Systems Thinking as Fairy-dust to Organizational Development

| By Nicole M. Cohen

 

The strategic importance of organizational development in today’s world is seminal in the ever-evolving race for corporate success. Like the old adage says, “change is the only constant”, in other words, change is a demanding reality, a factor of time, and with time comes a defying aging process. However, with the right judicious leaders, comes potentially very rewarding transition opportunities. The degree of change needed may vary among organizations, but the necessity to adapt to new governmental regulations, product development, increased competition, technological development, and a changing workforce (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), exists for all. As stated by Michael Beer (2013), “change is a complex, multi- faceted, longitudinal phenomenon that unfolds over time” (p. 307). So, how does change affect companies and organizations, and how can one remain successful under the constant of time and maturation? 

“Today’s organization model has two distinct businesses to run: their product or service, and the business of their own internal homeostasis.”

Today’s organization model has two distinct businesses to run: the product or service they present to the external world, but also the business of their own internal homeostasis, far too often overlooked. Similarly to the human body living on this planet, although one cannot fully mitigate the external changes or threats we are exposed to, one can, however, attempt to properly care for its internal structure in order to best adapt and survive to the ever-changing world. In other words, Darwin’s theory of evolution, where only the strongest survive through adaptation and evolution, can be applied to an organization in today’s world. The external focus and strategy of a business is clearly vital to its success in a competitive market, but proper care of the organization’s intricate internal makeup is what guarantees the long-term sustainability of its success.

To support this natural evolution, there exists many different theories, models, and processes under the umbrella of Organizational Development which focus on the process of proactive changes in organizations, such as: Lewin’s change theory, The ADKAR method, Kotter’s 8-step change process, and Senge’s learning Organizations, to name a few. These methods can be applied to help organizations grow, self-organize, redirect, and maintain or regain success. Interestingly, the common thread we find from the internal make-up of our bodies, to the intricate structures of corporations, is the presence of complex systems. I believe the evolution and change of an organization can only be effective if the method of Change Management takes a systemic approach. Furthermore, this systems based approach, by looking into the full-scale interconnections of the company will not only transform the change management effort into a bespoke solution for its targeted organization, but will also render the exercise considerably more inclusive of all players affected by the change.

The models of change mentioned above: Lewin’s change theory, The ADKAR method, Kotter’s change process, and Senge’s learning Organizations, are recognized concepts and practices that have been largely successful in their application through the years. It is interesting to note the evolution from the 1950’s when Lewin’s model started to receive attention. As the pioneer in the organizational development field, Lewin’s theory was heavily based on pure physics, its dynamics, resistance, inertia and equilibrium, all measured in mathematical formulas, which then incredibly birthed a purely socially orientated concept. The “unfreeze – move – refreeze” process is the very foundation to many change models I have studied so far, such an example is Kotter’s 8-step process, which easily fits inside Lewin’s 3-step theory. However, all four presented models remain different with their own unique focus and technique.

The ADKAR model states that for successful change to take place, it must happen at the individual level, in other words, it is not the organization who changes, but the individuals. Therefore, ADKAR concentrates on the human behavior element of change – how to positively manipulate and encourage change at the individual level and then drive changes through processes within the organization. While the model seems to be successful at the individual level where it focuses, it lacks in my opinion, support at the macro level of program management. It provides little focus on the leadership element of the change process, and therefore overlooks the emotional momentum that a successfully trained leader can bring to change management, and, most importantly, the bird’s eye view that Systems Thinking so easily brings to the table.

Kotter’s 8-step model on the other hand, provides a process that redesigns the organization at the skeletal level, connecting the hierarchy and the network, and encourages the change to happen with urgency, and at the heart level, not just at the head level. Furthermore, the model thoroughly supports the importance of proper leadership in addition to structural management. Executive sponsorship and drive is simply fundamental to a successful organizational transformation.

Heavily driven by Systems Thinking, Senge presents a strong analysis, concept, and full culture driving a successful organization, but is perhaps lacking in a concrete step by step guideline in conducting transformational change. However, in a utopian world, where an organization becomes Senge’s Learning Organization, perhaps sporadic transformational change efforts would be superfluous, as the organization would be innately flexible, agile, anti-fragile, and thus constantly adapting and successfully transforming with little effort.

“Change Management models are not a one-size-fits-all organizational saving grace….. however, Systems Thinking permits a change effort to be custom built”

From my experience, I remain convinced that Change Management models are not a one-size-fits-all organizational saving grace, and although can prove beneficial if carefully designed to engage the complex systems present in organizations, must engage all members of the community being changed. Systems Thinking permits a change effort to be custom built from the very start, ensuring no element is left behind by diving in and understanding all interconnections and dynamics using a variety of vantage points. Engaging all stakeholders in the analysis not only maximizes knowledge, but also forges an idealized and shared vision. System Thinking techniques such as mapping, causal loop and archetype recognition, design and interactive planning naturally lead the entire organization towards a shared goal and commitment to the targeted change.

Initiatives to improve organizations must therefore intrinsically consider entities outside the specific part of the organization that is subject to change. In this sense, Organizational Change becomes synonymous with changing an interconnected system, rather than a department, division, or manager. The principles of Change Management methods explored in this article are known to be today’s fundamental Organizational Development practices and are proven successful frameworks, however, to maximize success rates, each transformation effort should include the basic laws of Systems Thinking: a multidisciplinary and multi-hierarchical effort, cultivating a diversity of experiences and creativity, while engaging all users towards building a systematic analysis, mapping all constituent parts, and driving a comprehensive diagnosis and plan for the desired transformation.

 

References 

Ashkenas, R. (2014, August 07). Change Management Needs to Change. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2013/04/change-management-needs-to-cha.html

Beer, M., Barry M., (2013), Footprints in the sand (Michael Beer), Organizational Dynamics, Volume 42, Issue 4, October–December 2013, Pages 307-313, ISSN 0090-2616, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.07.009

Gantz, B., (1969), Value Dilemmas in the Assessment and Development of Creative Leaders; Gantz, Benjamin S. Boston, December, 1969. Paper presented at American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting.

Hiatt, J.M., (2006), “ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community,” Published by Prosci Learning Center Publications, ISBN 1930885512, 9781930885516

Hiatt, J.M., and Creasey, T.J., (2012), “Change Management: managing People Side of Change,” Published by Prosci Learning Center Publications, ISBN 978-1-930885-61-5

Kotter International. (2016). From Dr. John Kotter to Kotter International. Retrieved (October 12th, 2016), from http://www.kotterinternational.com/about-us/.

Kotter, J. P. (2008), Developing a change-friendly culture. Leader to Leader, 2008: 33–38. doi: 10.1002/ltl.278

Kotter, J.P. (2012). ACCELERATE! Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 44-58.

Kotter, J. P. (2014). Capturing the Opportunities and Avoiding the Threats of Rapid Change. Leader to Leader, 2014: 32–37. doi: 10.1002/ltl.20150 

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations June 1947 1: 5-41, doi: 10.1177/001872674700100103

Mingers, J. (2006) Realising Systems Thinking (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag).

Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Taleb, N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York: Random House.