These and other metaphors are often used to help explain systems theory, and they do so effectively — to a point. Many people can intellectually grasp the idea of interconnections in our world and the importance of taking a holistic perspective. But for some, the concept seems so easy to understand that they miss its value. For them, having a metaphorical understanding of systems thinking does not necessarily lead to action or to an integration of the concepts into everyday practice.

Nevertheless, it’s not necessary to have a deep understanding of systems theory in order to use it to influence institutional behavior. What is crucial is to connect some of the elements of systems thinking directly to proposed actions. In this article, I suggest how organizations might apply four models to make the transition from thinking to action. The iceberg metaphor helps to probe the underlying causes of events and patterns. The force field analysis provides a visual means of understanding the factors that keep organizations in “quasi-equilibrium” and the issues involved in any change process. The spidergram emphasizes linkages within a given system. Finally, behavior over time graphs draw attention to the long-range effects of organizational efforts.

The Iceberg (It’s bigger than you think!)

The iceberg is one of the most frequently used models to explain systems thinking (see “The Iceberg”). Thanks to movies like “Titanic,” many people recognize that most of an iceberg sits hidden beneath the water; that is, out of sight.

Different authors present the iceberg model as having from three to six levels; we’ll use a four-level model here.

In the iceberg model, the piece of the structure that appears above the surface represents a single “event.” A young woman arrives an hour late for work after dropping off her young child at a nursery. Her supervisor is understanding — this time. Just below the surface, a deeper level of examination reveals patterns of events, or “trends.” The young mother is late on the same day a week later. We might ask, in this case or any similar situation, whether these two events are unique or if a pattern of behavior is beginning to emerge.

It’s not necessary to have a deep understanding of systems theory in order to use it to influence institutional behavior.

Submerged below the level of the trend is the “structure,” the foundation that supports and creates the behaviors higher up in the pyramid. In the case of the working mother, is she late every week because the organization has strict policies about when staffers need to be in the office — policies that don’t take into account when daycare facilities open their doors in the morning? Would a more effective policy be one that allows employees to work flexible hours or dial in from home on some days? In organizations, the structure is often determined by its policies and procedures.

THE ICEBERG

Each level down the iceberg offers a deeper understanding of the system being examined as well as increased leverage for changing it.

At the next level down, our “mental models” — and those of the people who came before us — affect the structures we put in place and the way we understand the top parts of the iceberg. Is the company founded on a sense of trust for its employees, or does management view itself as needing to monitor workers’ hours to make sure they put in what they’re being paid for? Is “face time” more important than productivity? These attitudes affect the company’s policies and ultimately how it treats all employees, including those with small children.

Each level down the iceberg offers a deeper understanding of the system being examined as well as increased leverage for changing it. Consider, for example, the response of many communities across the U. S. to the events of September 11. Immediately following the tragedy, various groups sponsored events embracing immigrants, with participants singing “We Are the World” and taking part in other heart-warming efforts to reach out to others in a time of national pain and anguish. These events were nice, but of little long-term significance. If the planners had applied the iceberg model to the process, they might have begun by asking simply, “Will we do this again? Should it become an annual event?”

Other questions lead deeper into the model. How do we keep this issue in people’s vision throughout the year? Are there other ways that we might integrate new immigrants into our community? How might we link “native” families to those who are new? And, ultimately, what can we do to open the minds of Americans to see the benefits of the diversity provided by the influx of immigrants? Such exploration might lead to a revival of workshops in cross-cultural understanding such as those brought forth by local ecumenical councils during desegregation.

As shown here, groups can use the iceberg model to improve program planning and to integrate systems thinking into the process. Next time you are involved in event planning, ask yourself whether you are planning an event or a whole movement!

Force Field Analysis (I’m losing my balance!)

Another useful approach to getting deeper into a systems mode of thinking is the force field analysis attributed to Kurt Lewin (, “Resolving Social Conflicts,” Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, 1948). Force field analysis (FFA) is a well-known tool for examining change (see “Force Field Analysis”). It asks, “What forces are at play to increase the odds of a given change taking hold, and what are the elements hindering that change?” This framework provides a rich systems perspective on an issue.

The concept is simple. At any given moment, an organization is in equilibrium; that is, there’s a balance between opposing forces. Without this balance, operations couldn’t move along at their normal pace. When a new idea to change the way the organization operates comes along, it threatens to disrupt the balance. But the forces that maintain the status quo usually make it difficult for change initiatives to take root. The FFA offers a useful way to illustrate this dynamic.

