Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
All rights reserved by the author.
1
USINGCAUSALLOOPDIAGRAMSTODEALWITHCOMPLEXISSUES:MASTERINGANINSTRUMENTFORSYSTEMICANDINTERACTIVECHANGE
HansVermaak
Publishedin:D.W.Jamieson,R.C.Barnett&A.F.Buono(Eds.),
Consultationfororganizationalchangerevisited(ResearchinManagementConsultingVol.23),pp.231-254.
Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing.
Themostpersistentstereotypeofmanagementconsultantsisprobablythattheyareexpertswhohavealltheanswers.Theiraddedvalueappearstobethattheyknowwhatclientsdon’tknow–andtheycansuggest“bestpractices”soclientsdon’thavetoreinventthewheel.Sucharolemakeshistoricalsense,giventhattheconsultancysectorwaslargelycreatedbyengineers,accountantsandpsychologists,allusingtheexpertmodel.Buttherearemorereasonsforitspersistence.Forclients,idealizingconsultants’expertiseorapproachesreducestheiranxietiesintakingonchallenges.Forconsultants,hypingtheirserviceshasacommercialpayoffandmayboosttheirego.Theydothisbywayofglossypresentations,referencelistsandbenchmarks,butalsomoresubtlybyname-droppingandverbalagility.Decadesofadvocacyforotherconsultancyrolesandcontingencythinking,however,underlinesthattherearedownsidestotheexpertmodel(e.g.,Schein,1999).Themoreambiguousproblemsare,thelessconsultantsareabletoprovidetheanswersbeforehand.Thereareno“magicalsolutions,”eventhoughthepressuretoprovidethemisstrongestwhendealingwithambiguity.
Causalloopdiagrams(CLDs)areapowerfulconsultant’stoolfordealingwithcomplexproblems.Suchproblemsarecharacterizedbybothcontentcomplexityandprocesscomplexity(Rittel&Webber,1973;Vermaak,2009).Contentcomplexityreferstoproblemsbeingmultidimensionalandambiguous,withmanyinterrelatedaspectsandfeedbackmechanisms.Peopleexperiencethelatterwhentheytrytochangethingsandthe“systempushesback.”Thistypeofcomplexityrequiresworkingsystemicallybyunravelingtheunderlyingdynamicsbehindamultitudeofsymptoms.Processcomplexityreferstomanypeoplebeinginvolvedintheproblemwithdifferentviewpointsandinterests.Participationisoftenillstructuredandsystemlimitsseemarbitrary.Alsoissuescannotbewellunderstoodbythinkingaboutitbeforehand,butonlybyaddressingthemalongtheway.Thisdynamicprecludeslinearchangeapproaches.Processcomplexityrequiresworkinginteractivelybecausecontributionsfromdifferentsidesareneededtounderstandandaddresstheissues.Whenconsultantsdeviatefromthedefaultexpertidentitytodealwithcomplexissues,theyneedtoolsthatsupportsuchashift.Wheremoststandardizedmodelsandpracticesfallshort,causalloopdiagramsareparticularlywellsuitedtoworkingbothsystemicallyandinteractively.
All rights reserved by the author.
2
Causalloopdiagrammingisthemoststrikingcomponentofsystemdynamics.ItwaspopularizedinthemanagementarenabyPeterSengeinthe1990sandhasbeenrecognizedasapowerfultoolforcomplexissues.However,thisrecognitionnevertranslateditselfintowideapplication(Warren,2004;Zock&Rautenberg,2004).Oneexplanationisthatthetooltriestobridgecontrastingworlds–applyingananalyticalmethodtodealwithsocialproblems.Itusesasystemicapproachtogetagrasponissuesthatwillremainpartlyunknowableandunmanageable(Flood,1999).ThisgivesCLDstheiraddedvalue,butalsoleadstodiscomfort:forengineerstheyfeeltoofuzzy;for“peoplepersons”theyfeeltootechnical.NotonlydoesthisleadtoCLDsbeingunderused,italsoleadstotypicalpitfalls.Onepitfallisnotaddressingcontextcomplexity,whichhappenswhenconsultantsuseitasadiscussionaidbutdiscardanalyticalrigor–diagramsaredrawnasafuzzyvisualizationtoolforintuitiveinsights.Theoppositepitfallisnotaddressingprocesscomplexity,whichhappenswhenexpertslockthemselvesawayinapparentserviceofresearchrigor.However,aperfectdiagramrarelysufficestobringaboutchange.Itdisappearsintoadeskdrawerifpeopledon’tbuyintoitorifitdoesnotresonatewiththeirownunderstanding.
Thechapterdiscusseswaystocounterthesepopularpitfallsbypresentinglessonslearnedbasedonworkingwithsuchdiagramsoverthelasttwenty-fiveyears,bothcreatingtheminconsultancyprojectsandenablingotherchangeagentstodoso.Inthefirstpartofthechapter,technical“rulesofthumb”arediscussedtocapturesystemicdynamicsinaCLD.Afive-stepapproachisoutlined,explainedandillustrated–amethodthatissufficienttoenableevennon-experienceddiagrammerstogetgoing.However,diagrammingbecomesatrulypowerfultoolwhenpeopleareinvolvedinusingormakingthem.Inthesecondpartofthechapter,threecontrastingapproachesareoutlinedtodothis,differentbothinpurposeandintensityofparticipation.Eachoftheseinteractiveinterventiondesignsisillustratedwithacaseexample.Bothpartscanassistchangeagentstodesignachangeapproachgearedtoanyindividualcaseinawaythattakesfulladvantageoftheinstrument’spotentialtodealeffectivelywithtoughissues.Mystanceinthischapteristhatpowerfuldiagrammingrequiressufficientunderstandingofbothitstechnicalanditsinterventionaspectsandthatneitherisstraightforward.However,sufficientproficiencyallowsCLDstobeacriticalcomponentinanyconsultant’stoolkitfocusedoncomplexorganizationalchange.
WORKINGSYSTEMICALLY:
THETECHNIQUEOFCAUSALLOOPDIAGRAMS
Systemsthinkingisacontainerconceptforabroadspectrumofschools,conceptsandinstrumentsthathaveemergedsincethe1940s.Whattheyhaveincommonisthatthey(1)don'tonlyexaminethepartsbutalsothewholetounderstandhowsystemsbehave,and(2)examineinterdependenciesbetweenfactors,forcesandsuchlike.Earlyschoolsinthisrealmarecybernetics,systemdynamics,andopensystemstheory.Morerecentadditionsincludesoftsystemsmethodologyandchaostheory.Causalloopdiagramsstemfromthesystemdynamicsschool.Hardcoresystemdynamicistsoftenusethemincombinationwithstock-and-flowdiagramsandbehavior-over-timegraphs.Forthepurposeofthischapter,however,theseusesaresetaside:CLDsontheirownarealreadyveryuseful.
All rights reserved by the author.
3
Discerningfeedbackmechanisms(bothpositiveandnegative)isatypicalcharacteristicofCLDsandfindingthesehelpsexplainwhysomeissuestendtopersistdespitemanyeffortstoaddressthem.Thesemechanismscanbeinvisibleatfirstglance,becausecausesmaybefarremovedfromtheirconsequencesandthosecausescanbesubtleorhaveadelayedimpact.Causalloopdiagramscanbringthemtolightandhelpunderstandunderlyingdynamics,whichremainhiddenwheninterrelationshipsbetweenthemanyfactorsinvolvedareleftuncharted.Anothervalueofthediagramsisthattheycanbeusedtoidentifypointsofleverageforaddressingtheissuesathand.Isolatedattemptstobringaboutpermanentchangearedoomedwithoutsuchpointsofleverageasthestabilizingresistanceofdominantroutineseasilyneutralizesmostefforts.Integralchangeapproachesdonotfaremuchbetterastheytendtotargettoowideanarrayofaspects,spreadingthechangeeffortstoothin.Withinthiscontext,theassociatedinterventionscompetefortimeandmoney,andoftenwillevencontradicteachother.Findingpointsofleverageandmatchingthemtoafocusedsetofinterventionsconstitutethecoreofdevisinganeffectivechangestrategy(Caluwe&Vermaak,2003).
