In business settings, corporations have tended to focus mainly on the socializing benefits of games — participating in “team building” exercises, for example, which were used to develop interpersonal skills and cooperation. Games, for the most part, were not considered managerial “skill builders.”

In recent years, however, a new variety of games have begun to appear in companies throughout the world. These “microworlds” or “management flight simulators” are helping managers share their mental models of strategic issues, teach decision making skills, improve strategic planning, and enhance corporate learning.

Gaming Interface

These new games are essentially system dynamics simulation models with an added “interface” that allows users to experiment with the simulation by trying different strategies and decisions. In a typical modeling project, the modeler often learns a great deal through the process of building a model, while the model remains a “black box” to the client. By making the modeling insights accessible through a gaming interface, a non-technical audience can explore the assumptions and causal links behind a system dynamics model. The black box then becomes a learning tool.

A good game design must include the following basic qualities: they must allow the player to learn the concepts that the model was designed to communicate; they must be easy to use and yet challenging; and they must be fun to play. For example, when I was asked to design a simulation model and interface for a computer exposition, I created a simulator that looked very much like a video arcade game. It had flashing lights, sound effects, and exciting warning and congratulatory messages sprinkled throughout. But embedded within the flashy exterior was an exploration of the dynamics of marketing — complete with a debriefing of the causal loop diagrams. The simulation was fun and exciting, but it also provided a learning experience.

Decision making vs. Policy making

In business, managers are constantly asked to make decisions, guided by company policies that govern various aspects of decision-making. For example, a manager may make ordering decisions weekly, but there may be a policy that requires the inventory level to always be above a certain minimum level. The manager exercises her own judgement guided by the policy of maintaining certain inventory reserves. Both Games and simulations are valuable for helping managers and policymakers gain experience by testing, failing, and retesting policies and decisions on simulated companies without risking real people and dollars.

From a modeling viewpoint, games support decision making while simulations support policy making. In a game, players must make decisions at the beginning of each and every round. Players interact with the computer period-by-period, allowing them to test innovative decisions and develop expertise in formulating rules for future decisions. In a simulation, users are asked to provide a set of policies at the beginning of the simulation. The users then watch as the effects of their policy deployments unfold over time. Through multiple simulations, they can test long term strategies and engage in scenario planning. They cannot, however, interact with the computer on a real-time basis.

With the advent of recent interface design tools, managers can now create software interfaces that convert their system dynamics models into games, which can then be used as corporate learning tools. Currently, there are a number of powerful interface design tools that are compatible with models written in either STELLA or Professional Dynamo (see “Interface Software” box).

Games as Corporate Memory

Like traditional games, system dynamics-based computer games can be used to teach as well as entertain. Managers can use simulation games to make their “mental models” explicit and hone their decision-making skills. Games can also serve as “corporate memory” by capturing the important insights generated by a modeling project or other experience. Such insights can then be passed along to new employees by allowing them to explore these microworlds. The game can give employees an overview of the organization, while at the same time helping them “bond” with the corporate culture.

Although you may not feel comfortable playing the “bloop, bloop” game with the CEO of an international corporation, games will continue to play an increasingly important role in preparing managers for the challenges of tomorrow. Let the games begin!

W. Brian Kreutzer is vice president of research and development at Gould-Kreutzer Associates, Inc., Cambridge. MA. He co-authored the second edition of Managing A Nation, a microcomputer software catalog, with Drs. Gerald Barney and Martha Garrett. He has designed a large number of software interfaces in conjunction with his consulting work.

The post Let the Games Begin! appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

From the Bedroom . . .

How might two people who view themselves as “playing for the same team” find themselves acting as adversaries? Consider an example from the homefront. Maria and John have been married for five years. As their relationship matured, their levels of intimacy and trust blossomed (see Trajectory A in “The Ups and Downs”). More recently, however, they havebeen riding an emotional roller coaster ride, as indicated by Trajectory B. What is going on?