As an example, consider the issue of organizational paperwork. When the academic vice president in an institution of higher education proclaims, “We must simplify operations and eliminate as much unnecessary paperwork as possible,” you can hear the roar of approval from the faculty. But then the change does not happen.

Why? The FFA analysis can provide an understanding of the system as it exists and why there is resistance to change.

Imagine the forces that oppose such a change. For instance, in an attempt to ensure that departments spend certain funds properly, the institutional effectiveness office creates a form requiring that someone from its staff sign off on expenditures of more than $100 from those funds. The graduate college believes that another college in the university is not following standards, so they insist on receiving duplicates of all paperwork that involves graduate students. Department chairs, who have not received any training regarding institutional procedures, fail to follow some of the mandatory processes and lose the trust of the vice president, who then insists on signing off on all travel forms. And on it goes.

In these situations, the top manager often tries to force the change with further declarations and threats. Predictably, the use of strong-arm tactics frequently results in greater resistance.

A more productive way to approach the problem is by listing and examining the balancing forces that prevent the change from taking root (see the table below). Is an individual’s status within the university determined by how many decisions he or she must sign off on? If so, how can we change this reality? Are new faculty members adequately trained on proper completion of paperwork? If not, why? In what ways do various policies reinforce the status quo? How did those forces come about? What can be done to eliminate the forces of resistance or to redirect them in such a manner that they support the proposed change? Each question expands our understanding of the system and opens up possible methods of supporting the initiative.

Spidergram (Not Spider Man!)

Another metaphor for explaining systems thinking is that of a spider web. In The Web of Life (Anchor Books, 1996), Fritjof Capra uses the spider web as the central metaphor to describe the interconnections of all life on Earth. A disruption at one point in the web has an impact that reaches to all points, as it also does in human institutions.

Applying this systems metaphor to organizational issues is easy through the spidergram (see “Spidergram”). First, place the initiative, change, or process to be modified in the center of the web. Then draw threads outward, with blocks at the ends that represent anchoring points for the web. Identify, at each anchor, a unit or process within the organization that might be affected by the change. Stretch your mind to identify all possible anchors. Then, along each line connecting the center to an anchor, indicate the potential impact that the action might have on the anchor.

Consider, for example, an admissions unit in a hospital. The CEO believes that no one should have to stand in line for anything. The admissions staff is aware of and agrees with this perspective. They would also like to reduce their workload, so when budget time comes around, they ask for two additional positions to be created. From their perspective, this is the right thing to do.

Applying the spidergram to this issue involves placing the admissions unit’s request in the center of the web. What then are the anchor points? They might include the hospital budget; the other departments that would be affected by adding expense and capacity to the admissions unit, such as the records office and human resources; and customer satisfaction.

The next step is to note anticipated side effects of funding two more positions in admission on the anchor points. Will other departments requesting positions go without? Will the workload in the records office increase to the point where it begins to cause delays in patient services? Are there other means of resolving the issue, such as sending patients paperwork in advance to complete before coming to the hospital?

The spidergram will not provide an answer as to whether or not the hospital should support the admissions office’s request. It will, however, help identify the interconnections that exist and the potential impact of the proposal beyond the single unit or process involved. It is an extremely useful systems thinking strategy to help an organization see the “big picture” and to avoid sub-optimizing the whole in order to fulfill requests by units with strong and persistent advocates.

Behavior over Time Graphs (The long view)

Short-term thinking leads to event-level actions (as shown in the iceberg model). The number of surgeries in a given month, students enrolled in the fall semester, and quarterly profits are all examples of short-term thinking. If people do view those bits of data historically, they often do so only in relationship to the previous year’s numbers, and begin and end the examination with the question “Are we up?” And often, closely examining the numbers is a guise for searching for someone to blame for a decline!

A systems perspective encourages looking at more data points over a longer period and within a larger context than we’re used to doing. It involves analyzing relevant trends and other patterns that may be acting on the numbers we’re examining at the moment. The graphs may include both historical data and anticipated or desired future trends after a particular intervention. These graphs do not have to be precise, though they should be representative of actual or projected trends in order to be of value. If taken seriously, so-called behavior over time graphs can provide a means for understanding the flow of events and enhance discussion both of the past and the future (see “Behavior over Time Graph” on p. 9).