ToprovideanimpressionofaCLD,Figure12-1providesasimpletextbookexample,thesystemsarchetype“shiftingtheburden.”Thediagramshedslightonwhyseeminglystraightforwardfixescanbackfireandmakemattersworse(Senge,1990).ItalsoillustrateshowatinyCLDcantellacomplexstorymoreconciselythanatext.Thisrepresentsakeychallenge–CLDsbenefitfromintelligentsimplification–whichleadstoabalancingactincreatingeffectivediagrams.Theyneedtoberichenoughtocaptureunderlyingmechanisms,preciseenoughtospotleverage,butalsosimpleenoughsothatmostimportantdynamicsclearlystandout.
Figure12-1Asystemsarchetype
Thediagramconcernsanorganizationfacingmediocrestaffperformance,aggravatedbybusylinemanagersneitherspendingthetimenorhavingtheabilitytocoachstaffemployees.Itseemsliketheproblemcanbedealtwithintheshorttermbybringinginahumanresourceexpert,althoughoneextrapairofhandscannotaccomplishwhatawholegroupofmanagersmight.ThediagramshowsthatbringinginaHRexpertisasymbolicsolutionthatcanactuallypreventmanagersfromdoingwhattheyshouldhavedoneinthefirstplace,namelyspendingmoretimeandefforttakingcareoftheirstaff.Becauseofthis,thesymbolicsolutioncanmakemattersworseinthelongrun.Managers’developmenterodesastheykeepturningtoHRexpertwho‘fixeditlasttime’.Overheadcostrisewhilemanagers’effectivenessfallsandthepersonnelperformanceproblempersists.
All rights reserved by the author.
4
Such“ready-made”archetypesareusefulforreflectionpurposes;theypresentaquickandeasywaytospotfeedbackloops.Itisthemostpopularizeduseofcausalloopdiagrams.However,muchmorepowerfulistomakeandusediagramscustomizedforspecificsituations.Nostandardizedarchetypecandocomplexsituationsjusticeandbothinsightandactionperspectiveswillbelimitedasaresult.Moreover,customizedworkrightlyemphasizesthefactthatcausalloopdiagramsareneithergeneralizedtruthsnorpre-deterministic–theychangeovertimeandbetweenplaces.However,tipsonhowtocustomizethemarenotthataccessibleandtheassociatedliteratureisoftenoverlytechnical.Table12-1summarizesthemostrelevantrulesofthumbderivedforcreatingsuchdiagrams.
PRE Delineatetheissueanddiagnosefrommultipleviewpoints
1 Useyourgutfeelingtopickthetop10factorsoutofthefullrangeofdata.
2 Senseastoryline,drawloopsandfillinthegaps
3 Checkarrowsforcauseandeffect:‘moreofthis=‘more/lessofthat’
4 Walkthroughthediagram;redrawitasarecognizablesetofcircles
5 Deduceanddiscusspointsofleverage&monitoring.
POST TestingandusingyourdiagramtoaffectchangeTable12-1FiveStepstoCreatinganEffectiveCausalLoopDiagramPre-phase:DelineatetheIssueandDiagnosefromMultipleViewpoints
YoucanmakeaCLDaboutanything,butnotabouteverything.Ihaveseenpeoplemakeadiagramoftheirentirecompanywhentheissuewasmuchmorefocused,e.g.,sickleave.Thiscausesthemtobeoverwhelmedbymuchirrelevantdata,whichobscuresunderlyingpatternsduringthediagrammingprocess.Anoppositepitfalloccurswhenchangeagentschooseconvenientlimits(liketheirowndepartment)eventhoughtheproblemtranscendssuchboundaries.Senge(1990,p.67)referstothisas“dividinganelephantinhalf”andconcludesthat“youdon’thavetwosmallelephantsthen;youhaveamess.”Asystemcanonlybeunderstoodbystudyingitasawhole.Theissueathand–incombinationwiththeambitionlevelofthechangeagentsinvolved–definesareasonablesystemlimit.
Anotherprerequisiteistohavereliablediagnosticdatawithwhichtowork.Thisimplieshavingobservedandinterpretedthecasefrommultipleperspectivessoasnottomissimportantpiecesofthepuzzle.Onefrequentpitfalltobecircumventedhereisanunwanteddominanceof“hard”dataover“soft”data,astheformer(e.g.,structure,strategies,procedures,products)isoftenrepresentedindocumentsandeasilyspotted,butthelatter(e.g.,stories,conflicts,values,history,people)oftenholdthekeytospottingunderlyingpatterns.Thusitisimportanttotakesuchsoftinformationatleastasseriously.
All rights reserved by the author.
5
Step1:UseyourGutFeelingtoSelectaSetofKeyFactors AcourseparticipantoncecameupwithaCLDforhisowncaseinrecordspeed.Itwasaneatandsimpleone–sevenfactorsmakinguponebigloop.UpondiscussionhesaidthattheCLDnicelyrepresentedhisoriginalideasbutfailedtobringnewinsightorleverage.Thisoutcomeistypicalwhensomebodypicksfactorsbasedonaforegoneconclusion.Thoughsuggestedinafewpublications(e.g.,Goodman&Karash,1995;Shibley,2001),Iwouldargueagainstsuchapproachasitdefeatsthepurposeoffindingnewinterrelationships. AnotherwayofoversimplifyingistheinclusionofsolutionsinaCLD,suchas“implementationofthenewHRsystem”or“newmanagement.”Oftenthesearethecherishedanduntested“shoulds”ofoneofthediagrammers,ratherthanagroundedinterpretationofobservedevents.CLDsaremuchmoredescriptivethanprescriptive.Assuch,itworksbesttoavoidbeingoverlyrationalinselectingfactors,buttodosoongutfeeling–asensethatinsomewaythetop10factorsarecrucialwithoutyetknowingwhy.Thechallengeistopiecetogetherhowsuchseeminglyunrelatedpicksfittogetherintoastoryline.Thisforcesdiscovery.Itcanbehelpfultolabeltheselectedfactorsinacertainway:concise(1-5words),nounsratherthenverbs,variablesratherthanconstants(e.g.,no‘demographics’)andneutral(e.g.,no‘stupidmanagement’).Althoughsuchlabelingtipsintheliteraturemakesense,Ihaveseenpowerfuldiagramsflauntingthem,sothereisnoneedtobeoverlyconcernedaboutlabeling.Step2:SenseaStoryline,DrawLoops,andFillintheGaps
Groupssometimesgetstuckwhenlookingataselected10-20factors,notknowingwheretostartdrawing.Inaway,onecanstartanywhere;greatdiagramsareloadedwithloopsandtakealotofredrawingandfine-tuning.Howeverthisadvicedoesnotalwaysprevent(beginning)diagrammersfromdrawingmorefamiliarbutdysfunctionalshapes.Theseareafewtypicalones:1)the“tangledweb,”whenallpossibleconnectionsbetweenthefactorsaredrawn;2)the“wagonwheel,”whenpeopleputthefactortheyfeel“itisallabout”inthemiddleradiatingoutwardwithconnectionstoalltheothers;and3)thedisguised“onecause–oneeffect”diagram,whenallarrowscomefromoneendofthepaperandtheyallendattheother.Figure12-2isa(simplified)exampleofthelatter,madebyaCaribbeanproviderofamobilephonenetworktounderstandtheirpersistentcostoverruns.Thediagramfailstoshedanynewlightonthematterandinsteadjustreiteratedtheexistingbeliefthatgovernmentownershipwastoblame.
