General Note on Systems Thinking & Integration.

Ever since there has been work, employers have been concerned with human performance, the variables that influence it, and ways to manipulate those variables for productivity (Waters & Crook, 1993). Researchers have made efforts to consolidate or integrate the accumulating knowledge about those work variables into a single cohesive model showing contributing variables, systems, and feedback control loops (Robbins, Waters-Marsh, Cacioppe & Millett, 1994, p.57).

Because organisations seek a strategic advantage over competitors, strategic planning and strategic marketing are well researched and documented topics but strategic conversation tends to be reserved as a responsibility of executive management. Existing strategic planning tends to be mechanistic, ignoring the involvement of people and their emotional and physical needs. Strategic planning does not allow for impulsive nature of human decisions - or 'mood' days, in spite of the behaviour of humans being impulsive, emotional, neurotic, habitual rather than calculated and logical. Organisational executives cannot predict irrational human actions, so their strategic plans give a rational framework that takes into account needs, goals, equity, beliefs, feedback, ability, resources and so on. The resultant strategic plan, intended to guide the organisation's productivity and direction, has an unintended consequence in that it changes the organisation's climate by way of changing what people do and how they do it. This serves to further highlight the need to accommodate the human side of such plans.

Organisations faced with increasing competition and changes in their external environment typically seek to introduce internal changes that will improve productivity and performance. Some improvement can come from systems approaches that use 'business process re-engineering' (BPR) to examine and reorder processes (Buchanan (1997), but changing systems is not enough. The current trend for BPR and changes in organisational structure towards a more flexible and adaptable team-based approach requires an accompanying change in organisational behaviour (Tiernan, 1993) because organisations are comprised of people rather than units of production. If people do not change, there is no organisational change.

Why do most attempts to implement changes, fail to produce the intended growth spurt? Could it be that most attempts fell prey to the tyranny of the piecemeal approach - or single system view? If each initiative addresses only one dimension, the aggregate achieves only a fraction of its potential return on investment. Many attempts at programs like ISO 9000, BPR and other quality approaches fail to understand that process documentation and control don't necessarily lead to excellent processes. Process Reengineering efforts don't necessarily yield maximum returns unless connected to strategy and deployed through the redesign of jobs and reward systems. Better results may be achieved through systemic analysis, systemic solutions, and systemic execution of those solutions. "Systemic" - not "systematic." Systematic is procedural, while systemic refers to a systems approach.

 

While having mechanistic origins, systems analysis can be easily applied to organisms. Humans have organic systems such as the circulatory, respiratory, digestive and so on. These systems interact for the good of the total organisation of systems - the human being, and are interdependent. The lung relies on the blood to nourish its cells, and the blood relies on the lung to provide the oxygen to distribute elsewhere. Our lungs have evolved to function in an environment that differs to marine life. So organisms have adapted their systems to suit their own environment.

Systems analysis can also be applied to describe complex human behaviour in organisations (Checkland & Holwell, 1993), and has been termed Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). This technology was designed to assist in the interpretive and qualitative tasks associated with the ambiguity and poor predictability of complex organisational changes (Rose & Haynes, 1999). The same system overview still applies however, and subsystems are refined for their role and are interdependent.

Any system has properties (Table 1) and components (Figure 2), with this example showing stakeholder groups, the current work-team, and you as a consultant, contained within its boundary. We will assume for now that you are a consultant, because you will be more objective reviewing the systems of another entity than you will when assessing your own. The system we present sits within, and has boundaries with, an environment that comprises other systems such as the communications system. Every subsystem is open to formal (hierarchical system boundaries) and informal (laterally or hierarchical across two or more boundaries) sources of data (Senn, 1990). Such a complex network defies accurate modeling, yet general systems theory is committed to models, analogies, and any other device to simplify the understanding of a complex communication arrangement (Sutherland, 1973).