Take the example of a decline in enrollment numbers in a given department within a large university. The president sees the drop and, with great frustration, calls the provost: “What’s going on over there? Why aren’t the faculty doing their jobs?” The provost calls the dean, who phones the department chair. The chair reminds the dean that they agreed to raise standards for admission to the program in order to meet increasing state employment standards for graduates. Looking at long-term student enrollment patterns in similar situations might have led the administrators to understand that numbers frequently decline at first before enrollment begins to rise again. And doing so might have kept everyone’s blood pressure in check.

“Behavior over Time Graph” represents a small local business that had a tremendous launch, but then experienced lagging sales. When top managers considered the demographics of the individuals they catered to, they recognized that many of the older retirees who had created their initial success had left the state or died. To boost sales, they would need to consider marketing to a slightly younger crowd or even altering their product. Graphing trends in the rise or fall of multiple variables (enrollment and the local economy in higher education, sales and new product introductions in manufacturing, and so on) helps generate discussion, leading to hypotheses and deeper understanding of the trends as part of creating an overall strategy.

Back to Start

Busy executives who think that systems thinking is interesting but of limited value are missing an important tool for change. The best-laid plans can go astray if the whole system has not been considered. Administrators in every kind of organization can benefit from the use of these and other metaphors and models that build a deep understanding of the systems within which they work and live, and strengthen their actions toward continuous improvement.

Ed Cunliff is assistant vice president for academic affairs at the University of Central Oklahoma, with major responsibilities in institutional research, assessment, continuous improvement, and the Academic Support Center. He is active in the pursuit of quality concepts on and off campus, and serves on the board of the National Consortium for Continuous Improvement in Higher Education. Ed’s interest in systems theory has led him to become involved with environmental issues, and he serves on several related boards.

The post Connecting Systems Thinking and Action appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

We’ll use paper and pencil (the only items you’ll have to pay for, assuming you own a fairly up-to-date computer) to sketch out the initial model, a simulator called SimPack to code the model, a compiler called gcc to compile the model into an executable program, gnuplot for the graphics, and Dia for producing stock and flow diagrams and other documentation (see “Shoestring Resources”).

The Process, Briefly

Let’s start with model building. I still find paper and pencil the best way to get started — it’s easy to use, there is no syntax checking to constrain creativity, and editing is quick and satisfying — erase small mistakes or, for bigger changes, ball up the paper and throw it in the recycling bin.

Once you have sketched a model, it’s time to convert it into something the computer can understand. While it’s not too hard to write a basic system dynamics simulator from scratch, SimPack, a collection of simulation programs produced by Paul Fishwick at the University of Florida, makes life easier.

SimPack provides two system dynamics simulator programs that you’ll find in the constraint/differential/integrate subdirectory of SimPack: conte.c for Euler integration and contrk.c for Runge-Kutta integration. You’ll need to enter your model equations as statements in the C programming language.

Once you’ve coded the model in C, you’ll need to compile it to turn the C program into an executable program for your computer. If you’re running on Linux or Mac OS X, you probably have ready access to the compiler gcc. If you’re running Windows, Cygwin offers a free environment that includes gcc and other tools you might use.

After you compile and run the program, you’ll get a file full of numbers, representing the value of each variable of interest at each point of simulated time. Gnuplot can graph that data.

What’s left? Perhaps you want to communicate your thinking about the relationship between stocks and flows in the system to others. Use Dia to create traditional or creative stock and flow diagrams. Both Dia and gnuplot can produce results suitable for casual viewing on the screen, incorporation into a Web site, or publication in a report or journal.

Taking the Next Step

If you haven’t programmed much, you may be a bit overwhelmed. Move forward in small steps. Start by installing and exploring gnuplot and Dia; you’ll likely find many uses for them, including plotting data and drawing diagrams.

Then install Cygwin, if you’re on Windows. While it can be a massive download, all you really need is the basic installation plus gcc. You’ll probably want the man (manual) pages, too.

Even if you decide you prefer to use a commercial simulator, you might find that some of these tools can augment your normal processes. For example, I’ve used gnuplot to produce publication-quality graphics from data generated using a commercial simulator.

Who knows? You might enjoy systems thinking on a shoestring!

Bill Harris (bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com) is principal and founder of Facilitated Systems, a company dedicated to helping organizations address complex problems, work more productively in meetings and groups, and learn more effectively from experience.

this is a continuation…

Making It Concrete

The Model. To illustrate, I’ll carry a simple model about the spread of infection through a population through the entire process. If you need more information, refer to “Shoestring Resources” in the main article.

