Kegan, a professor of education, and Lahey, a psychologist specializing in adult development, refer to our powerful inclinations not to change as “dynamic equilibrium,” which they define as “a system of countervailing motions that maintains a remarkably hearty balance, an equilibrating process continuously manufacturing immunity to change.” (Those of us steeped in the language of systems thinking will recognize this description as a balancing process.) According to the authors, much as we might protest to the contrary, the status quo fills some hidden need that ultimately takes precedence over our impulse to change.

Surfacing the inner contradiction between the desire to change and the need to maintain things as they are is difficult, because a web of tightly held assumptions keeps us from seeing this gap. But studying the factors that contribute to our “immunity to change” can serve as a rich source of transformational learning and ultimately lead to lasting results. To facilitate the process, the authors spell out what they call a “new technology for personal learning” built around different ways of talking to ourselves and others (see “A ‘Technology’ for Personal Learning” on page 9).

New Ways of Talking

These seven novel “languages” are tools that “gradually introduce you to your own immune system, your own dynamic equilibrium, the forces that keep the immune system in place, and the possibilities of transcending it.” The first four languages work on the internal or personal level; the final three operate on an interpersonal or organizational level. According to Kegan and Lahey, “The forms of speaking we have available to us regulate the forms of thinking, feeling, and meaning making to which we have access, which in turn constrain how we see the world and act in it.” By moving through a series of inquiries, the reader begins to shift from “NBC (nagging, bitching, and whining) talk” to possibilities for transformational change.

In contrast to other approaches that focus on the positive, the authors believe that it’s important to start by paying attention to people’s complaints, because they represent untapped potential and energy. The first step (which corresponds to the first “language”) is to reframe “what we can’t stand” to “what we stand for.” Readers record these commitments and other responses on a chart, which forms a map of each person’s “immune system.” The second step involves reflecting on what we’re doing that prevents us from fully realizing our commitments. Doing so is more than just accepting blame or fixing a problem; it involves learning from the issue in order to truly change the way we think, so that over time the problem “solves us.”

In the third step, readers identify the deep-seated, unspoken commitments we hold that conflict with our stated goal. For example, someone who articulates a commitment to communicating more openly and directly at work may also be tacitly committed to not being seen as the “Brave Crusader” or “Miss Holier-Than-Thou.” Kegan and Lahey emphasize that the self-protective impulse embodied by the competing commitment is a normal, powerful human motive, and not a symptom of weakness or ineffectiveness. But unless we bring it to light,

Unless we have the courage to examine and update our veiled assumptions, we’ll be trapped in a cycle of déjà vu all over again and again and again.

our efforts to change will be futile, and we will remain in the thrall of the dynamic equilibrium that keeps the status quo in place.

The fourth step is to explore the “Big Assumptions” embedded in the competing commitment. Most professional development activities are corrective rather than transformative, because they don’t help us to explore and dispel the fears and myths that we accept as truths. These “truths” are often assumptions consisting of dire consequences that might result if we take actions to forward our goal; for example, “I assume that if people did see me as a Brave Crusader . . . then I would eventually be completely shunned, have no real connections in my office other than the most formal and functional, and actually I’d find work a nightmare . . .” With the dread of this kind of outcome, no wonder most of us have a hard time adopting different behaviors.

Once we articulate these assumptions, we can then begin to dismantle them by looking for experiences that cast doubt on them, exploring how we came to hold them, and testing them in safe settings. These incremental changes in our thinking can ultimately lead to large shifts in our sense of the possibilities available to us and the actions we can consider taking. As Kegan and Lahey state, “Even small changes in our Big Assumptions can have big implications for permanently altering our once-captivating equilibrium.”

“Language Communities”

After introducing the steps outlined above, the authors offer three additional languages for improving how we interact with others. Through these novel ways of talking, interpersonal problems and conflicts become a curriculum for transformational learning on an individual and group level. By identifying a collective problem, creating an agreement about how to handle it in the future, monitoring when the agreement is kept and when it is violated, and exploring these violations in the spirit of learning, teams can create lasting changes in the ways in which they think and work together.

