I came across this blog recently and was very impressed by its content and the thinking that it sparked in me.
The text that initially caught my eye was this,
‘Most studies identify a need for “knowledge brokers” not only to bridge the gap between the realms of science and policy, but also to synthesise and transform evidence into an effective and usable form for policy and practice. An essential feature of knowledge brokers is that they understand the cultures of both worlds.’
I believe the skill of the ‘knowledge broker’ is absolutely key for systems thinkers working with and in organisations and trying to disseminate the practice. Some of those who have come through the Open University Systems Thinking in Practice courses have good skills in this area, I think. I believe that is why we sometimes have fewer issues with the ‘my method/ model is better than yours’ and the ‘no-one wants to know about systems thinking’ arguments than some. It may be because the course did something unique for us – it taught us not only the academic aspects of systems thinking but how to practically use it and how to develop ourselves at the same time. We have to develop our praxis in a way that embodies the understanding of the cultures of both the academic and practitioner worlds………or we wouldn’t be able to use systems thinking effectively.
Personally, I feel like I can work with organisations using systems thinking and engage in the academics because I can ‘cross the bridge’ from one side to another when I need to and I can guide others across the bridge (not all the time but certainly sometimes). It is the area on the ‘bridge’ where you learn how to make it work. I find it quite absurd to witness the two cultures (academic and practitioner) at loggerheads sometimes because without each other we are all nowhere. We need to cross that bridge and meet in the middle sometimes. It was never meant to be a drawbridge……I don’t think!
I spoke to an ex employer the other day. A Chief Executive who I have a lot of respect for. She said to me, ‘There are 2 groups of people – those who want to fight with each other about who is right academically and those who just want help to translate the academics into practical application. Until we can all learn to talk to one another in a helpful way then we are never going to move forward, even if we want to use the methods. If the academics come at us with their harsh academic arguments, we just can’t handle that because that’s not part of our world and if we can’t get across to them our challenges and how we need help, without being put off by their harsh arguments, then we are never going to be able to transform the good stuff into something useable.’ I wonder how clever we really are, then, if we don’t put some effort into developing that area in between……..the area on the bridge?
As a systems practitioner, my main progress has been in translating what I have learnt into practical application. That was part of the OU course – putting systems thinking into practice. I don’t bark words such as ‘viable system model’ etc in people’s faces repeatedly, in organisations, wondering why they don’t listen. I demonstrate, I show where value is added, I enable appropriate outcomes….and then I tell people how to do it themselves. I believe in ‘show don’t tell’ as I think this helps people to visualise. If they can visualise the process you go through to translate the academics into practice they often find it easier to apply it themselves, but they need a demonstration first. We spend far too little time helping people visualise what the value could be for them and how they can go through a thinking process to apply the academics to their real-life situation. We just expect them to trust that ‘the academic knows best’ and use what they are told is the best method. The very nature of the way we expect people to take new thinking on board sometimes can foster the very rejection type of behaviour that we want to overcome.
Would we go into a car showroom and expect a sales person to stand and verbally describe a brilliant car to us and expect us to understand how fast it is or how smooth the ride is by telling us about suspension and engines, when these things are not our area of expertise and we have no understanding of engines or suspension?…..no. We would want to see the car, drive it, see how it feels when we drive over a bump in the road and what it does when we put our foot down on the accelerator. We might then want to know ‘What kind of engine allows that?’ but often only when we have experienced and been impressed by what it can do for us first. So, how do we give people a ‘practice run’ of viable system modelling? How do we allow them to ‘feel’ what it’s like to go through the process of developing a multiple cause diagram? We can’t do it just by telling them how it’s going to feel. We have to help them feel it for themselves.
I did some work for a Clinical Commissioning Group a few years ago to look at some health and care services with a view to developing a completely new model of care. I was absolutely sure that systems thinking, in particular viable system modelling, was the correct thing to use. I dropped the words ‘systems thinking’ into the project conversations right at the beginning of the process, only to be met with blank looks. This was highly expected, though. How could I expect anyone to understand the depth of the academic elements if they weren’t engrossed in that area of thinking themselves? My way forward was to undergo systemic inquiry type activities and show the process of thinking, rather than explain what it was. I used their language and over time I gently fed in more and more of the academic explanations and different language. I didn’t say, ‘and this is viable system modelling and you should use it more.’ I just showed them what I was looking at and what my observations said to me. I showed them how things fit together and what was causing staff to feel so desponded with their current situation. I got people on board by showing a depth of understanding about their current situation. I drew multiple cause diagrams with them and was amazed when they suddenly saw what they had previously been blind to, even though they had been encountering it on a daily basis.
It was only at the end, when I had helped people through the thinking process that they could visualise and understand the power of the process, the potential benefits, the added value and the outcomes from using such methods/ models and techniques. Some of the people on that project became real advocates of systems thinking after that. Now, how long do you think it would have taken me to convince them if I hadn’t used the ‘show don’t tell’ way?
Don’t get me wrong, I think we should fly the flag for systems thinking but there’s a way to do it…….not by having the harsh academic argument in the practical world but by crossing the bridge, getting to a place in the middle and then the flag will fly itself. But, we all have to be willing to compromise and come half way.
Remember…….if you don’t ever want to cross the bridge, how will you ever get to the other side?
2 thoughts on “Crossing the Bridge”
Great post – I totally agree. I also wonder why most systems thinking methodologies haven’t made it to the level of “stickiness” of other management approaches that people recognise and ask for proactively – lean, six sigma, design thinking etc etc. Is it possible to make systems techniques more accessible / branded / memorable, without tarnishing the underlying theories?
Hi Steve, I think that part of the problem is the way it is ‘sold.’ If the concepts etc are put across in terms that people can related to (no fancy jargon that no-one understands and using appropriate examples) then I find they do ask for systems thinking repeatedly. In my experience, what puts people off is when people talk theory or make systems thinking sound too complicated or give the impression that it is really hard to get a grip of.
Just recently I went through the VSM with a Director I’m doing some work with. I didn’t tell him what it was or anything about it. I just described the situation he was facing using the diagram and some simple concepts and examples. His reaction was, ‘That made things so simple to understand. I wish I’d seen this before now.’ So, for me, it’s very much about the way the practitioner handles the situation. I often get asked repeatedly for more training/ information etc on systems thinking by people I have worked with. In my opinion, it’s time we changed the image of systems thinking. It isn’t just for consultants, it isn’t just for the ‘super intelligent.’ If we are prepared to cross the bridge and meet people half way, we have a huge opportunity to get systems thinking more widely used. If we try and ‘sell’ systems thinking as something that is too complicated for people, why would they want to engage with it? I wonder if we need to stop considering why managers don’t adopt systems thinking and maybe start considering why we aren’t making it easier for them adopt.