As shown in “The Accidental Adversaries Trap” on p. 7, this rollercoaster behavior is caused by shifts in the dominance of two reinforcing processes. During the good times, the “Healthy Relationship” loop (R1) is dominant. John and Maria’s quality of life is high, and each acts in ways that contribute to his or her partner’s well-being. When R1 is in full flight, the quality of the relationship heads upward.

THE UPS AND DOWNS

As a relationship matures, the partners’ levels of intimacy blossom (Trajectory A). However, it is easy to slip into an adversarial relationship leading either to an exhausting roller-coaster ride (Trajectory B) or to a break-up (Trajectory C). Trajectory D represents the wobbly—yet continuous—improvement in the relationship that can result from managing the “Accidental Adversaries” dynamic

From time to time, however, Maria or John takes actions that unintentionally disturb the other party. For instance, when faced with stress at home or in the office, John withdraws because it makes him feel better (B2). Maria then becomes irritated by John’s unwillingness to talk through what is on his mind. She copes with the situation by venting her frustration with periodic bursts of anger or tears (B3). However, her outbursts disturb and confuse John, leaving him to wonder what he did wrong. The couple falls into a vicious cycle that undermines the quality of their relationship—the “Dysfunctional Relationship” loop (R4).

If asked to account for the ups and downs of their relationship, John and Maria are likely to give an eventlevel explanation that focuses on specific incidents. The “Accidental Adversaries” structure highlights what is counter-intuitive to them: that their actions contribute to the behavior that they so dislike in their partner. Although they ultimately work things out, the result of this see-saw pattern of behavior is that John and Maria aren’t as close as they would like to be.

The “Healthy Relationship” loop operates while the pair’s behavior is team-centered. As the “Dysfunctional Relationship” loop takes hold, Maria and John both focus more and more on their own quality of life, becoming increasingly self-centered. If R4 were to remain dominant, the quality of the relationship would be thoroughly undermined (Trajectory C in “The Ups and Downs”): Maria and John would have inadvertently become adversaries. If this situation were to persist, they might eventually split up. But because they value their relationship, they have a pattern of regular “clearing the air” spats. These discussions help them to recognize their own contribution to the miserable situation, and lead them to resolve to act differently in the future. Dominance shifts from R4 back to R1, at least for a time.

. . . to the Boardroom

Chances are that you have seen the same dynamics occurring between groups within organizations. For instance, have you noticed how the human resources function in many companies often finds itself in an adversarial role with the groups that it is attempting to support? This service role should be the basis for strong, trusting relationships—so what goes wrong? To map the structure, you might want to redraw “The Accidental Adversaries Trap” with HR in place of John and your own function in place of Maria (you can compare your diagram to the authors’ version at www.pegasuscom.com/hrloop.html).

In the “Healthy Relationship” loop (R1), HR offers high-quality services that contribute to your group’s success. In response, your group relies more heavily on HR, bringing them success and allowing them to extend the range of services they provide. These new offerings help to boost your department’s productivity.

Too often, though, the internal loops of the “Accidental Adversaries” structure (B2, B3, and R4) shape the relationship. HR responds to breaches of regulations that put the company at risk—and threaten their success— by instituting a policy that restricts your group’s autonomy. Your group may believe that this policy interferes with its ability to conduct business— HR should be supporting your initiatives instead of hampering them! The group might side-step the constraints and continue to do what it wants to do. HR then feels even more threatened by your policy breaches, leading them to step up their restrictions. Soon, your departments are trapped in an ongoing power struggle—to the detriment of the organization as a whole.

Out of Adversity

What lessons does the “Accidental Adversaries” structure hold for those wanting to build strong partnerships? Clearly, it is easy to slip into an adversarial relationship leading to either an exhausting roller-coaster ride (Trajectory B) or a break-up (Trajectory C). The challenge is to strengthen the “Healthy Relationship” loop, allowing it to remain dominant

One way to do so is for the parties in a relationship to avoid acting solely in their own interests, instead doing things that contribute to the other person’s success. This selfless approach would mean that John would learn how to talk openly rather than withdraw, and Maria would learn how to handle her frustrations in new ways.