Throughout this book, Kegan and Lahey emphasize the importance of engaging in this work with a partner or through building a “language community” in order to inform and sustain the change process. They also forward the notion that effective leaders at all levels of an organization must recognize that supporting the transformational learning of others is a key part of their jobs. But perhaps the most important idea that permeates the authors’ work is that, in order to combat and overcome chronic problems, people must change not just what they do, but what they believe. As difficult as that may sound, unless we have the courage to examine and update our veiled assumptions, we’ll be trapped in a cycle of déjà vu all over again and again and again.

The post A Curriculum for Transformational Learning appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

THE URGE FOR EFFICACY

This diagram describes two sets of actions we might take to satisfy our desire for efficacy. Loop B1 represents the mechanistic or “impactful” fix to a problem, in which we push through a solution that involves a radical action. Loop R2 depicts the unintended consequences of this approach, fragmentation, which further exacerbates the original problem, or even leads to new ones. Loop B3 shows how taking actions that are intended to join people together, allowing their ideas and talents to emerge, can help to develop the interconnections necessary for organizational success.

How often, though, have we found ourselves in situations where our best efforts have fallen short of producing the benefits we intended and so deeply desired? Perhaps we have experienced success once, but for some unexplained reason we have been unable to reproduce or sustain the results. More confounding still are those times when, rather than improving performance, creating new knowledge, or adding value, we have found that our actions have had an opposite effect. In these cases, the harder we have tried to push ahead, the more resistance we have encountered.

Why do negative consequences often occur when we attempt to have an impact? For one thing, when we successfully execute actions that are specifically designed to radically alter current work processes and outputs, we generally break apart existing structures (see “The Urge for Efficacy”). Sometimes doing so is necessary, as breaking up and clearing away the old is truly the most effective way to create space for the new. But other times, the result can be fragmentation of a sort that isn’t immediately apparent. The sudden shift to a new “order” can shatter many things people previously counted on to be solid, including relationships, the value systems upon which decisions are based, and the motivations of others. Trust, quite literally, is shaken. People retreat into themselves or in small, tightly knit groups to try to sort out what has just happened and to reestablish their own center. This process can lead to a compartmentalization of ideas and energy within the system, often at a time when the health of the system is most dependent on maintaining and growing its interconnections.

In this article, we will explore the nature of these unexpected consequences and how they might occur, despite our good intentions. We will examine how the work cultures we have created, and even the language we use to describe the act of making a difference, may be partly responsible for unhappy or unsustainable results. We will explore a model that suggests different language choices, as well as a less mechanistic and more organic approach to satisfying our urge for efficacy in our organizations, our communities, and the world. And, we will examine a recent case study in which many of the ideas presented here continue to be tested.

Clues in the Language

“Language exerts hidden power, like a moon on the tides.”

—Rita Mae Brown, Starting From Scratch, 1988

Over the years, I have been fortunate to work with leaders and teams in extraordinary organizations. My own passion for issues related to health, education, and overall quality of life has meant that most of my colleagues and clients have been affiliated with hospitals, educational institutions, the public sector, or government service. As I often find myself working as a strategic learning partner and coach with organizations that are experiencing significant change, the initial conversations quickly and urgently turn to the subject of “what are we going to do?” I have noticed similarities in the language people in organizations use to describe their concerns, questions, and quest to “do something.” Here are some examples of commonly used expressions:

“We’re going to have to wrestle that one to the ground.”

“They’d better be prepared to go to the mat.”

“We can’t afford another idea that bombs.”

“This should break down the barriers to our success.”

“We’ll just keep grinding away at it.”

“Our approach must hit the target.”

“Whatever we do, it’s got to have an impact.”

These phrases all have one thing in common: They employ physical or mechanical metaphors that involve something hitting against or breaking up something else.

My growing curiosity has caused me to listen more closely to the nature of the language people use in organizations to describe their problems and challenges. As I have grown more aware, I have noticed that some individuals and teams, particularly those who strive to carefully consider the nature of any crisis prior to reacting, tend to use a different type of metaphor. Here are some examples of these phrases:

“How can we nurture an environment that supports excellence?”