By definition, general system’s theory, regardless of the discipline using it, assumes there will be both predictable and unpredictable interactions of various forms across those boundaries (Fertuck, 1992). Unpredictable or unplanned internal or external interactions are termed ‘noise’, while predictable or planned interactions are ‘signals’ (Sutherland, 1973). An efficient system requires, among other things, a high signal to noise ratio (Senn, 1990). Components within a system will usually move away from identifiable noise sources, becoming selective about sources of data, always trying to achieve system homeostasis (equilibrium) while developing processes and performing tasks (Napier & Gershenfeld, 1993). In an organisation, this is called organisational learning. At the individual level, it is individual learning. People will move away from stress or other discomfort and towards stability and comfort. The progressive organisation will therefore have strategies that provide stability and comfort in a manner that also helps reach organisational goals.

Planned inter-system interactions are managed with organisational knowledge and are usually productive and in the organisation's interest. Unplanned or uncertain or ambiguous interactions can be disruptive or perhaps an opportunity in disguise, and can happen across any system boundaries at any level of the organisation. Unplanned or uncertain or ambiguous interactions therefore require strategic analysis and decisions, in turn requiring strategic decision-making abilities. Since these interactions are experienced by every subsystem and therefore by most employees, strategic decision-making abilities are required throughout the organisation. For the whole system (organisation) to work, each component (subgroup, person etc) must be effective, adaptable (changeable) and interdependent (Sutherland, 1973).

Table 1

Essential properties of a system.

A predetermined goal: purpose, objective, standard

  1. Able to measure performance at any time quality, quantity, behaviour observations

  2. A means of comparison to measure the charts, records, original measurement

    gap (current status and desired goal)

  3. Adaptability and flexibility accommodate internal or external changes, or improve processes to reach goal.

Note.

Compiled from several sources, but essentially from Senn (1990, p.78)

 

Figure 2. (not included) Model of a system showing data lines and evaluation feedback lines (dotted). The dashed line between stakeholders' output and work-team recognises that such a connection could be used if required, but systems theory regards that connection as redundant because of the system channel via the supervisor.

 

Strategic thinking

With de-layering and downsizing of organisations now the norm, the reduced or overworked middle management is no longer able to link employee activities with the strategic plans (Linkow, 1999). Executives struggling with non-strategic-thinking employees in a flattening organisation may complain of 'dumbing down' of their skills. In the absence of middle management to implement their strategies, the executives are taking over middle management functions as well as executive roles. If employees knew how to strategically think and were empowered to do so, they could make their own decisions in the interests of the organisation. Unfortunately, executives and upper level managers are having difficulty letting go the controls and trusting employees in decision making (Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999). As it is, executive level decisions are wrong over half the time, with one of the major reasons being that the decision makers did not seek assistance from those in the organisation who could have helped (Nutt, 1999). Sometimes even the problem is difficult to define (Mintzberg, 1990).

How does the organisation tolerate an individual's mistakes? If real learning takes place at the interface of thought and action as actors reflect on what they have done (Mintzberg, 1990), and most thought occurs around mistaken actions or ambiguous situations, then what is learned depends upon whether the wrong decision is 'felt' as being a punishable offence, or is a learning opportunity. Mintzberg's (1990) proposition that strategy emerges from retrospective thoughts was supported by the findings of Crouch & Basch (1997). In other words, strategy emerges from the learning of successful and unsuccessful actions. Once again, what is learned will depend upon what happens as a result of that success or failure. Since success can not be guaranteed, a climate of expecting punishment of mistakes will dampen organisational learning of strategic thinking.

Before organisation-wide strategic thinking and conversation can occur, employees must 'feel' they are in a climate that encourages courage, and the organisation must train employees in what strategic thinking is all about (Crouch & Basch , 1997) and how it is done (Linkow, 1999). It is reasonable to expect a different climate in an organisation that merely 'permits' strategic thinking, to the climate that proactively encourages such development. The climate survey instrument can help find the extent to which employees feel strategically empowered.