The risk involved is that one party might take advantage of the other. And in many situations, people or departments cannot give up actions that may bring them into conflict with others. For instance, HR cannot ignore regulatory breaches—it must find ways of maintaining constructive relationships with other groups while protecting the interests of the entire company.

More enduring results can come from both encouraging selflessness in the relationship and weakening key links in the “Dysfunctional Relationship” loop (see the dotted arrows in “The Accidental Adversaries Trap”). Managing the relationship involves each party (1) recognizing that the other is going to do things for themselves from time to time, and (2) learning to observe the consequences without assuming bad intent by their partner. This approach allows for some wobble in the relationship without allowing the “Dysfunctional Relationship” loop to become dominant. Trajectory D in “The Ups and Downs” represents the wobbly—yet continuous—improvement in relationships that can result when partners act with insight into this systemic structure.

Strong partnerships are essential for learning. The “Accidental Adversaries” structure illustrates the need to work at building relationships, rather than letting them fall into adversarial conflict by default

THE ACCIDENTAL ADVERSARIES TRAP

During the good times, John and Maria’s quality of life is high, and each acts in ways that contribute to his or her partner’s well-being (R1). However, when faced with stress, John withdraws because it makes him feel better (B2). Maria becomes irritated and copes with the situation by venting her frustration (B3). The couple falls into a vicious cycle that undermines the quality of their relationship (R4).

The post Wobbling to Success by Managing the “Accidental Adversaries” Dynamic appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

A Collapsing Stock

It is only within the last fifty years or so—after generations of benefitting from a seemingly inexhaustible supply of fish off the coast of Cape Cod—that regional fisherman have come face to face with the limits described in the

“Tragedy of the Commons” systems archetype (see “The ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ Archetype”). Mid-20th century technological improvements in fishing methods and equipment accelerated fishing efficiencies in a way that completely changed the environment. As Robert Johnson and Jon Sutinen note in their recent report, “One Last Chance: The Economic Case for a New Approach to Fisheries Management in New England,”, “Species that provided a historical foundation for economic growth in New England— Atlantic halibut, cod, flounder, and others—have been fished to decline, biological collapse or commercial extinction.”

In 1976, recognizing the dangers both to fish stocks and to the economy, the federal government passed legislation imposing catch restrictions on this iconic fishery, and on others in the U. S. But, there was a fatal flaw in the government’s initial approach to regulation. In his excellent book, Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan cites a BusinessWeek column by Gary Becker, describing the short-sightedness of regulations pertaining to striped bass fishing on Cape Cod:, “At the time [Becker] was writing, the government had imposed an aggregate quota on the quantity of striped bass that could be harvested every season. Mr. Becker wrote, ‘Unfortunately, this is a very poor way to control fishing because it encourages each fishing boat to catch as much as it can early in the season, before other boats bring in enough fish to reach the aggregate quota that applies to all of them.’ Everybody loses: The fishermen get low prices for their fish when they sell into a glut early in the season; then, after the aggregate quota is reached early in the season, consumers are unable to get any striped bass at all.”

Aggregate limits were scrapped in the mid-1990s in favor of complex controls on individual fishing activities— referred to collectively as “days-at-sea” limits. These were no more successful, as Johnson and Sutinen point out: “When vessels only have a limited number of days-at-sea, it creates a perverse incentive to catch fish as quickly as possible during available days. Responsible fishermen who could otherwise take the time to fish in a safe, profitable and ecologically conscientious manner are induced to put aside these goals in an attempt to catch as many fish as possible in the few days they have available. Fishermen are given little incentive to avoid overfished stocks and target healthier populations; in order to reduce pressure on overfished stocks, effort controls become so restrictive that it is no longer possible to harvest an optimal quantity of the few remaining healthy stocks. The result is inefficient, costly, unsafe and more damaging to the environment. As fish stocks and profits decline, perverse incentives only increase.”