Whyarethesethreeshapessodysfunctional?Becausetheyalllackfeedbackloopsmeanttoexplainthesystemiccharacteristicsoftheissues.Itisthereforebesttohavediagrammersfocusonsensinganddrawingloopsrightfromthestart.Letthefirstpersonwithahunchofwherealoopmightbe,drawitasacircle,temporarilyforgettingabouttheotherfactors.Oftenthatcircleisincompleteandotherpeoplemaypitchintocloseit.Afteroneloopisonpaper,otherloopsshouldbeadded.Sometimespeoplehaveahardtimeclosingaloopwiththefactorstheyselected,eventhoughtheirintuitiontellsthemthatitshould.Thisisthetimetoaddfactorstofillinthegapsinthecircles.Itmightseemoddto“invent”them,butitisagoodwaytofind“hiddenfactors.”Limitedre-diagnosingcanlaterchecktheirexistence.Discoveryoffeedbackmechanismsisinawaythemostimportantpart
All rights reserved by the author.
6
ofthediagrammingprocess.Giventheintuitiveandcreativenatureofsuchdiscovery,itisbesttobuildonother’sreasoningfirstratherthancriticizerightaway.Thereisampleroomforscrutinyinthestepsthatfollow.SomepeoplefindithelpfultoputthefactorsonPost-Itnotessothattheycanbemovedaroundmoreeasily.
Figure12-2ACamouflagedLooplessDiagramStep3:CheckArrowsforCauseandEffect:“MoreofThis=“More/LessofThat”
Inthebeginning,peopleregularlymixupsequentialthinkingwherearrowsmean“firstthis,thenthat”withcausalthinkingwherearrowsmean“moreofthis,more/lessofthat.”Suchsequentialthinkingisalltoofamiliar–weuseitwhenwerecountapastsequenceofeventsorproposeaplanforthefuture.Thelattergenerallyresemblesastepwiseapproachlike:managementshowsclearcommitmentàobjectivesareagreeduponàprogrammanagementisputinplaceàimplementationtakesplaceàimprovedperformanceisrealized.
Agoodwaytoerasesuchsequentialthinkingfromadiagramistocheckifarrowsarecausal–doesmoreoffactorXleadtoeithermoreorlessoffactorY?Whentheanswerisnotclearlyyes,therelationshipisnotcausal,thearrowisscrappedandthediagramneedstoberedrawntofindhowtheloopsmightstillclose.Thisiswherewescrutinizeourintuitivelaborfromthepreviousstep.Itcanleadto180degreereversalsofsomearrows.
All rights reserved by the author.
7
Anotherwaytocleanupadiagramistofocusonsetsoffactorsthatarelinkedbyarrowsgoingbothways,implyingthattheyimpactoneanotherequally.Inthisinstance,ajudgmentcallisneededwiththedatainmindastowhatiscauseandwhatiseffect.Forinstance,does“jobpromotion”leadto“learning”ordoes“learning”leadto“jobpromotion”?Suchdecisionsareattheheartofexplicatingwhatonebelievestobetheunderlyingdynamicofanissue.Itisundesirabletohavethesamefactorpoppingupmorethanonceinthediagramasthisobscuressuchexplication.Othertipstoclarifycausalityinthediagramaretoaddthepolarity(shownas+or-)andvisualizedelayeffects(shownas--//à),asillustratedinFigure12-1.Asanexample,positivecausalitybetweena“personnelperformanceproblem”and“bringinanHRexpert”meansmoreofthefirst,createsmoreofthesecond.Inanegativecausality,moreofthefirst,createslessofthesecond.Diagramscan,however,bealreadypowerfulwhenforegoingtheselastdrawingtips.Step4:WalkthroughtheDiagram;RedrawitasaRecognizableSetofCircles Bythistimemostpeopleshouldhavearoughdiagraminwhichmostoftheselectedfactorsareincludedandsomeloopsaredelineated.Intheseroughdiagramstherearegenerallyseveralthingsthatdonotyetaddup.Walkingthroughthediagramandtellingthestoryasyougotoyourselforteammembersisagoodwaytospotthose.Therearethreebasiccluestoindicatewhatneedsmorework:
• Whereyougetstuckwalkingthroughthediagram:somearrowsaregenerallynotcausalatallorarepointinginthewrongdirection.Anotherreasoncanbethatthediagramconsistsofdisconnectedparts.ThenovelistIsabelleAllendepointedoutthatagoodstoryflowsnotbecauseoftheeventsbutbecauseoftheinterrelationshipbetweenthem.Sowhenyougetstucktellingthewholestory,youneedtorethinktheloopsandlinkseparatediagrampartsintoawhole.
• Whereyouneedalotofwordstoexplainafewarrows:youneedtoaddafewfactorstotellthestory.Thesameistrueforimportantvariablesthatpopupinyourstory,butdonotshowonpaper.Viceversayouneedtoreducedetailcomplexitybyscrappingfactorsinlongbranchlessstretchesastheyaddlittletothestory.
• Wherecausallinksseeminsufficienttoexplainwhathappens:youneedtoaddcausalconnections.Effectinsufficiencyreferstofactorsthat,countertoyourintuition,shownoorlittleimpactonotherfactorsinthediagram.Causeinsufficiencyreferstotheoppositewherethearrowsgoingintoafactordonotexplainconvincinglytheemergenceofafactor.Anexampleofthelatterwouldbe“unclearstructureàconflicts”whereyousensethatlackofcooperationskillsmightplayabiggerpartincreatingconflictsthanunclearstructures.
MatureCLDsforreallifecasesgenerallyhavemultipleloops.Badaestheticscan,
however,obscuresuchloops,whichthengetlostintheclutterofthediagram.Theartofdrawinggood-lookingdiagramsrequiresagoodeye,buttherearealsosomeartisticclues(e.g.,Moxnes1984).First,itisusefultoredrawtheindividualloopstostandoutascircles.Italsohelpstominimizecrossingarrowsandarrowsthatjourneyaroundthepapertodistantcousins.Secondly,reducereadabilityby“unidirectionalflow”througheachfactor.Thisway
All rights reserved by the author.