“Is it possible to go with the flow without being swept away?” “What pathways will take us there?” “Is this part of a larger cycle?” “What can we do to grow these ideas?” “Can we take actions that will create a ripple effect?” “Are we really understanding the nature of the system that created this dilemma?” “What are the healthiest and most sustainable solutions?”

Does the language we use to describe our activity say something about the culture of our workplaces and the methodologies we employ to make meaning?

There are two interesting characteristics of these expressions. First, they are all in the form of questions. Second, they all use natural or ecological images to describe an action or state of being. As I have continued to listen for these language differences, however, I have noticed that the more organic, questioning metaphors are not the norm.

I began to seriously wonder: Does the language we use to describe our activity say something about the culture of our workplaces and the methodologies we employ to make meaning? And, as I heard story after story about change initiatives and performance improvement programs failing, I further wondered if a mechanistic mindset, and, subsequently, approaches to our work, might somehow be connected to producing results that are either unsatisfying or unsustainable (see “Mechanistic vs. Organic Fixes”).

Take the word “impact,” for example. Whether used traditionally as a noun (, “We need to make an impact on our customers”) or perhaps more questionably as a verb (, “How will this impact our bottom line?”), this word describes something hitting against something else. Some of the synonyms for “impact,” found in the Synonym Finder (J. I. Rodale, 1978), include “collision,” “crash,” “clash,” “striking,” “bump,” “slam,” “bang,” “knock,” “thump,” “whack,” “thwack,” “punch,” “smack,” and “smash.”

It then occurred to me that an interesting exercise would be to substitute some of these synonyms for the word “impact” in the common and popular phrases I have heard in organizations. Here are some of the more darkly humorous results:

“We need a growth plan that will slam our customer base.”

“This new policy will surely whack the morale of our employees.”

“Our new process improvement program is designed specifically to smash against the quality of our services.”

“Whatever we decide must collide with our community.”

Interestingly, this is also the language that is often used to describe military or war efforts. One example is an article titled “From the Front,” featured in the Albuquerque Journal on March 9, 2003. Writing from a military camp in Kuwait, journalist Miguel Navrot describes the attributes of the redesigned Patriot missile:

“This time, the Patriot is intended to slam directly into targets, destroying it in the supersonic collision.”

While most people do not consciously think about their well-intended solutions as actions that are either based on a military model or designed to smash, crash, and dash something to pieces, one must wonder if there are unintended consequences to this way of talking and thinking about problems and opportunities. Is there not, for example, a natural fragmentation that occurs when we implement actions that constantly hit against ideas, values, work processes, and people? And does this fragmentation support our efforts in the long run, when it causes people to feel disconnected, relationships to shatter, and innovation to become compartmentalized or even disintegrate?

Undeniably there are times when the most effective and necessary actions are those that do, indeed, break something apart, but have we overused these tactics in our quest for efficacy? And, if so, what might constitute the characteristics of a balanced approach?

Looking for an Oasis

Because metaphors paint a verbal picture of ideas, I wondered what would happen if people were asked to draw pictures to symbolize characteristics of different kinds of organizations. Would mechanistic or organic themes appear in their images? To begin exploring this question, I took advantage of three opportunities. The first was an invitation I had received to deliver the closing keynote address to the Public Service Commission of Canada’s annual Emerging Issues Forum for Leaders. The second was the chance to work with members of the Research Association of Medical and Biological Organizations (RAMBO), a diverse group of scientists in New Mexico that gathers regularly to explore scientific questions of mutual interest. The third was an invitation to speak at the 2001 Gossamer Ridge Institute, a think tank of teachers and administrators, mostly from public schools.

At the Canadian conference, I distributed drawing paper, along with markers and crayons in many colors, to all of the participants. I then asked them to create two images: one symbolic of the characteristics and attributes of a typical organization, and the second of the traits of an ideal organization. With the RAMBO group, I asked them to draw a traditional organization of which they had once been a part, and then to draw the RAMBO organization. I asked the educators to draw representations of the typical school and the ideal school.