Cooperative Management

But, as the recent promising developments would suggest, the situation is not hopeless, and the most sustainable solution may very well come from the people closest to the problem: the fishermen. The latest evolution in stock regulation in New England focuses on cooperative fishery management, in which groups of fishermen—known as “sectors”—are given a renewable privilege to harvest a specific quantity of fish.

The sector approach offers fishermen flexibility around when and where to fish. By sharing, trading, or consolidating catch privileges among sector members, fishermen can reduce their costs and eliminate the practice of throwing back waste fish that they’ve over caught. With the individual days-at-sea limitations eliminated, they will be able to concentrate on increasing the quality and value of the fish they catch without worrying about lost fishing time.

The new rules may not be perfect; some are concerned about fairness, and enforcement mechanisms will have to be carefully monitored. But, these first steps toward a cooperative, community-based management structure seem to offer evidence that New England fishermen are ready to moderate the collective impact of their individual efforts in the interest of sustaining this irreplaceable resource for everyone— and that government agencies are willing to give those closest to the situation the tools to manage it.

Vicky Schubert is marketing director at Pegasus Communications.

The post Turning a Tragedy into a Triumph of the Commons? appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Not-So-New New Year’s Resolutions

As we start the new year, many of us take the time to jot down some New Year’s resolutions. If you are like most people, you may find that a few of the items on your list were also there last year—and the year before and the year before that. Why can’t we make the changes that we have “resolved” to make and that, in most cases, we have the power to accomplish?

One easy response may be that we don’t really want to do some of the things that we commit to doing. We come up with “politically correct” items like eating less red meat and more organic vegetables so that we can dutifully produce our list when someone asks us, “Are you making any New Year’s resolutions?” Let’s remove those gratuitous pronouncements from consideration and look at the changes in behavior that we really do want to accomplish, such as losing weight. Are we just too lazy or weak-willed to fulfill our commitments? Before we berate ourselves yet again, we may want to examine our situation from a systemic perspective. The “Success to the Successful” archetype can help us understand the structural forces that are preventing us from carrying out our well-intentioned resolutions.

Organizational Law of Inertia

The “Success to the Successful” structure is largely driven by inertia. In physics, the principle of inertia means that, barring outside influences, an object that is in motion will tend to stay in motion; an object that is at rest will generally stay at rest. In the case of “Success to the Successful,” the person or project that initially succeeds will continue to succeed. On the other hand, the person or project that, for whatever reason, gets a late start will tend to fail.

Why can’t we make the changes that we have “resolved” to make and that, in most cases, we have the power to accomplish?

So, it’s easier to maintain existing habits (such as eating more and exercising less than we should) than to establish new ones (like sticking to a diet and walking at lunch time). The structure of our organizational systems—and our own mindsets—contributes to the forces that produce these predictable results. To better understand how this dynamic works, let’s take a detailed look at the behavior over time of this archetype (see “Initial Dynamics of ‘Success to the Successful’”).

The center of the diagram illustrates the overall results of this archetype: As the resources dedicated to A and A’s success both increase, the resources invested in B and, in turn B’s success decline. The insets above and below this graph provide a more detailed look at the initial dynamics that play a critical role in this longterm outcome. We devote resources to A (which represents the original or the more favored person, product, or activity) for some time with no visible success; therefore, in the beginning, the net returns for A are low or even negative. Sustained investment, however, eventually leads to A’s success. The key here is that, if we sustain our investment in A beyond a critical point, A begins to generate positive returns. Beyond this critical threshold of positive returns, A’s success is likely to be self-sustaining, because continued investment brings ongoing positive net returns.

In the case of B, we start by making the same initial investments as for A but, for whatever reasons (poor timing, external forces, the effects of learning curves, etc.), B takes longer than A to become successful. In many cases, the reason for A’s comparative success is that it had a head start in and is already beyond the critical threshold of positive returns. Thus, B’s net returns stay low or negative longer than A’s, and B begins to look less attractive as an alternative. As a result, we decide to invest less and less in B, which delays B’s achievement of success even further. At a certain point, we may even begin to take away resources, such as people and equipment, because we don’t want to waste them on a “lost cause.” In turn, B’s performance only declines further. We eventually conclude that B is a failed experiment and abandon it.