8
ofdrawingallowspeopletoseeinoneglanceeverythingthataffectsafactor(arrowscominginfromonedirection)andwhatitinturnaffects(arrowsgoingoutintheoppositedirection).Figure12-3illustrateshowthesestepscanmakeadifference.Thirdly,incomplicateddiagramsitcanhelpwhenseparatethemesoccupydifferent“corners”ofthediagram.Someauthorsalsoadvocatelabelingthetypeofloopaseither“reinforcing”(Ror+)or“balancing”(Bor-)asshowninFigure12-1.Sometransgressionsagainsttheseartisticrulesareunavoidable,butfortunatelystillallowformemorablefigures.Original‘messy’causaldiagramwherefeedbackmechanismsareobscured
Samediagram,redrawnandrestyled(Allfeedbackcirclesareshownhere)
Figure12-3ARedrawnCombinationShape(fourkeyconnectingfactorsmarked)Step5:DeduceandDiscussPointsofLeverageandMonitoring
Systemdynamicsproblematizesinterventionsfocusedonsymptomrelief.Thispitfallemergesinchangeeffortswherewedonotdiscriminatebetweenpointsofleverage(wherelittleeffortaffectssystemchange)andpointsofmonitoring(wherelittlesystemchangecanbefeltimmediately).Anaptmetaphortoillustratetherelevanceofsuchdistinctionishowpeopletakeabath–turningthetapisthepointofleverage,sensingthetemperaturewithyourhandisthepointofmonitoring.Switchingthesetwoaroundmakesbathingascaryanddifficultthingtodo.Inmanagementsuchconfusionisnotuncommon.Triggersforchange(e.g.,“conflicts”)ordesiredchangeoutcomes(e.g.,“entrepreneurialculture”)shouldgenerallyberegardedaspointsofmonitoringbecausemanythingsreinforceorganizationalcultureandcontributetoconflicts.Changeinasystemisreadilyexperiencedthere.However“implementingculturechange”orengagingin“conflictresolution”constituteslow-leverageinterventions.Wecandistinguishthesepointsinourdiagram:
• Steeringfactors:severalmorearrowsoutgoingthaningoing• Measuringfactors:severalmorearrowsincomingthanoutgoing• Ambivalentfactors:severalarrowsbothincomingandoutgoing• Autonomousfactors:littleornoarrowsincomingoroutgoing
All rights reserved by the author.
9
Evidently,thesteeringfactorsmakeforthemostlikelypointsofleverage,whilethe
measuringfactorsarebestsuitedtomonitorprogress.Ambivalentfactorsareproblematic.Onemightwanttousethemaspointsofleverage,buttheyareoftenhardtogetagriponasmanyotherfactorsinfluencethem.Such“influenceanalysis”(Probst&Gomez,1991;VanReibnitz,1988)helpschangeagentsescapetheirpreconceivednotionsofleverageandassesshowtomakeuseofthedynamicsofthesystem(seefigure12-4).Doingtheanalysismechanicallybycountingarrows,however,mayleadtofalseconclusionswhenarrowsareofverydifferentstrength.Isuggestalsotryingtoreasonhowthesteeringfactorscreatea“snowball”effectinthediagram.Whenthisreasoningdoesnotconvince,theCLDshouldbeadjustedbyscrappingweakoutgoingarrowsfromthesupposedsteeringfactors.Anyleveragenotyetcapturedcanalsoberectifiedatthispointbyaddingoutgoingarrowsandpossibleloopsthatmightstemfromthem.Sometimesacomplicationariseswhenastrongsteeringfactor(e.g.,demographicshifts)isoutofourcontrol.Insuchcasesitisapointofleverageintheorybutnotinpracticeasitisafactorthatescapesdirectcontrol.Thesteeringandmeasuringfactorscanbemarked(SandM)inthediagramforeasyreading.
CausalLoopDiagram InfluenceAnalysis InfluenceDiagram
Figure12-4InfluenceAnalysisPost-phase:TestingandUsingyourDiagramtoAffectChange
Whendifferentgroupsconstructadiagramofacomplexissue,theyoftencomeupwith(somewhat)differentdiagrams.Thismayleadtodiscussionsaboutwhichoneistrue.Inaway,noneofthemare–modelsarenotreality.Theyareawaytomakesenseofrealityandaresubjectivebynature.Doesthisimplythediagramsareallarbitrary?Idon’tthinkso.Somediagramscaptureunderlyingdynamicsofsystemsquitewellandleadtogreaterunderstanding.Othersdon’t.Somediagramsenablepeopletofindpowerfulactionperspectives.Otherdon’t.Inotherwords,thepragmaticusefulnesscanbetestedquitewellandusedtorefinethediagraminaniterativecycle.Iwouldsuggesttestingitinlessintrusivewaysfirstratherthanembarkingrightawayonafull-scaleimplementationprogrambasedonanintuiteddiagram.
All rights reserved by the author.
10
Afirstwayoftestingisbywayoffindingouttowhatextentthediagramcapturesunderlyingdynamics.Asimplewayisbynarratingthediagramtothepeopleinvolved,findingoutifitresonateswiththem.Oftentheyholddifferentpiecesofthepuzzle,soifitsomehowlinkstheirseeminglydifferentviewpointsitisagoodsignthatthediagramcapturesandconnectsdifferentsidesoftheissue.Amoreinvolvedwayisbygaming,whereconditionsarereenactedinalaboratorysettingbasedonthediagramtoseeifthoseinvolvedhavesimilarexperiencesasinthereallifecase.Computersimulationsarealsosometimesusedforsuchtesting.Theadvantageofgamingwithactualpeopleisthatisalsohasagreateducationalvalueaswell–theycanexperienceasituationinacompressedtimespanwithouttheriskofdoinganyrealdamage(Duke&Geurts,2004). Asecondwayoftestingisbyusingtheidentifiedpointsofleveragetotrytoaffectchange.Thebettertheinterventionswork,themorethis“proves”thediagram’saccuracy,thoughthisalsodependsontheabilityofthoseinvolvedtopulloffinterventionscompetently.Asmallwayoftestingisbyexperimentsinmicrocosmsinpeople’sownworkingenvironment.Insuchamicrocosmthesamedynamicscanbefoundasintheissueatlarge.Ifound,forinstance,thatintra-officetensionsatforeignembassiesbetweenlocalandexpatriatestaffwereagoodmicrocosmforthecross-culturalbarriersbetweenWesterndonororganizationsandtheirpartnersindevelopingcountries.Figuringouthowtomakeprogressinthatsmallsettingwasagoodpracticerunfortryingtoaddressitbeyondtheorganization’swalls.Testingonalargerscalecaninvolvecreatingscenariosand/oractionplanstoaddresstheissuethroughoutanorganizationorcommunity(DeGeus,1988;VonReibnitz,1988).Whentheassociatedinterventionshavetheimpactdesired,thisagainconfirmsthediagram.Ifnot,thediagramneedstobereassessed.Ofcourseinterveningmayitselfshiftthedynamicofthesystemandthusleadtoshiftsinthediagramintermsoffactorsandinterrelationshipsnewlyemergingordisappearing.Anydiagramisthusafeasiblerepresentationforalimitedtimeonly.
WORKINGINTERACTIVELY:DIAGRAMMINGASINTERVENTION
MakingCLDsandtestingthemareinterventionsintheirownright.Diagrammingis
notavaluefree,impactfreediagnosticexerciseafterwhichtherealactionbegins.Itcandisturbcherishedideas,empowerearlyadaptors,shiftpowerbalances,andsoforth.Itwillinevitablycreatecertainexpectationsandreactionsinitscontext,evenwherediagrammingisdoneintheexpertmodebyafewpeopleinisolation.Onlookersmightresenttheirexclusion,fearitsoutcome,critiquethemethodology,orregarditissomething“notinventedhere.”Inshort,diagramminghasanimpactontwolevels:1)thecontentlevelwheresystemicenquiryhappens,and2)theprocesslevelwherepeopleareinvolvedinacertainway.Basically,onedoesnotmakeCLDsonlyaboutsocialsystems,butalsowithinsocialsystemsandforsocialsystems(Vriens&Achterbergh,2006).Recognitionoftheimpactofprocesschoicesonthesocialsystemhasmadepeoplecritiquethedefaultexpertmodethatdominatedtheearlydaysofdiagramming,whereaffectedpartieswerescarcelyinvolved.Even(ormaybeespecially)aperfectdiagramrarelysufficestobringaboutchange.Itcaneasilydisappearinadrawer,becauseofpoliticalorcognitivedefensemechanisms
All rights reserved by the author.
