Blended Systems Thinking Approach 2: transformation and moving towards system change
My Blended Systems Thinking Approach 2 aims for adaptability and regeneration over time to enable a co-evolution style approach to survival and is a variation on a theme from my Blended System Approach 1. I have worked with this approach for a number of years now. I tweak and change it frequently and I am likely to continue to do so as I learn new things and see how the impact of applying this thinking develops over time.
There is no fixed way to use this approach, just a range of options that I might use, depending upon the context I am in. Each situation is different and an approach that worked in one situation might not work in another. I let the situation guide me and no two journeys are ever quite the same.
First of all, we (i.e. anyone involved in the work) need to acknowledge that the complexity of the environment is infinite. This means we must make a decision about what to focus on or we would become far too overwhelmed. Where are we going to draw our boundary? Interactions in the system are part of what forms the system boundary and boundaries are part of what contributes to the system’s identity, so the boundary and its permeability are important factors to consider. Undertaking a boundary critique helps to define the limits of what is to be taken as pertinent in the inquiry, so I find it beneficial to undertake this critique and surface as many boundary judgements as I can as soon as possible. I use Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) to assist me, which gives some really easy to follow questions to get me started. What I try to do is identify what selectivity is occurring and I question the practical and ethical elements of those judgements with stakeholders. CSH is great for this and worth getting to grips with. I might interview people, talk to groups of stakeholders, have workshops or use other techniques to bring in as many perspectives as I can, within reason. Sometimes, it might be as quick and simple as a conversation with a few key people. I then identify what kind of tensions, values, conflicts and expectations exist and work with the stakeholders to decide what is going to be inside and outside of the boundary. I also consider whether the system is willing to open its boundary enough to absorb new insights from elsewhere. Without permeability, nothing new can be created. That said, too much permeability can be just as dangerous. A sensitive balance needs to be found and this can be a major challenge. Of course, at this stage I also start to consider multiple perspectives, interconnectivity and interdependence, and so an iterative process of inquiry begins.
At the same time as considering boundaries and identity, I concurrently start to consider the cybernetics principles at play in the situation, which is a major element of my approach. This can give powerful insights about a situation.
Within this, I consider the notion self-organisation. Social systems in particular are ‘organisationally closed’. However, they are open to energy and disturbances and have autonomy and are made up of organisational processes and produce their own components and outcomes. Their behaviours determine the characteristics of the system. It is those characteristics that enable (or not) autopoiesis. The way the autopoiesis occurs in the system is determined, to some degree, by how communication is enacted (a message is identified, transmitted, heard, understood, action taken, feedback….). Communication is critical for autopoiesis. The way we enact this autopoiesis within the system enables the way the system can interact with its environment.
It is important to note that when diagnosis a system using cybernetic principles, I look at it from two different perspective. The perspective of transformation, where I try to understand inputs, what transformation process is occurring and then the outputs. I consider what inputs I want to control, and what human activities are required to change those inputs into outputs. I also look at it from the perspective of structures and relationships. I look at what interactions the system is engaging in and how that is contributing to its boundary and how that is relevant to the system’s purpose and identity. It is this lens that is particularly useful when looking at social systems (and very useful when public service organisations are moving form working as one organisation to a place-based perspective)
It is also key to note that when I talk of self-organisation, I don’t mean not having a hierarchy. A hierarchy is necessary for governance and to set boundaries of autonomy. What I mean is allowing people, to some degree, to self-organise their responses and make better decisions. However, in my experience, if people who have previously been tightly controlled are suddenly given more power to self-organise they tend to feel some insecurity and may struggle with their new-found autonomy and need guidance around what their boundaries of responsibility and decision making are. I always try to remember that we may be dealing with people who have been in the same behavioural patterns for many years. Self-reflection and evaluation does not come easily, especially if a person or team’s identity is confused. This confused identity can erode trust between team members and the resulting lack of trust can affect whether self-organisation works or not, so this is something I try to help people to understand and work with along the way.
In addition, there are three things that I always advocate to help things along:
- a leadership style that has awareness of complexity;
- development of appropriate competencies for both managing complexity and managing in complexity and;
- ongoing iterative learning for all
The leadership style that I advocate is one where leaders are aware of the incredible power of identity, are ethical and make decisions based on strong shared values. Without this strong base we cannot be coherent, build up community resilience, reduce ambiguity, guide people or indeed hold others accountable for their decisions and actions. There is a need for open, respectful dialogue and people’s integrity should never be violated. It goes without saying that respect, trust, willingness to learn and participative consensus-building (within reason) are key. Leaders are pivotal in ensuring that identity is used to determine actions and they are key in recognising who they and their teams are becoming. Goal setting and measuring can be quite ineffective in complex situations. Instead the leaders can create guiding principles and aim to move things forward together.
The competencies that I feel are required are those of holding exploratory conversations, facilitating participation, listening, conflict resolution and supporting reflective processes. Being able to identify the current narrative and knowing how to change it can give power to both individuals and teams. If these competencies and leadership style are to prevail, the structure of the system needs to be developed in such a way to allow it, hence the use of the VSM.
I am also usually very explicit about the need for ongoing learning. I tend to ask people to reflect on things like how well they have communicated, was trust or distrust a factor in their situation, were values evident in people’s behaviours, were multiple perspectives considered without any one-upmanship and was participation encouraged?
These are the things I focus on. I go tentatively, respectfully and with awareness of what systems and complexity thinking can cause to emerge. To paraphrase Margaret Wheatley, what systems thinking does is too painful to take on, so people withdraw from the realisation and go back to easy solutions. With my approach I aim not to trigger people’s fear response, but to empathise with their situation, show them that I understand and work with them towards improvements.