With each of the three groups, the results were astoundingly similar. Drawings of the “typical” organizations included boxes, squares, and lots of right angles, mostly in black and white or monotone colors. Many drawings depicted rows of people who all looked the same, often captured in contained and compartmentalized cubes. Several incorporated mazes. In almost all cases, the blocky, unifying principles of these pictures were immediately apparent. When asked to describe the meaning of their drawings, people used words such as “constrained,” “programmed,” “stifling,” “demanding,” “demoralizing,” and “dead.”

Drawings of the “ideal” organization showed equally amazing similarities. Brightly colored images of overlapping circles, spirals, prisms, and other free-form designs emerged, with the unifying forces more felt than immediately seen. Depictions of natural landscapes were by far the most common themes: Trees, complete with root systems, were laden with fruit hanging on their branches and birds roosting in their nests. Creatures that looked like amoebas floated in a bright blue sea. Flowers bloomed in the midst of a desert oasis. Purple mountains soared above lush, green valleys and flowing rivers. When asked to describe the symbolism of these drawings, the creators used words such as “flowing,” “creative,” “diverse,” “renewing,” “energizing,” and “alive.” The visual metaphors of the desired organizations, along with the verbal interpretations, indicated a desire for a more organic model than currently existed.

A “Live” Issue

As I mentioned earlier, there are some individuals, teams, and organizations that have consciously chosen to slow down and attempt to understand the nature of the problems or opportunities they are facing, rather than charging full ahead with solutions. The language they tend to articulate reflects a way of thinking that is based on an organic model or world view, rather than a mechanistic one. The use of words such as “nurture,” “create,” and “grow” suggests that the problems and issues are alive and must be treated as such. In fact, this language suggests that the very solutions we employ must themselves be alive. Furthermore, we must understand that the processes we use to choose and implement solutions will ultimately influence the results.

If we choose to think of our opportunities and problems as being alive, how might we change the ways in which we go about planning and taking action? I recently took the opportunity to explore this and other questions about the “urge for efficacy” with Tres Schnell, who serves as the chief of the Injury Prevention and Emergency Medical Services Bureau for the New Mexico Department of Health.

In the aftermath of 9-11 and in defense against possible bioterrorism threats, state health departments throughout the U. S. have been charged with creating and implementing a plan to vaccinate physicians and others who would potentially serve as first responders against smallpox. Over the past few months, New Mexico Public Health Division personnel have devoted much time to developing a thoughtful plan to comply with this request. Based on the principle of “first, do no harm,” the division created a phased approach that would begin with identifying healthcare workers who would likely be the first ones to deal with a patient with smallpox, and then carefully screening to identify and remove from the vaccination pool anyone with risk factors that could lead to adverse effects. The inoculation program would then move forward with its first phase of vaccinating a small group of these primary responders, all of whom understood the potential risks and had volunteered for the program. Over time, the approach would be to carefully and methodically extend the vaccination initiative to other first responders in communities throughout the state, with constant monitoring of any adverse effects or signs that adjustments to the strategy should be made. The plan was implemented during the first week of March, with a handful of key personnel receiving the vaccine.

However, as fears of pending war with Iraq began to escalate, the call came to step up the program and to take actions that would have greater “impact” on the goal of vaccinating more people in a shorter period of time. The Department of Health was suddenly faced with a new sense of urgency to get the job done. I asked Tres about her views on the request to move faster, the possible unintended consequences of doing so, and an approach that could serve to mitigate or avoid those consequences.

When people feel that they are not being heard, they tend to compartmentalize themselves according to their alliances. Blaming often occurs, and then conscientious objection becomes passive, and then active, resistance.

Tres began by relaying the story of the planning process. “As we planned our approach in New Mexico, we did so knowing that opinions about the whole process were diverse,” she explained. “There are many health professionals in this country who do not feel that vaccinating people against smallpox is the right thing to do, given the potential risks of the vaccine itself, and the fact that doing so will divert resources away from other critical public health initiatives. Knowing this, we listened to all views, carefully weighed the risks, and developed a plan that held sacred the charge to ‘first, do no harm.’We were well on our way, through building a strong public health infrastructure and trust in a thoughtful process, to implementing a smallpox vaccination strategy in New Mexico. What we must do now is to respond to this new sense of urgency without creating a situation that divides us internally and diminishes the organic approach we believe is critical to the safety and effectiveness of this initiative.”