 

Below the line strategies

Although organisational activities are theoretically conducted in an emotionless manner, and strategic plans are highly mechanistic in nature, there are two sets of 'below the line' interactions that involve the soft sciences. Firstly, humans are doing the strategic planning, so feelings and emotions are an unavoidable (even if denied) and integral part of all group conversations (Goleman, 1998) and that includes strategic conversations. The climate 'felt' by the executives will influence their behaviour during that conversation. In other words, climate influences strategic conversation. Secondly, the impact of executive and committee decisions on feelings and emotions is felt by employees (Elsbach & Elofson, 2000) and possibly other stakeholders, and thus influences the climate. So strategic conversation influences climate. However, an understanding of that two-way interaction is usually lacking from the process of strategic planning, and it requires some overheated emotional issue to eventually force occasional attention to soft issues. Much of what really goes on in an organisation takes place below the surface of daily behaviours and is shown in the form of conflicts, defensive behaviour, tensions and anxiety (Kets de Vries, 1995)

The link between strategic plans and emotions can be demonstrated in three ways. First there is the emotional involvement of participants to the process of developing strategic plans (Goleman, 1998). Although rarely taken, there are avenues for 'feelings' to be expressed, and opportunities for reflection on the 'process' of strategic conversation itself. Acknowledging how participants 'feel' about the processes can be an important part of reaching the outcomes. Someone may 'feel' ignored or 'feel' unworthy or perhaps 'feel' they are better qualified than anyone else in the room to advise on the topic. Airing those feelings may allow readjustment of processes and appropriate weight given to individual contributions.

Secondly, every strategic plan impacts people, and therefore their climate. The need to adjust plans to accommodate adverse impact on climate brings us to the need to deliberately set out to influence climate. It is akin to a 'climate impact study' for strategic plans.

Finally, the previous two points prompt the suggestion that every strategic plan should acknowledge and account for climatic impact, and prepare the climate if necessary. Strategic plans can themselves be solely designed to have emotional or climate goals, if improvement of processes and/or climate is seen as a desirable goal. The strategic value of having a particular type of climate for the organisation in question may be sought with specific end goals in mind, from reducing turnover and absenteeism to enhancing organisational learning.

Action learning and strategies

Against each major task of the project is recorded the outcome desired by stakeholders and means of measurement. Against each sub task is recorded the task outcome and means of evaluation. One subtask in each major task is the evaluation of major task outcomes against expectations. Focus groups and committees determine how the outcomes will be evaluated, develop processes to achieve those measurements, and pre-allocate resources for those times. When each task with an output ends, a group is assigned to consider the evaluation and make recommendations for future or present process adjustments. The evaluation processes themselves are then evaluated.

One subtask that deserves special mention is that which seeks to detect and avoid slippage back into old ways once changes have been implemented. This important component of clinical therapy seems ignored in change management. Change management literature refers to re-freezing changes (Schein, 1987), but not to having devices in place to bring slippage to notice. Slippage can occur for a number of reasons, but particularly from trying to do too much at once. This is a well-documented problem, when organizations are beset with "initiative-itis," never sustaining attention long enough on one activity to complete it (Senge, 1991) (Pettigrew et al., 1992)

Reference List

Systems Integration – exercises

Exercise in group:

With so many ways for systems to go wrong, how might you go about early detection of faults?

3 mins

Exercise in group:

What are differences between ‘system’ fault and ‘systems’ fault?

Suggest different ways to monitor for such faults

3 mins

Exercise in group:

If you were a fly on the wall listening to a strategic meeting of experienced planners on rational, evolutionary, and risk planning, what topics would be being discussed for each type of planning?

1 minute per type of planning

3 minutes

Exercise in group:

List some risks of engaging ion measuring and managing performance?

(The act of measuring and managing has repercussions – what are they?)[Write them down – you’ll need then later at work]

3 minutes

Exercise in group:

What sort of flags (indicators) might you set? [list & write]

How will you easily watch for them?

3 minutes

Exercise in group:

What will you do if, on assessment, a contingency plan scrubs up better than the original plan?

2 minutes

Exercise in group:

How will you record, and make easily available, the things you learn from these system loops?

3 minutes

 

Exercise: For the coming week

Draw your systems map with aid from others in your entity - as it is. Design a systems development program with realistic objectives, priorities, & timeframe.