The SI model is a simple model of disease. It divides a population into two groups: Susceptible (S) and Infected (I) people (thus the SI moniker). There’s only one flow, from S to I. The number of susceptibles becoming infected per day, ipd, is the product of the number of susceptible people S, the number of contacts a susceptible person has per day c, the probability of any one contact being with an infectious person, and the probability of getting infected from contact with an infected person p:

ipd = S * c * (I / (S + I)) * p

For more information, see chapter 9 of John Sterman’s Business Dynamics (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2000).

To create the simulation program, open the SimPack file conte.c in a text editor (e.g., Notepad; I use GNU Emacs) and save it as si.c in a convenient directory. Then set the number of initial susceptibles S to 9999, the number of initial infecteds I to 1, the probability of getting infected from one contact p to 10% (0.1), and the number of contacts per day c to 4 by editing the initialization function init_conditions in si.c:

init_conditions() { out[1] = 9999.0; /* Susceptibles */ out[2] = 1.0; /* Infecteds */ p = 0.1; c = 4.0 time = 0.0; delta_time = 0.125; } Note that we don’t refer to S and I by those names; rather, we use elements of the array in and out to represent values of stocks. out[1] holds S, the number of susceptible people just calculated by the model, while in[1] holds the value of S to be used at the start of the next iteration. The function init_conditions also sets the initial time to 0 and the simulation time increment (often referred to as DT in system dynamics models) to 0.125.

We need one more SimPack function to calculate the results:

state() { /* Calculate flows */ ipd = out[1] * c * (out[2] / (out[1] + out[2])) * p; /* Update stocks */ /* Susceptibles */ in[1] = 0.0 – ipd; /* Infecteds */ in[2] = ipd – 0.0; }

We have a bit of housekeeping to attend to, as well; we’ll need this declaration at the start of the program:

double d, c, ipd;

In the function main, we’ll set the program to run when time (in days) is less than 50.0, and we’ll add a statement to print out all the results. To speed experimentation, I print all the stocks and flows and let gnuplot select the values to plot:

printf( “%f %f %f %f n”,time, out[1], out[2], ipd);

If you’re not a C programmer, some of this may look like gobbledygook; you can just try it, or you can read some of the “Shoestring Resources.”

Compile this program by typing two simple commands in a Cygwin command shell window:

gcc –o si.exe si.c ./si.exe > si.dat

The first line compiles the program si.c, creating si.exe, and the second runs si.exe, putting its results in the file si.dat. Si.dat has four columns: the time, S, I, and ipd. You can look at si.dat with your favorite text editor to see the results. If you’ve made it this far, pat yourself on the back; you’ve created a system dynamics model!

Plotting the Output

Few of us are satisfied looking at such a long list of numbers. Start gnuplot, and enter the command

cd “/Documents and Settings/My Documents/My Name/”

if that’s where you put your program. Then the command

plot “si.dat” using 1:2

will plot the number of susceptible people over time.

plot “si.dat” using 1:3

will plot the number of infectious people over time.

plot “si.dat” using 2:4

will create a phase plot showing the number of people getting sick per day for different values of the susceptible population. In each case, the numbers in the plot statement refer to columns in the data file you wrote when you ran si.exe.

Gnuplot can plot multiple graphs on the same sheet and can format the output for the screen or publication.

Making Life Simpler and More Powerful

As you advance, you’ll likely need a table function to represent nonlinearities. With basic C programming skills, it isn’t hard to create. You might also want to be able to give your model new parameter values without recompiling the program; the getopt C library function can help. If you want to reduce the typing required for this work, check out gnuplot mode for the Emacs text editor in the “Shoestring Resources” section of the main article.

Stock and Flow Diagrams. Those of us accustomed to using commercial simulators expect to see computer-generated stock and flow diagrams. We’ll use Dia. While you can draw straightforward stock and flow diagrams easily with Dia, you can also exercise a bit of creativity, using a symbol for stocks that suggests the type of object being accumulated and a symbol for flows that matches the symbol for stocks.

Now that you’ve seen that you can do system dynamics on a shoestring, remember all the good practices you’ve learned elsewhere. Happy modeling!

Bill Harris (bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com) is principal and founder of Facilitated Systems, a company dedicated to helping organizations address complex problems, work more productively in meetings and groups, and learn more effectively from experience.

The post System Dynamics on a Shoestring 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.