Throughout it all, Tres said, “We have the goal of remaining whole, because it is through wholeness that we can be most effective. The danger is that when people feel that they are not being heard, they tend to compartmentalize themselves according to their alliances. Blaming often occurs, and then conscientious objection becomes passive, and then active, resistance. We begin to rationalize that the people who don’t think like we do must be ‘bad.’ So, we cannot allow ourselves to be seduced into a defensive posture that builds those barriers to open, honest information sharing and dialogue. We cannot afford to fragment our relationships as we address the smallpox issue.”

In her role as leader of Emergency Medical Services, Tres insists that decisions on how to proceed cannot be made until the health professionals and their concerns have been heard, no matter how diverse or controversial the ideas. “Our diversity is our true strength,” she says. “This will help people to remain united, not harming each other in ways that will hurt our ability to be effective in the long run. Maintaining and nurturing relationships with one another is more critical now than ever.”

Asked about the messages she is sending to her colleagues, Tres responded, “We need to consciously choose our language — our mantras, if you will — selecting those that maintain and communicate our core principles and values. We must prioritize around our commonalities, not our differences. The threat we are currently facing is the added sense of urgency. If we can respond well to this one, we will learn and respond even better the next time.”

The messages are clear: that the language used and the methods employed must serve to join ideas, perspectives, and people if this very serious issue is to have a positive outcome. In the case of smallpox vaccination plans in New Mexico, the health professionals are finding strength and connectivity in their shared passion for protecting the public’s health. It is a critical time for leaders to model the willingness to listen deeply to differing viewpoints and honor one another’s professionalism. This willingness, coupled with strong relationships that have grown from working together in the past to address public health issues, is enabling the team to move forward more quickly with the plan while at the same time continually monitoring concerns and issues as they arise.

Improving Our Awareness

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”

—Confucius

Do we consciously choose our metaphors and our methodologies for taking action, or have our responses and approaches somehow become automatic? And if the latter is true, how can we make a conscious attempt to become more aware of our own language and the influence that our words may have on the nature of the actions that we and those around us take?

The “Language/Action Assessment” on p. 5 is intended to help us to explore our own favored metaphors and the kinds of actions they describe. Take a moment to consider the questions it includes. As you think about your responses, reflect on how experimenting with other language choices might possibly lead to solutions and actions that are more organic and alive than other possibilities. Engaging in this exercise can also be helpful when done as a team activity, especially as part of a strategic or operational planning process.

In answering these questions, we become more aware of our past tendencies. As we more clearly understand our past, we are better able to make thoughtful choices about our future language usage and subsequent actions. In this way, the exercise can help us to achieve true, lasting efficacy.

Choosing the Words We Live By

Whether we are addressing global issues such as the threat of bioterrorism or concerns more specific to our organizations and local communities, thoughtfully and consciously choosing our words and deeds is surely the wisest course of action. The desire to make a difference may well be our birthright. But how we go about attempting to make that difference can affect the quality and sustainability of the outcomes and of our lives. The words of an anonymous philosopher serve to remind us of how what we think can shape who we are:

Watch your thoughts, they become your words.

Watch your words, they become your actions.

Watch your actions, they become your habits.

Watch your habits, they become your character.

Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.

Being human means that we are endowed with the wondrous capacity to consciously choose our words and actions. May we increasingly exercise our ability to do so with clarity, compassion, and an understanding that what we say and do will create our future.

Carolyn J. C. Thompson has devoted more than 20 years to helping organizations create vision driven and values-centered workplaces that are able to ask and address hard questions through engaging the power of the human spirit. She teaches, writes, and consults both in the U. S. and abroad on applying systems thinking and complexity principles to organizational issues. Carolyn resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The post The Unintended Consequences of “Having an Impact” appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Characteristics of Accumulators and Flows

Accumulators and flows are basic building blocks that allow us to represent dynamic phenomena in a more precise way than systems archetypes and causal loop diagrams (see “Accumulators: Bathtubs, Bathtubs Everywhere…” V21N7). Accumulators are things that accumulate over time—water in a bathtub, interest in an IRA account, world population—and are represented in accumulator and flow diagrams by a box. Flows, on the other hand, are things that increase or decrease the levels of an accumulator—water flowing in or out of the bathtub, money flowing in or out of an IRA, births and deaths affecting population—and are represented by a circle with a faucet on top.