In the case of our New Year’s resolutions, the success of our old habits in giving us satisfaction makes it difficult for our new efforts to produce equally compelling benefits in the first few months. So, we may pat ourselves on the back for trying to drop a few pounds, mutter something to the effect of “It just wasn’t meant to be,” and comfort ourselves with another hot fudge sundae.

Overcoming the “Survival of the Fittest” Mentality

In a way, the “Success to the Successful” archetype helps show why something that looks like a fair and equal setup is often rigged to favor one party over another. The imbalance can stem from some random external event, a personal bias, or simply the momentum of the first party’s current success. Unfortunately, many management decisions are based on a “survival of the fittest” mentality that ignores the effects of this initial imbalance. As a result, we may not end up with a particular person, product, or activity because it is the “fittest,” but rather because it was either the first or the most widely available option. In this way, we may ultimately accept an inferior outcome over what could have been—and possibly ruin a career or two along the way.

We may continue to use inferior methods because we are familiar with them.

In order to achieve the best possible outcome, we need to be sure that we gave the second alternative a fair shake instead of dooming it to failure from the start. This is particularly important when A is already well established, because any comparisons of B to A tend to make B look less appealing. In this case, comparing A and B would be like judging the performance of a five-year-old child against that of a ten-year-old and concluding that the younger child is inferior and not worth further investments. But, in actuality, the five-yearold may be much better at accomplishing the task than the older child ever was at that same age. Without separating our evaluation of B’s performance from A’s, we may end up sticking with current levels of competency at the expense of developing competency for the future.

INITIAL DYNAMICS OF 'SUCCESS TO THE SUCCESSFUL'

The center of the diagram illustrates the overall results of this archetype: As the resources dedicated to A and A’s success both increase, the resources invested in B and, in turn, B’s success decline. The insets above and below this graph provide a more detailed look at the initial dynamics that play a critical role in this long-term outcome.

People and organizations often suffer from this “competency trap” because, in the short run, it seems to make more sense to invest in something that is already successful than in something new and untried. The downside of this tendency is that we may unwittingly continue to use adequate but inferior tools or methods simply because we are familiar with them. This inclination can have dire consequences when we fail to invest in newly emerging competencies (e.g., when IBM was slow to recognize the importance of personal computers).

To break out of a competency trap, we must clarify our goals for the new product or initiative and identify the resources needed to achieve those objectives. We then must examine how the success of the current effort may systematically undermine support for the new initiative, and find a way to decouple the two.

It Was the Best of Times . . . Initially

“Success to the Successful” raises questions about what drives success in certain situations. It also shows how, if we are not clear about the overall result that we are trying to achieve, the differences in initial conditions alone can have powerful long-term effects on the outcome. Finally, this archetype illustrates how we can persuade ourselves to stay in old lines of business or outmoded ways of doing things simply because we are already good at them. To escape from this trap, we need to look beyond what works and clarify what we actually want in the longer term. We may then be in a better position to keep some of our resolutions this year—and next.

Daniel H. Kim, PhD, is publisher of The Systems Thinker and a member of the governing council of the Society for Organizational Learning.

The post A Tale of Two Loops: The Behavior of “Success to the Successful” appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

In a way, all of these situations are not too unlike how schoolyard fights get started. This image of a schoolyard fight captures the essence of the “Escalation” archetype: One kid makes a pejorative comment that the other counters with a sharp rebuttal. The next round of remarks is even louder and more entrenched. Each side sticks his neck out farther and farther; sometimes the onlookers even seem to egg on the mounting hostilities. Pretty soon, both sides are so far out on a limb that you can almost imagine the playground chant: “Fight! Fight! Fight!” Once things have reached a fever pitch, it is hard to see how anyone will be able to climb down from their positions.