11
(Argyris,1990).Fortunately,therehavebeencallswithinthesystemdynamicscommunitysincethe1970stoworkmoreinteractivelywithCLDsinordertoreapgreaterbenefitsfromthem(e.g.,Andersen&Richardson,1997;Lane,1992).ThiscaninspirechangeagentsbeyondthiscommunitytoincludeCLDsintheirinteractiveapproaches.
Lookingatitfromthisprocessangle,causalloopdiagrammingisnotoneintervention.Itismoreanumbrellatermcoveringwidelycontrastinginterventions–sometimesitcorrespondstopoliticalnegotiations,sometimestoalearningenvironment,sometimestoexpertadvice.Thetoolkit(thediagrams)mightbethesame,butthegoalsforwhichtheyareused,thewaytheprocessesaredesigned,thetypesofpeoplethatareinvolved,andthewayinteractionplaysarolealldiffer.Intheserespects,usingCLDsforteamlearningshowsagreatersimilaritywiththeuseofinter-visionordialogueinteams(wherenodiagramsareproduced)thanwithlotsofprojectsthatdoutilizediagrams.Similarly,inpoliticaldecisionmakingyoucanreplacetheinstrumentofCLDsmoreeasilywiththatofmediationthanyoucanswitchtoatotallydifferentstyleoffacilitation(e.g.,teachingorprovoking).ThesystemsdynamicsliteratureincreasinglydistinguishesbetweenthetypesofgoalsandstrategiesforwhichCLDscanbeusedinordertomakechoicesinthisregardmoredeliberate(e.g.,Vennix,1999;Vriens&Achterberg,2006).Thiscorrespondswithsimilareffortsinthechangemanagementliteraturetocreateamapandalanguageforcontrastingchangestrategies,eachbasedondifferentassumptions,focusedondifferentoutcomesandrequiringdifferentmethodsandskills(e.g.,Bennis,etal,1985;Caldwell,2005).
Inmyownwork,Ioftenuseadistinctioninfivecontrastingparadigms,eachdistinguishedbyadifferentcolor(deCaluwe&Vermaak,2003).ForconveniencesakeIwillclusterthesestrategiesintothreemainapproachesthatcanberecognizedinbothareasofliterature(Table12-2).Iwillbrieflycharacterizeeachofthethreetypesofchangestrategiesanduseacaseexampletoillustratehowcausalloopdiagrammingcanplayapartinbringingthemtolife. Typeofobjectives
achievedbydiagrammingTypeofinterventionsassistedbydiagramming
Rationalityorientedapproach
Robust,valid,situatedknowledge
• Scientificanalysis• Methodicconceptualization• Expertinput
Commitmentorientedapproach
Sufficientbuyin,coalitions,baseofsupport
• Giveandtake/fairexchange• Respectforeachotherpositions• Searchforcommonality,motivatingforall
Developmentorientedapproach
Increasedawarenessandexplorationbythoseinvolved
• Settingsforcollectivelearning• Dialogueandinquiry• Spaceforplayandexperimentation
Table12-2ContrastingChangeStrategies
All rights reserved by the author.
12
TheRationality-orientedApproach
TheemphasishereisonmakingasolidCLDintermsofcontent.Diagrammersmakeuseofawidearrayofinformationandinsights,butespeciallythatofexperts,toensurethat“reality”willberepresentedasaccuratelyaspossibleinthediagram.Theydotheirbesttoalleviateworriesabouttheincompletenessofthevalidityofdiagnosticinformation.Themainobjectiveistodecipherhowtheproblemfitstogetherandissustained.Thediagramneedstobeaspreciseandrobustaspossible.Experiencedmodel-buildersaregenerallytheonesconstructingthediagram–onlythendotheyfeelassuredthatthemostimportantfeedbackmechanismsareuncoveredandrepresentedinthediagram.Whenissuesarenottoocomplex,typicallytheresultismadeavailabletootherpartiesonlyoncetheanalysisisready.Diagramconstructioncanbefollowedbytestsandanalysestofurtherenhanceitsvalidity.Anyactionplanningpreferablyhasaresearchfeelaswell,forinstancebymakingandtestingscenarios.
Systemdynamicspublicationsonmethodsandtechniquesareinkeepingwiththisapproach(e.g.,Burns&Musa,2001;Wolstenholme,1992).Themorecomplexissuesbecome,participationwillneedtoincreaseinordertocreateagooddiagramaspiecesofthepuzzlearedistributedamongmanyandtheirobservationsandideashavetobetakenintoaccount.Amoreinteractiverationalempiricalapproachhelpstobringinadditionalinformation,interpretfindings,teststorylinesforresonance,orevencheckoutimplicationsinsmallmicrocosms.AUniversityCollegeinDemise Asanexampleofthisapproach,Iwascontractedbyauniversitytobacktrackhowoneofitscollegeshadlostitsmarketpositiondespitepreviousattemptstofigureoutthereasonsandreversethat.Theywantedtoknowwhatwasbehindthispersistentdownturn.Ifthesituationwassalvageabletheyalsowantedtoknowwhatstrategytofollow.Wesiftedthoughpilesofdataandheldmanyinterviewsbothinandoutsidethecollege.Itultimatelyresultedinscenarios(basedonaCLD)thatwereassessedonfeasibilityandwerepresentedinafinalreportwithrecommendations. Foralongtimetherehadbeeninternaldisagreementaboutcausesofandsolutionstothelossofmarketposition.Thereportwastoserveasthefinalword–a“Solomon’sjudgment.”Tobuildconfidenceinthatjudgmentamongthevariousparties,peoplehadagreedthatitshouldbebasedonexpertanalysesandknowhow.Thiswasreinforcedbythefactthatitwasasciencecollege,wheresucharational-empiricalapproachwaspart-and-parcelofeverydaywork.Therewaslittleinterestinaparticipativeprocessbecauseitwasfeltthattimewasrunningoutforthecollege.Itnowseemedmoreimportanttomakeareasoneddecisionsoonaboutitsfuturethantofacilitatedialogueswhereitsemployeeslearnedtoacceptandintegrateeachother'sperspectives,whichtheyfeltcouldalwaysbedonelater. Themostimportantsupportinginterventionsfocusedonensuringcommitmentbetweeneachphaseandhavingallthepartiesagreewiththeintermediateresultsbeforeproceedingfurther.Inessence,akindof“decisionfunnel”wascreatedwhereaconsensuswasbroughtcloserstepbystep.Thesephasetransitionswerethetensestmoments,where
All rights reserved by the author.
13
criticssearchedforerrorsintheanalysiswithwhichtheymightundermineanyconclusionscountertotheirownstandpoints.Intheend,thereportlaidthebasisforcollectivedecisionsandactions.TheCommitment-orientedApproach
Theemphasisinthisapproachliesongettingpeopleonboardtomakeachangehappen.Causalloopdiagramsareusedtopulldiverginginterestsandstandpointsclosertogether.Themainconcernisnotthattheanalysisisaccurate,butthatitisrecognizedandsupported.Onlywhenitresonateswiththoseinvolvedcanitformaneffectivebasisfordecisionmakingaboutwhatneedstohappennext.Orchestratedactionisconsideredvaluableinthisapproach;powerfactions,resistances,contrastingmotivations,andsuchlikearedeemedworrisome.Theassumptionisthatthepartiesconcernedcanonlyaccepttheviewsofothersiftheirownviewsaretakenintoaccount–andthesedifferentviewsshouldinsomewayberecognizedinthediagram.Thisappliesespeciallytotheviewsofthosewhoarefirmlyestablishedwithintheorganization.