TIP: One way to differentiate between accumulators and flows is by their measurement: accumulators are measured in units, while flows are measured in units over time. Money saved in an IRA, for example, is measured in dollars, while the interest flow is measured in dollars per year.

Understanding accumulator and flow structures is important because almost all complex dynamic behavior in organizations occurs as a result of accumulations of material or informational flows. Identifying accumulators, therefore, focuses our attention on managing the most important variables in a system. At the same time it helps us understand how our decision-making process can regulate the flows into and out of those variables.

Filling Orders as Accumulators and Flows

Mapping a system in terms of accumulators and flows can help us visually represent the structure of a system and identify the source of problems. If we are experiencing a growing backlog of unfilled orders, for example, we might begin sketching out the system by identifying the most visible accumulations in our order fulfillment system. “Order Backlog” would be an obvious starting point. If we then asked how the accumulation of our order backlog could be changed, we might identify flows such as “New Orders” (which increase the backlog) and “Orders Filled” (which decrease the backlog).

From this simple accumulator and flow diagram, we can next flesh out the picture and add detail using our understanding of past history. For example, if the order backlog remains high, delivery delays usually go up. Customers will grow impatient and may threaten to take their business elsewhere. One way to respond to this problem is to expedite certain orders—which pleases angry customers, but also takes time away from order fulfillment and leads to an increase in the order backlog and more angry customers (R1). This series of events can be captured by adding a causal loop to our initial accumulator and flow diagram (see “Impact of Order Backlog”).

Viewing the situation from an accumulator and flow perspective makes it clear that there are only two ways to reduce the backlog—decrease the inflows or increase the outflows. We either have to slow down or stop marketing for a while, or ramp up capacity to increase the order fulfillment rate. The accumulator and flow diagram poses the situation in a clear and concise way and focuses our attention on addressing the key flows.

IMPACT OF ORDER BACKLOG

If the order backlog remains high, delivery delays usually go up. Customers will grow impatient and may threaten to take their business elsewhere. One way to respond to this problem is to expedite certain orders—which pleases angry customers, but also takes time away from order fulfillment and leads to an increase in the order backlog and more angry customers (R1).

Accumulators as Memory

Mapping in terms of accumulators and flows reminds us that accumulators don’t simply disappear just because we stop a particular flow. If, for example, we were to stop all marketing efforts today, it would still take time for orders from previous marketing campaigns to stop flooding in, which means we need to address our capacity issues regardless of how we change our marketing efforts. When managing an accumulator and flow structure, it is important to remember that accumulators are a little like elephants—they never forget what they have been given to remember.

Kellie T. Wardman is resource director of YMCA of the USA. Kellie was publications director of Pegasus Communications. She holds an MFA in creative writing from Emerson College. Go to her blog at http://kelliewardman.com.

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 Managing with Accumulators and Flows appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Denning explains how effective leaders in all business contexts take full advantage of four levels of discourse— narrative, exposition, description, and argumentation—to explain what needs to be accomplished, to describe what the probable consequences will be if appropriate action is (or is not) taken, to trace a sequence of steps or events within a process (e.g., causal relationships), and/or to present a convincing argument (with evidence and/or logic). Through tips and examples, he helps readers to master these and other skills, which have almost unlimited practical applications.

Of special interest to me is what Denning says about the use of language when inspiring people to support efforts to transform an organization. He asserts that “sustained, enthusiastic change doesn’t occur by osmosis or extrasensory perception. If leaders’ inner commitment to change is to have any effect, they have to communicate it to the people they aspire to lead. True, the leaders’ actions will eventually speak louder than words, but in the short run, it’s what leaders say—or don’t say—that has the impact. The right words can have a galvanizing effect, generating enthusiasm, energy, momentum, and more, while the wrong words can undermine the best intentions and kill initiative on the spot, stone dead.”

