict and frustration? No. It doesn’t produce a constant stream of challenges and problems; life does that. And for Karen and Jenny, the outcome is not bleak. Insight into the dynamics of dilemmas has enabled them to view their differences as opportunities to learn, both collectively and individually.

As a result, they no longer have to treat their differences as something to be feared. They have learned that, with careful attention, they can reconcile their dilemmas. They have developed a practice of “thoughtful sensitivity” (or “sensitive thoughtfulness”) that can help them face new challenges. And they appreciate each other’s contribution, knowing that they complement one another in important ways.

When you encounter differences, be resolved to seek ways in which you and others can reconcile apparently conflicting values.

At an individual level, both Jenny and Karen are now able to suspend their values, observing how these influence their reactions and attitudes. Each has gained a deep insight into who she is, an insight she can take with her into her relationships with other people. Each has a greater repertoire for thinking and acting, no longer limited by an unconscious preference. Both are thankful they have learned from the mutual relevance of difference.

When you encounter differences, be resolved to seek ways in which you and others can reconcile apparently conflicting values. Building your capacity in this vital area is the basis for both successful collaboration with others and ongoing development while on your own learning journey.

Phil Ramsey teaches organizational learning at Massey University in New Zealand. He is a regular presenter at Systems Thinking in Action® Conferences and is the author of the Billibonk series of systems stories, published by Pegasus Communications.

The post Learning Through Differences: Dilemma Theory in Action appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The Rebuilding Process

In 1996, Schena was assigned to run Caterpillar’s Brazilian operation, located in the troubled city of Piracicaba. Up until that time, the division’s performance had been less than stellar, and Schena determined to breathe life into the organization by motivating employees to rebuild the business themselves (see R1 in “Limits on Skilled Workers”). This approach and the resulting employee engagement not only helped turn the company around, but in 1999 earned the facility a notable operational excellence certification and the country’s most prestigious quality award. Today, Caterpillar Brazil continues to be number one in the company in terms of financial returns and employee satisfaction.

However, at a certain point, Chris and his management team began to recognize that the state of the larger community could threaten the organization’s ongoing success. The urban area surrounding the factory suffered from high crime and a failing educational system. It soon became clear that the lack of skilled workers could halt the division’s upward trajectory (see B2).

LIMITS ON SKILLED WORKERS

As employees became engaged in rebuilding the division, they created high levels of success (R1). With the rise in success came the need to hire more workers. Because of problems in the surrounding community, management anticipated that, at a certain point, the availability of skilled workers would begin to decline (B2). To overcome this limit, Cat Brazil invested in programs to boost the skills of the local population and make the city appealing to workers from elsewhere.

Overcoming the Limit

To overcome this potential limit, Cat Brazil embarked on worker education and health programs, among other initiatives. In addition, the organization launched a project known as Piracicaba 2010. This effort brought together local officials, entrepreneurs, CEOs, and other community and media leaders to develop a vision and strategy to attract talented people to the city. The goal was to make Piracicaba a model of sustainable development and an excellent place to live.

Caterpillar Brazil offered its resources and strategic planning capability to jump-start the effort, and many employees enthusiastically volunteered their own time toward the effort. Within six months, the initiative was mature enough for the team to hold a town meeting to expand community participation., “By getting citizens to talk to each other regularly in the pursuit of a common goal rather than their own smaller agenda,” says Chris, “the community was able to work together to make the environment more attractive and safer. In fact, now the city not only attracts more professionals but more businesses as well.” A couple of years ago, the Brazilian government selected Piracicaba 2010 as a pilot program for the country to exemplify what needs to be done to regenerate its cities. Since 2002, Brazil’s government has granted funding to run the program, and similar projects have sprung up throughout the country.

Removing Barriers

Sustaining success means more than pushing on an organization’s growth engine; it also involves removing barriers that might impede that growth. As the Caterpillar Brazil story illustrates, the process of removing those hurdles can open up new possibilities both within and beyond the organization’s boundaries, creating an ongoing cycle of growth.

Janice Molloy is managing editor of The Systems Thinker. Kali Saposnick is publications editor at Pegasus Communications.

The post Removing Barriers to Success at Caterpillar appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

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

Drop-In/Ad Hoc Applications

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

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

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

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

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

Tutorials

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

Workshop or Systems Think-Tank

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

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

The process for such a workshop involves:

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

FAILING TO 'FIX' TECHNICIAN CAPACITY

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

Archetypes

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

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

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

DECLINING DECISION-MAKING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizational Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Lessons Learned

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

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

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

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

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

Below are summaries of these archetypes, including a description of the structure, the mental model that drives it, and a key strategy for dealing with it.

The “Positive” Archetypes

In 2000, we were testing our systems thinking approach with a group of people when Esther Wilcox Hudson, one of our colleagues, questioned the perspective from which the 10 archetypes operated. Esther noticed that they described a complex system from the perspective of what was not working—a pessimistic or negative focus. She felt that there was an important part of the system that was not being analyzed: the aspects of the system that were working —an optimistic or positive focus. From Esther’s idea, we created a set of 10 positive archetypes that are counterparts to the original archetypes.

Archetypes are not actually negative or positive. The results that these archetypes produce are what you may define as either negative or positive. We use the terms negative and positive because that is what people in organizations are comfortable using. You can think of the negative and positive aspects of the archetypes as if they are two sides of a coin: one side is the positive form of the archetype and the other side is the negative form. Every system is in constant change. The system you are experiencing sometimes manifests its positive nature and sometimes manifests its negative nature.

For example, consider the “Tragedy of the Commons” systems archetype. In this structure, a common resource is being overused or depleted. In an organization, this resource might be the IT department. When people from throughout the company call on IT to drop everything to help them with their computer problems, the IT staff ends up overworked and overstressed. Staff members may begin to leave the organization, making the problem even worse for those who remain.

The flip side of “Tragedy of the Commons” is “Collective Agreement.” In this form of the archetype, people understand what it means to use a common resource. Access to the common resource is regulated in some way, so that all parties benefit and the common resource is sustained.

The 10 positive archetypes and their underlying mental models are described below.

Marilyn Herasymowych, a senior consultant with more than 17 years of experience, is the founder and a managing partner of MHA Institute Inc. (www.mhainstitute.com). For the past 10 years, she has focused on learning in the workplace, consulting with individuals, teams, and organizations in both the public and private sectors. Henry Senko, a manager and senior consultant with more than 20 years of experience, is a managing partner of MHA Institute Inc. His specialty is working with managers and teams to design work processes that incorporate learning as a part of daily work routines.

The post “Positive” Systems Archetypes 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.