Formingdiagramsthusisaprocessofnegotiationaboutmeaningsaimedatcommonality.Withoutthatcommonalitythereislittleconfidencethatanyimplementationwilltakeplace.Thisprocessofnegotiationcansometimeshaveapoliticalcharacterandfocusonkeyplayersatthetop,butoftenitwillalsobroadenandattempttorealizeasubstantialbaseofsupportthroughouttheorganization.The“baseofsupport”canhaveadoublemeaninginthatrespect(leadersand/orshopfloor).Inthesystemsdynamicsliterature,thecommitment-orientedapproachisrepresentedbythestrategicforum(Richmond,1993),modelsinthepolicyprocess(Greenberger,Crenson,&Crissey,1976),andsystemdynamicsforbusinessstrategy(Lyneis,1999).Withincreasingsocialcomplexityboththenumberofpeopleinvolvedincreasesandtheextenttowhichtheyfeeltheneedtobeheard.Ofcourse,comingtoacommonunderstandinganddirectionalsorequiresthemtolearntorespectwhereopposingpartiesarecomingfrom.Thechangestrategyshouldenticeandenablethemtodoso.ALeapinQualityataLargeServiceProvider
Consultantssupportedthetop75peopleofalargeserviceproviderinanalyzinganddecidingwhereservicequalitycouldtakea“leapforward.”Thiswasdoneinfourparallelgroups–threeservicedivisionsandonesupportdivision–intwotwo-daysessions.Duringthesesessions,collectiveambitionswereimaginedandexchangedforeachoftheeleventypesofservicethatthecompanyprovided.Groupwarewasthenusedtomapoutwhatenhancedorunderminedsuchserviceambitionsintheeyesofthepeopleintheroom.Theirstatementswerestructuredwiththesoftware,displayedonabigscreen,discussedandadjusted.
Themainaimwasnotarobustanalysis,neitherweretheconsultantsinvitedbasedontheirexpertiseonthesubject.Theideawasthattheparticipantsshouldhavethemostrelevantfactsandviewpointsbasedontheirpreviousexperiencetofigureouthowtoimproveservicequality.Tothatendthegroup’scompositionwasadjustedtoenhancediversity(e.g.,internalopinionleadersparticipatedalongsideseniormanagement).Eachsessionservedasakindofpressurecookertogetthemostinfluentialplayersinthe
All rights reserved by the author.
14
companytoagreewitheachotheronwhatdrivesquality.Thesupportinginterventionsweremostlydevelopment-oriented.Theyremainedlimitedasthe“pressurecooker”purposefullypreventedextensivequestioningofassumptions,viewpoints,andsoforth.
Thefindingsfromallthesessionswerebundledtogetherandlaterdiscussedwiththetop15executives.Thatdiscussionledintoanegotiationaroundthewayacompany-wideimprovementprogramwouldbesetup.Thissoundsmorelikeatopdownapproachthanitactuallywas,becauseallthecomprisingpartsofthisprogramwerebasicallythoughtupbythewidergroupintheprevioussessions,andtheimplementationwouldalsobechampionedandtailoredbythatgroupwithrespecttotheirowndepartments.TheDevelopment-orientedApproach
Theemphasisinthisapproachisonlearningandexploring.Peoplecanlearnquiteabitfromawell-presenteddiagram,buttheycanlearnmuchmorebytryingtopieceonetogetherthemselves.CreatingCLDsthusbecomesameanstoexchangeobservations,pointsofviewandmentalmodelsamongthoseinvolved.Thismutualenquiryservestomaketheseexplicitandclarifythemfurther.Withinthiscontext,changeagentsshouldpayattentiontothequalitywithwhichpeoplelisten,question,andreflect.Thegoalistounblockanylearningobstaclessuchasgroupthinkorcognitivedissonance.Themainconcernisn’tthattheanalysisiscorrectorthatpeoplereachaconsensus.Diversityisusuallynotseenasproblematic,butasfoodforthoughtandincentivefordialogue.Itenhanceslearningwithinandbetweengroups,whichshouldpreferablytranslatecontinuouslyintoexperimentation.Newinsightsleadtonewbehavior,andviceversa,inanincrementalprocess.Causalloopdiagramssupporttherenewalonbothends–youmakediagramstoincreaseinsightandexperiment“onthejob”totestthemonrealchallenges.
Newinsightsandnewbehaviorbothinevitablyinfluencethedynamicsintheorganization.Inthesystemdynamicsliteraturesuchanapproachcanbeseenin“modelingaslearning”(Lane,1992)andin“groupmodelbuilding”(Vennix,1996).Withincreasedcomplexity,thinkingandactingneedstobecoupledevertighter–issuescanonlybefiguredoutwhileaddressingthem,notbythinkingaboutthembeforehand.Thisimpliesthatagencymustbedecenteredtothosedirectlydealingwiththeissuesathand.Tothisend,adevelopment-orientedapproachenablesaspacetoplayalongsidethepressuretoperform.Empowermentisthenameofthegame.AMomentofTruthforaPollutingIndustrySector
Ataconferencewithrepresentativesfromanindustrysectorwithadismalenvironmentaltrackrecord,aninteractionpatternemergedsimilartothatofthe“tragedyofthecommons,”aclassicsystemarchetype(Hardin,1968).Aquarterofthegroupwasagainstenvironmentalmeasures,whiletherestfounditdifficulttomaketheirproducts“cleaner”becausetheyfearedtheywouldnotrecovertheextracostsifthebiggestpolluterscontinuedbusinessasusual.Stayingstuckinthiscollectivepatternwouldpredictablyresultintheindustry’sdownfallasaresultofeithergovernmentlegislationordisplacementbyeco-friendlyalternativesthoughtupbyotherindustries.However,thispredicamentfailedtoraisesufficientalarm.Thepennydidnotseemtodrop.DuringthenextmorningIsketchedthedysfunctionalinteractionpattern,checkeditwithacolleagueandfeditbacktothe
All rights reserved by the author.
15
group.Reactionsvariedfromshockandlaughtertodenial(thelattermostlyamongthestrongestpolluters),buttheviciouscycleatleasthadatlastbecomepartofthediscussion.Weproposedtodoasimulationthatsameday,basedonthetragedyofthecommonsarchetype.
Duringthatsimulation,thetypicaldynamicsemergedagain,life-size,despiteeveryone'sintentionsforthatnottohappen.Attheendofthedaythisrecurrencecontributedtoawillingnesstoexploreotheravenues,andthegroupstruggledbutsucceededtodeviseamoresustainablestrategy.Therepresentativesagreedtoadheretoitsfirststepsduringthenexthalfyearatwhichtimetheywouldconveneagainandmakefinaldecisionswhethertocommittoitsfullimplementation.Theprecision,proof,andperfectionofdiagramsplayedasubordinateroleinthiscase–itwasnotarationality-orientedapproach.Whatmatteredforemostwasthattheprocessopenedtheircollectiveeyes.Supportinginterventionswerelargelycommitment-oriented,focusedonpullingtogetherasanindustrysectorbehindanenvironmentalprogram.
Windowsandmirrorsareclassicinterventionsinadevelopment-orientedapproach.Windowsstandsformakingpeopleawareofnew(theoretical)perspectives;bylookinginthemirrortheybecomeconsciousofthe(practical)impacttheiractions.Inworkconferences,Iregularly(havepeople)usesmallcausalloopdiagramstoboththeseends.Thediagramshelptocapturehiddendynamicsinagroup’spracticeandallowsforcollectivereflectiononthem.Anynewperspectivesthatemergecanserveasastepping-stonetosteerthoseprocessesinamoreconstructivedirection.Thecaseillustratesthisprocessforasmallsetting,butdevelopment-orientedapproacheswithCLDscanalsobelargescale(e.g.,seeStoppelenburg&Vermaak,2009).Incaseswhereparticipantsconstruct,shareanddiscusstheirowndiagrams,thelearningimpactcanbeevenmoresubstantialasthisallowsparticipantstonotonlyharvestmoreinsights,butalsobuildsystemicthinkinganddiagrammingskills.