Developing Fluency

These are among the issues that Howard Gardner addresses in his latest book, Five Minds for the Future (Harvard Business School Press, 2007). Gardner suggests that, to thrive in the world during the eras to come, people need to develop five cognitive abilities. Gardner refers to them as “minds,” but they are really mindsets. The disciplined mind enables us to know how to work steadily over time to improve skill and understanding. The synthesizing mind enables us to take information from disparate sources and make sense of it by understanding and evaluating that information objectively. By building on discipline and synthesis, the creating mind enables us to break new ground. By “recognizing that nowadays one can no longer remain within one’s shell or one’s home territory,” the respectful mind enables us to note and welcome differences between human individuals and between human groups so as to understand them and work effectively with them. Finally, by “proceeding on a level more abstract than the respectful mind,” the ethical mind enables us to reflect on the nature of our work and the needs and desires of the society in which we live.

As Denning would explain, each of these five “minds” or mindsets has a “secret language” of its own. Those who would be leaders must become fluent in one or more of the languages that are most appropriate to the given objective, be it the creation of an entirely new art form or a coalition of healthcare organizations. He examines three key steps of language leadership (i.e., getting the audience’s urgent attention, eliciting desire for a different future, and reinforcing with reasons) before shifting his attention to six elements that enable the language of leadership to achieve its maximum effectiveness. These “key enablers” are articulating a clear and inspiring change idea; committing to the “story” of change; mastering the audience’s own “story”; cultivating narrative intelligence; telling authentically true stories; and finally, deploying the body language of leadership.

The last is vital because, as Denning correctly points out, “without the calm assertiveness of the body language of leadership, the verbal language of leadership will have little effect.” Indeed, although percentages vary from one research study to another, there is no doubt that during face-toface contact, body language and tone of voice determine 85–90 percent of the impact.

In his previous books, Denning skillfully explains all of the elements of an effective business narrative. Now he has broadened his scope to examine how all four levels of discourse (including narrative) can help those whose objective is to explain what needs to be done, to inspire others to become involved, to make the vision vivid and compelling, and finally, to make a convincing argument that will guide and inform collaborate initiatives.

Robert Morris (interllect@mindspring.com) is an independent consultant who is based in Dallas, specializing in high-impact executive development and organizational growth. He coaches individual executives and also works closely with groups of executives. Much of his time is committed to conducting workshops and seminars that focus on knowledge management, process simplification, and performance measurement.

The post Leadership as a Second Language appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Elements of the Language

Systems thinking can be thought of as a language for communicating about complexities and interdependencies. In particular, the following qualities make systems thinking a useful framework for discussing and analyzing complex issues:

• Focuses on “Closed Interdependencies.” The language of systems thinking is circular rather than linear. It focuses on closed interdependencies, where x influences y, y influences z, and z influences x.
• Is a “Visual” Language. Many of the systems thinking tools—causal loop diagrams, behavior-over-time diagrams, systems archetypes, and structural diagrams —have a strong visual component. They help clarify complex issues by summing up, concisely and clearly, the key elements involved.

  Diagrams also facilitate learning. Studies have shown that many people learn best through representational images, such as pictures or stories. A systems diagram is a powerful means of communication because it distills the essence of a problem into a format that can be easily remembered, yet is rich in implications and insights.

• Adds Precision. The specific set of “syntactical” rules that govern systems diagrams greatly reduce the ambiguities and miscommunications that can occur when tackling complex issues.
  Example: In drawing out the relationships between key aspects of a problem, causal links are not only indicated by arrows, but are labeled “s” (same) or “o” (opposite) to specify how one variable affects another. Such labeling makes the nature of the relationship more precise, ensuring only one possible interpretation.
• Forces an “Explicitness” of Mental Models. The systems thinking language translates “war stories” and individual perceptions of a problem into black-and-white pictures that can reveal subtle differences in viewpoint.
  Example: In one systems thinking course, a team of managers was working on an issue they had been wrestling with for months. One manager was explaining his position, tracing through the loops he had drawn, when a team member stopped him. “Does that model represent your thinking about this problem?” he asked.
  
  The presenter hesitated a bit, reviewed his diagram, and finally answered, “Yes.”
  