In an “Escalation” situation, one party takes actions to counter a perceived threat. These actions are perceived by the other party as creating an imbalance in the system that then makes them feel threatened. So the second party responds to close the gap, creating an imbalance from the first party’s perspective, and on it goes. The dynamic of the two parties, each trying to achieve a sense of “safety,” becomes an overall reinforcing process that escalates tension on both sides.

Escalating Airfare Wars

This is the typical story of price wars among rival airlines. Cosmic Air wants to fill more of the empty seats on their flights, so they cut their fares. As passengers respond to the bargain fares, Universal Air finds their bookings declining and counters with an even more attractive discount offer. Cosmic, in turn, creates another special promotion, offering a “two for the price of one” deal to customers. In the short run, travelers benefit from the low prices, but in the long term, everyone could lose—and lose big. Depressed prices mean that the profitability of both airlines involved in the price war suffers. As a result, they have less funds to invest in equipment, maintenance, staff, and training—a dangerous situation for them and their customers.

“Escalation” dynamics thrive in a competitive environment, so—not surprisingly—they are pervasive in business. The usual logic that drives “Escalation” goes something like this: Whenever your competitor gains, you lose, and vice versa. That logic leads to all kinds of “wars”—price wars, advertising contests, rebate and promotion slug-fests, salary and benefits wars, labor versus management conflicts, marketing versus manufacturing department battles, and so on. And in the end, everyone loses. Yet the dynamic can also work in a positive direction, when the parties induce each other to compete to improve a situation. The challenge in any “Escalation” situation is to find a way to turn it around, so that it leads to good things for all the parties involved, rather than a downward spiral of destruction.

Diminishing the Threat

As an old saying goes, it takes two to have an argument (or a price war), but only one to stop it. This is good news for those who genuinely want to halt this dynamic, because unilateral action can break “Escalation” and rob it of its legitimacy. If one side stops arguing or lowering prices, the source of the threat diminishes, giving the other party less reason to keep arguing or lowering prices. Such unilateral “disarmament” can actually cause the structure to run in reverse. If one party changes its mental model of a situation, the other may follow suit, and the entire scenario can transform into a positive development.

This article was adapted with the assistance of Janice Molloy from Systems Archetype Basics: From Story to Structure by Daniel H. Kim and Virginia Anderson (Pegasus Communications, 1998). Virginia (Prinny) Anderson is the founder and principal consultant at Design for Learning.

The post Introducing the Systems Archetypes: Escalation appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

A “Drifting Goals” situation starts when there is a gap between desired performance and actual performance. To close the gap, one choice is to take corrective action, which requires time, effort, funds, and attention. Taking corrective action, however, can pose several problems. First, there is often no guarantee that it will work. In addition, because its effects are realized only after a delay, there may be little organizational patience for it. Furthermore, taking corrective action may mean acknowledging that something is wrong, which can lead to the assumption that someone should be blamed and punished. This, in turn, may bring about conflict as different parties try to place blame elsewhere—something to be avoided in most organizations.

The other choice is to lower the desired performance, or the goal, toward the level of actual performance. The gap disappears, but so does the pressure to take corrective action to improve the actual state. Lowering one’s goals isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s wise to adjust initial goals, when they turn out to be misdirected or inappropriate, or when there are extenuating circumstances that require us to be flexible. However, new priorities, other implicit goals of the system, or daily survival pressures may lead us to rationalize that the goal needed correction or that our organization will resume the old standard once “everything settles down.” Distinguishing between legitimate adjustments and truly eroding goals is the key challenge in a “Drifting Goals” situation.

Trouble with Tato Bits

Here’s a slightly more appetizing example. Western Foods is committed to producing quality Tato Bits with chunky insides and a light, crispy coating. In order to increase efficiency, the company institutes a series of cost-cutting initiatives. Plant managers increase line speeds and change cooking and storage methods.