FiguringoutEffectiveChangeStrategies
Issuescomeindifferentshapesandsizes–arealitythatisfortunatelyalsotrueforapproachestochange.Thechallengeistoochoosewhatfitsthesituationbest.Isknowledgecreationthekeyorisitmoreimportanttohavebuy-infromthoseinvolved?Orperhapswhatmattersmostisempowerment?Choosinganapproachrequiresweighingtheprosandcons,becausesometimesthechangestrategytheorganizationisbestatimplementingisnottheonemostappropriatefortheissueathand.MarchandOlsen(2004)describethisasa“logicofappropriateness”versusa“logicofconsequentiality,”HereIwouldadvocateconsciouslyselectingandcraftingsuchachangestrategy.Inmostorganizations–andinmostdiagrammingpractices–approachesorientedtowardrationalityandcommitmentdominateoverthoseorienteddevelopment,regardlessofhowwelltheywork.Thisimbalanceshouldberectified,especiallyaroundcomplexissueswheredevelopmentapproachesoftenmakegoodsense.Itdoes,however,requireputtinginextraefforttosuccessfullypulloffalessfamiliarapproachgiventhatassociatedideas,interventionsorcompetencesarelessfamiliar.Withoutthisextraeffort,thereisarealriskofcreatingdisappointingoutcomes,whichonlyreinforcesbarrierstousingadevelopmentapproachinthefuture–asurewaytounderminecontingencythinking.
All rights reserved by the author.
16
Situationalchoiceforachangeapproachimpliesseparatingsuchprocessesandswitchingbetweenthem.Stickingtoanyoneapproachindefinitelyisnotanoption.Neitherisindiscriminatelymixingthemtogetherasthisundermineseachoftheapproaches.Anexampleofthismightbeif,forinstance,youmixapoliticalprocess(gearedtowardscommitment)withalearningprocess(gearedtowardsdevelopment).Inalearningprocess,participantsgainthemostwhentheyshowtheirweaknesses,askforhelp,experimentwiththingstheyarenotsogoodat,andsoforth.Inessence,people“puttheircardsontheirtable.”Bycontrast,inapoliticalprocesssuchbehaviorisgenerallydysfunctionalanddamaging,underminingpeople’snegotiatingpositionandmakingthemvulnerabletoattack.Insuchacontextkeepingyourcardsclosetoyourchestmakesmoresense.Suchcontrastsareabundantbetweenchangestrategies.Themoreyouhonor,useandmaintainsuchcontrasts,thebettereachoftheapproacheswork(Vermaak,2009).
This“separatingandswitching”can,inalimitedway,alsobeobservedinthecasevignettesprovidedinthischapter.Theleastintensivewaytoachievethisfunctionalwayofcombiningchangeapproachesisbyhavingoneoverarchingstrategybesupportedbyacontrastingone.Thishappenedinallthreecasespresentedabove.Sometimesittakesshapeasbriefcontrastingintermezzos,like“commitment”phasesinterspersedinthepredominantchangestrategyinboththeuniversitycollegecaseandthepollutingindustrycase.Sometimesthesupporttakesplacethroughasupportingrole,likesomelearninginterventionsintheserviceprovidercasetoassistpeopletoreallyheareachotherandlookforconnectionsbetweentheirideas.Themorecomplexthecasesare,themoreintensivethisswitchingbetweenstrategiesneedstobecomesoastoeffectivelyaddressmanydifferentaspectsoftheissueathand.ElsewhereIhavedescribedhowsuchrapid(paradoxical)shiftscanenhancetheimpactofcausalloopdiagramming(Vermaak,2007).
DealingproductivelywiththetensionsbetweencontrastingchangestrategiesisanintriguingtopicthatIonlytouchonhere,butiscrucialtolivingorganizations(DeGeus,1997)andbreakthroughinnovations(Vermaak,2009).Aschangeeffortsaregenerallycollectiveefforts,afirstprerequisitetoseparatingandswitchingisacommonlanguagetodistinguishdifferentstrategiesandwhatconstitutesthem–whichisanextrareasontointroducesuchdistinctionshere.
CLOSINGREMARKS
Theconsultancymarkethasshiftedovertheyears.Manyclientshavegainedknowhowaboutchangemanagementandarequiteabletotacklebasicchangesthemselveswithouttheaidofconsultants.Intimesofrecessiontheydoexactlythatinordertocutcosts.Amoresustainablebusinesspropositionforconsultantsistoprovideservicesthatclientsareasyetunabletoinsource.Thistacticalsomakessensefromanorganizationaldevelopmentperspectiveasitallowsconsultantstobuildclients’changecapacitytodealwithmorecomplexchange.Asanaddedbonusitcreatesastrongimpetustoinnovateourknowhow,ourservices,andourskillset.IbelievethatCLDprovidearobustmethodtodealwithcontentcomplexityandprocesscomplexitythatfitsthisshiftingroleforconsultants.Atthesametime,itisimportanttoemphasizethatCLDsarenotacureallforallchangeissues.
All rights reserved by the author.
17
Whenissuesaresimpleorrequirelimitedparticipation,notonlydoweasconsultantshavelessandlesstoadd,buttheCLDprocesstakesmoreeffortthanitisworth.
Anotherpointtomakeisthatcomplexissueshavetheawkwardtendencytoraiseanxietiesamongthoseinvolved.Thiscanleadtoareflextocircumventuncertaintieseventhoughtheyareintrinsictocomplexissuesandtotheinnovativeapproachesneededtoaddressthem.Takingontheexpertroleasconsultantplaysintothistrap.Themoreconsultantssuggesttheyhavetheanswers,themorethisseemstodischargeothersofresponsibilitiestofindthem(Gabriel&Hirschhorn,1999).Themoreconsultantssuggesttheyareespeciallycompetenttoimplementthem,themoretheeffortisoutsourcedtothem.Neitherisproductive.Ascomplexissuesareofteninterwovenwiththeprimaryprocess(es)ofanorganization,theyrequireactiveparticipationtoaddressthem.Temporarysetbacksandpitfallsarepartofthatprocessandevendesirableforpeopletofindoutwhatworksandtomasterwhatisneededtobringaboutlastingchange(Geschka,1978).Inevitablytheexpertmodesoonerorlaterdisappoints.Itaddstoparticipantsloosingfaithindealingwithcomplexissuesandleadstoconsultantsloosingtheircredibility.Suchdynamicsarepartofanyhelpingrelationshipandhandlingthemisattheheartoftheconsultancyprofession.Thesedynamicsplayoutespeciallystrongassoonasissuesmovebeyondourpersonalunderstandingandcontrol.
Insuchcasesthereisaneedtohavetwoconversationsatthesametime:oneaboutconstructivewaystoaddresstheissuesandanotherabouttheanxietiesthatemerge.French(2001)labelsthefirstas“positivecapability”andthesecondas“negativecapability”–andthenstateswearedoomedwhenwelackeither.Fortunately,causalloopdiagrammingcanassistboththosecapabilities.Positivecapabilityrequirescomingtogripswithcontentcomplexity.Thereisaneedfordiagnosticprobing,foruncoveringfeedbackmechanisms,anddeducingpointsofleveragetoaddresstheissue.Negativecapabilityrequiresaninteractive“holdingspace”wheretensionsandanxietiescanbeunderstood,filtered,andhandled(Hirschhorn,1988).Thisiswherelearningdipsandpoliticalfrictionsareaddressed.Thespaceis“contained”inorderforthemnottoeclipsetherestofthework(French&Vince,1999).Neitheroftheseprocessesarequickfixesandthediagrammingprocesshelpstoslowparticipantsdownsufficientlytogettogripswithboth.