  The first man, evidently relieved, responded, “After all of these months, I finally really understand your thoughts on this issue. I disagree with it, but at least now that we are clear on our different viewpoints, we can work together to clarify the problem.”
• Allows Examination and Inquiry. Systems diagrams can be powerful means for fostering a collective understanding of a problem. Once individuals have stated their understanding of the problem, they can collaborate on addressing the challenges it poses. And by focusing the discussion on the diagrams, systems thinking defuses much of the defensiveness that can arise in a high-level debate.
  Example:When carrying on a systems discussion, differing opinions are no longer viewed as “human resources’ view of our productivity problem” or “marketing’s description of decreasing customer satisfaction,” but different structural representations of the system. This shifts the focus of the discussion from whether human resources or marketing is right to constructing a diagram that best captures the behavior of the system.
• Embodies a Worldview that looks at wholes, rather than parts, that recognizes the importance of understanding how the different segments of a system are interconnected. An inherent assumption of the systems thinking worldview is that problems are internally generated—we often create our own “worst nightmares.”
  Example: At systems thinking courses, participants often play a board game known as the “Beer Game,” where they assume the position of retailer, wholesaler, distributor, or producer. Each player tries to achieve a careful balance between carrying too much inventory or being backlogged. When things go wrong, many people blame their supplier (, “I kept ordering more, but he didn’t respond”) or the buyers (, “fickle consumers—one day they’re buying it by the truckload, the next day they won’t even touch the stuff”). In reality, neither the buyers nor the suppliers are responsible for the wide fluctuations in inventory—they are a natural consequence of the structure of the system in which the players are functioning.
  
  The systems thinking worldview dispels the “us versus them” mentality by expanding the boundary of our thinking. Within the framework of systems thinking, “us” and “them” are part of the same system and thus responsible for both the problems and their solutions.

Learning the Language

Learning systems thinking can be likened to mastering a foreign language. In school, we studied a foreign language by first memorizing the essential vocabulary words and verb conjugations. Then we began putting together the pieces into simple sentences. In the language of systems thinking, systems diagrams such as causal loops can be thought of as sentences constructed by linking together key variables and indicating the causal relationships between them. By stringing together several loops, we can create a “paragraph” that tells a coherent story about a particular problem under study.

If there were a Berlitz guide to systems thinking, archetypes such as “Fixes that Backfire” or “Shifting the Burden” would be listed as “commonly used phrases.” They provide a readymade library of common structures and behaviors that can apply to many situations. Memorizing them can help you recognize a business situation or problem that is exhibiting common symptoms of a systemic breakdown.

Of course, the key to becoming more proficient in any language is to practice—and practice often. When reading a newspaper article, for example, try to “translate” it into a systems perspective:

• take events reported in the newspaper and try to trace out an underlying pattern that is at work,
• check whether it fits one of the systems archetypes, or if it is perhaps a combination of several archetypes,
• then try to sketch out a causal loop or two that captures the structure producing that pattern.

Don’t expect to be fluent in systems thinking right away. Remember, after your first few Latin classes, you still couldn’t read The Odyssey. For that matter, you probably knew only a few key phrases and vocabulary words, but you improved your skills by using it as often as possible. The same holds true for systems thinking.

When sitting in a meeting, see if you can inform your understanding of a problem by applying a systems perspective. Look for key words that suggest linear thinking is occurring— statements such as “we need more of the same” or “that solution worked for us the last time this happened, why not use it again?” You can also create low key practice sessions by working with a small team of colleagues to diagram a particular problem or issue.

Becoming Fluent

We say that someone is fluent in a language when they begin to think in that language and no longer have to translate. But fluency means more than just an ability to communicate in a language; it means understanding the surrounding culture of the language—the worldview. As with any foreign language, mastering systems thinking will allow us to fully engage in and absorb the worldview that pervades it. By learning the language of systems thinking, we will hopefully change not only the way we discuss complex issues, but the way we think about them as well.

Michael Goodman is a principal with Innovation Associates Organizational Learning. He is an internationally recognized speaker, scholar, and practitioner in the fields of systems thinking, organizational learning, and leadership.

The post Systems Thinking as a Language appeared first on The Systems Thinker.