Over the next five years, sales of Tato Bits begin to slip. Managers assume there has been a change in people’s eating habits away from fried foods. Two more years go by, and sales continue to decline. Western Foods decides to conduct consumer research studies. Feedback reveals that the taste and consistency of Tato Bits has changed for the worse.

Further analysis suggests that the gap between the quality standard and actual Tato Bit quality had first appeared more than 10 years ago. The gap should have signaled management that Western’s processes, equipment, or ingredients needed attention and possible investment. However, the company was distracted by its cost-control campaign, and the quality standard was allowed to drift in favor of other changes and the need to keep production moving. Very slowly, almost imperceptibly, quality had slid below consumers’ level of tolerance.

, “Soaring” Goals

Fortunately, “Drifting Goals” doesn’t always have to lead to declining levels of performance. This archetype can also be reversed into a case where goals and standards continually improve. In this scenario, every time we meet a standard and close a performance gap, we raise our goal even higher. The gap between desired and actual performance opens once again, and we move into action to bring performance into line with the new goal. This version of “Drifting Goals” underlies quality-improvement and self-development programs. It can sometimes drive work group, academic, and family dynamics in which good performance is recognized in such a way that it stimulates even higher performance levels—what we might call “Soaring” Goals!

This article was adapted from Systems Archetype Basics: From Story to Structure by Daniel H. Kim and Virginia Anderson (Pegasus Communications, 1998).

Virginia (Prinny) Anderson is the founder and principal consultant at Design for Learning.

The post Introducing the Systems Archetypes: Drifting Goals appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The “Helen Keller” Loops

The basic storyline in “Shifting the Burden” has been compared to the story of Helen Keller, the blind and deaf child whose parents’ attempts to protect her only made her dependent on them. Even though Helen’s parents were well intentioned, they shifted the burden of responsibility for Helen’s welfare to themselves. Helen learned that no matter what she did, her parents would accommodate her. And each incident reinforced her parents’ belief that she was indeed helpless. If it had not been for the determined efforts of Helen’s teacher, Anne Sullivan, who refused to let Helen’s handicaps prevent her from becoming self-reliant, Helen may never have achieved her true potential.

, “Shifting the Burden” to the Central Office Experts

Here’s the same sort of storyline, but in a company: A claims office in a local branch of Southeast Mutual, a large insurance company, is faced with a large, complex claim that requires more expertise than it possesses. The company’s central office responds by sending out its team of expert investigators and adjusters to take care of the situation while the branch office staff goes about their more routine business. All agree that the company cannot justify having teams of experts in every branch, given the cost and the fact that these complicated claims occur so infrequently.

, “Shifting the Burden” highlights an all-too-common human tendency to eliminate feelings of discomfort or pain as quickly as possible.

Besides, everyone knows that people who want to get involved with complex, technically challenging claims either have to move to Southeast’s central office or work locally for a different company. Gradually, the most talented people take those options, and it becomes more difficult to replace them with equally capable adjusters. The branch office begins to rely more and more on the support of the central office. In fact, as the central office expert team grows increasingly efficient at handling crises around the region, the branch seeks their help more and more often as the number of claims that cannot be handled locally increases.

At Southeast, the problem symptom was the pressure to process complex claims outside the experience of the branch adjusters. The symptomatic solution was to ask the central office to process these complex claims. One possible fundamental solution was to strengthen the local branch’s ability to handle at least some larger, more complex claims. True, this solution would have required an investment of management attention, expertise, training, and time, both for learning and practice. But it also would have led to learning on the part of the local staff, and would have strengthened the branch office’s overall capability.

Beyond Band-Aids®

“Shifting the Burden” highlights an all-too-common human tendency to eliminate feelings of discomfort or pain as quickly as possible. This tendency usually leads us down the path of focusing on symptoms rather than on more fundamental causes. By using this archetype, you can map out several short- and long-term solutions, and explore the role of the symptomatic solution’s side-effect on various possible fundamental solutions.

The post Introducing the Systems Archetypes: Shifting the Burden appeared first on The Systems Thinker.