Consultantsthatdealwithcomplexissueshavenochoicebuttoescapethe“knowitall”mindsetandembracetheroleoffacilitatingbothanalyticalrigorandinteractivesensitivity.Suchroleisaparadoxicalcombinationthatcanbequitechallengingforconsultants.However,itmightbetheonlywaytomakesenseofambiguoussituationsandpersistentproblems.Suchashiftinconsultants’expertidentityis,inmyview,hardlyviableifcapabilitiesandinstrumentationareincongruentanddonotsupportsuchashift.Causalloopdiagramsareagoodexceptionastheytooareabrainchildofcontrastingworlds.Whenitcomestoconsultingforchange,CLDshaveproventheirworthfordecadesinbridgingbothworlds.Whatremainsisformoreconsultantstogetovertheirvacillation,tobecomemoreskillfulinusingthem,andtobringouttheirfullpotential.Theaimofthischapteristolendahandintheserespects.
All rights reserved by the author.
18
REFERENCES
Andersen,D.F.&Richardson,G.P.(1997).Scriptsforgroupmodelbuilding.SystemDynamicsReview,13(2),107-129.
Argyris,C.(1990).Overcomingorganizationaldefenses:Facilitatingorganizationallearning.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Bennis,W.G.,Benne,K.D.&Chin,R.(1985).Theplanningofchange.NewYork,NY:Holt,RinehartandWinstron.
Burns,J.R.&Musa,P.(2001).Validationofcausalloopdiagrams.PaperpresentedattheSystemDynamicsSocietyConference,Atlanta,Georgia,July.
Caldwell,R.(2005).Thingsfallapart?Discoursesonagencyandchangeinorganizations.HumanRelations,58,83-114.
Caluwé,L.de&Vermaak,H.(2003).Learningtochange:Aguidefororganizationchangeagents.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Duke,R.D.&Geurts,J.L.A.(2004).Policygamesforstrategicmanagement:Pathwaysintotheunknown.Amsterdam:TheNetherlands:DutchUniversityPress.
Flood,R.L.(1999).Knowingoftheunknowable.SystemicPracticeandActionResearch,12(3),247-256
French,R.(2001).Negativecapability:Managingtheconfusinguncertaintiesofchange.JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement,14(5),480-492.
French,R.&Vince,R.(Eds.)(1999)Grouprelations,management,andorganization.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Gabriel,Y.&Hirschhorn,L.(1999).Leadersandfollowers.InY.Gabriel(Ed),Organizationsindepth:Thepsychoanalysisoforganizations(pp.139-165).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Geschka,H.(1978).Introductionanduseofidea-generatingmethods.ResearchManagement,3,25-28.
Geus,A.P.de(1988).Planningaslearning.HarvardBusinessReview,66(2),70-74.Geus,A.P.de(1997).Thelivingcompany:Habitsforsurvivalinaturbulentbusiness
environment.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Goodman,M.&Karash,R.(1995).SixStepstoThinkingSystematically.TheSystemsThinker,
6(2),6.Greenberger,M.,Crenson,M.A.&Crissey,B.L.(1976).Modelsinthepolicyprocess:Public
decisionmakinginthecomputerera.NewYork,NY:RussellSageFoundation.Hardin,G.(1968)Thetragedyofthecommons.Science,162(3859),1243-1248Hirschhorn,L.(1988).Theworkplacewithin:Psychodynamicsoforganizationallife.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Lane,D.C.(1992).Modelingaslearning:Aconsultancymethodologyforenhancinglearning
inmanagementteams.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,59,64-84.Lyneis,J.M.(1999).Systemdynamicsforbusinessstrategy:Aphasedapproach.System
DynamicsReview,15(1),p.37-70March,J.G.&Olsen,J.P.(2004).Thelogicofappropriateness.Oslo,Norway:Universityof
Oslo,Arena–CenterforEuropeanStudies,Workingpaperno.9.Moxnes,E.(1984).Theartofcausalloopdiagramming.Proceedingsofthe1984
InternationalSystemDynamicsConference(pp.200-204).Oslo,Norway:International
All rights reserved by the author.
19
SystemDynamics.Probst,G.J.B.&Gomez,P.(1991).Vernetztesdenken:Ganzheitlichesführeninderpraxix
[Networkedthinking:Introducingholisticthinkingintopractice].Wiesbaden,Germany:Gabler.
Reibnitz,U.von(1988).Scenariotechniques.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Richmond,B.(1993).Systemsthinking:Criticalthinkingskillsforthe1990sandbeyond.
SystemDynamicsReview,9(2),113-133.Rittel,H.W.J.&Webber,M.M.(1973).Dilemmasinageneraltheoryofplanning.Policy
Sciences,4,155-169.Schein,E.H.(1999).Processconsultationrevisited:Buildingthehelpingrelationship.
Reading,MA:PearsonEducation/Addison-Wesley.Senge,P.M.(1990).Thefifthdiscipline:Theart&practiceofthelearningorganization.New
York,NY:Doubleday/Currency.Stoppelenburg,A.&Vermaak,H.(2009).Defixationasaninterventionperspective:
UnderstandingwickedproblemsattheDutchMinistryofForeignAffairs.JournalofManagementInquiry,18(1),50-54.
Shibley,J.J.(2001).Makingloops:Amethodfordrawingcausalloopdiagrams.<www.systemsprimer.com/making_loops_intro.htm>AccessedSeptember20,2002.
Vennix,J.A.M.(1996).Groupmodelbuilding:Facilitatingteamlearningusingsystemsdynamics.Chichester,UK:Wiley.
Vennix,J.A.M.(1999).Groupmodel-building:Tacklingmessyproblems.SystemDynamicsReview,15(4),379-401.
Vermaak,H.(2007).Workinginteractivelywithcausalloopdiagrams:Interventionchoicesandparadoxesyouarefacedwithinpracticalapplication.InJ.Boonstra&L.deCaluwé(Eds.),Interveningandchanging(pp.175-194).Chichester,UK:Wiley.
Vermaak,H.(2009).Plezierbelevenaantaaievraagstukken:Werkingsmechanismenvanvernieuwingenweerbarstigheid.[EnjoyingToughIssues:Dynamicsofinnovationandstagnation].Deventer,TheNetherlands:Kluwer.
Vriens,D.&Achterbergh,J.(2006).Thesocialdimensionofsystemdynamics-basedmodeling.SystemsResearchandBehavioralScience,23(4),553-563.
Warren,K.(2004).Whyhasfeedbacksystemsthinkingstruggledtoinfluencestrategyandpolicyformulation?Suggestiveevidence,explanationsandsolutions.SystemsResearchandBehavioralScience,21,351-370.
Wolstenholme,E.F.(1992).Thedefinitionandapplicationofastepwiseapproachtomodelconceptualizationandanalysis.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,59,123-136.
Zoch,A.&Rautenberg,M.(2004).Acriticalreviewoftheuseofsystemdynamicsfororganizationalconsultationprojects.Proceedingsofthe22ndInternationalConferenceoftheSystemDynamicsSociety(pp.1-29).Oxford,UK:SystemDynamicsSociety.