SYSTEMS THINKING: GAINING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM SITUATION
3.7 Using Systems Thinking to Identify Points of Intervention
reactive approach to change, but rather to adopt the approach of learning organisations and focus on the systemic structure that leads to this undesirable behaviour.
3.7.1 System Culture and the Role Of Politics
To approach a problem situation using systems thinking, it is important to consider the prevalent culture within the system itself as well as the culture in the environment. The culture of the organisation (especially the Operations Systems business unit (OS) which is largely responsible for ensuring the processes are adhered to) is one of a "roles culture"
described by Handy (cited in Farmer& Martin, 2000). This culture is most frequently found in bureaucratic organisations and is characterised by conformity to rules and respect for the "system". The organisation is very hierarchical and the person's position in the organisation hierarchy plays an important role with respect to the power that the person has. Information gained as a result of a person's position provides an important power base that is used by the individual to share or not share information depending on the agenda. The relationships are more professional and emotions play a very small role in this environment. Within the OS there is also a culture of power where a few individuals who occupy senior positions and who dominate the organisation form a powerful central group. To illustrate this, during particular problematic periods on the project where it is difficult to get the cooperation of particular resources despite the best efforts of the project management team, the involvement by one of the members of this power group will have the immediate effect of getting total focus on the problem situation by all of the role- players. Within the project itself, there is a task-centred culture where the team members are adaptable, cooperative and supportive. Unfortunately, there is virtually no form of people-centred culture within the organisation. The climate within the organisation is thus distinctly defensive and the unwritten rules as identified for such a climate by Argyris and Schon (cited in Farmer& Martin, 2000) apply almost totally. In particular, people within the organisation tend to protect themselves at all time by avoiding direct interpersonal confrontation and discussion of sensitive issues publicly that might expose them to blame. This culture is a barrier to the organization becoming a learning
organization and causes teamwork to be inhibited.
Within this climate, important issues are often deemed as not being open for discussion, thereby ruling out the open inquiry required for double-loop learning. Single loop solutions are sought for what are essentially double loop problems. The result is that failures are attributed to other internal or external factors that result in the theory-in-use being modified in order to account for the failure. The theory-in-use therefore becomes self- sealing, since the actual cause ofthe problem will not have been addressed. An important factor in this is that project managers tend to be very task-oriented and focused on delivering results within the constraints of the project.
Bate (cited in Farmer& Martin, 2000) identified six basic organizational issues and these are presented as five bipolar scales in table 3.2 below. These represent the cultural factors that can exist in an organization. The table is populated by the view of the organization of the project manager.
Basic organization Negative pole
-
--
? + ++ Positive pole issuesAffective People avoid People readily show and
orientation showing/sharing
.,
share feelings andfeelings/emotions. emotions.
Animate- No one ever points a Personal criticism and
inanimate finger at anyone in
.,
praise are fully accepted.orientation to particular.
causality
Hierarchical Superiors solve your People take responsibility
orientation problems for you. No
.,
for solving their ownone challenges them. problems. Inappropriate
instructions Queried.
Change orientation Better the devil you Change welcomed for the
know. Change
.,
opportunities it brings .regarded as impossible Associated risks accepted.
or for the worse.
Individualist- Do your thing in your Everyone talks to everyone.
collectivist patch; keep out of my
.,
Often cross boundaries toorientation patch. Many small visit other areas/project.
sections, units, etc.
Unitary-pluralistic People tend to be A high level of trust.
orientation belligerent, distant,
.,
People very ready to helpuntrusting. Problem one another solve problems
solving by cooperatively.
confrontation.
Table 3.2: Bate's 6 dimensions of organizational culture.
Following on from the culture of the organization, a systems thinking practitioner also needs to look at the different stakeholders and the different sources of power that they
have. Stacey (1993) states that power flows from relationships that have been established over time between individuals and groups. Power is used to persuade others to do things that they either do not want to do or that they would not thought of doing. Paton (cited in Farmer& Martin, 2000) discusses visible and invisible power that exists. Regarding visible power, many of the senior managers use positional power in order to drive the people within the organisation. The technical resources have expert power and due to the scarcity of the relevant expertise required by the organisation, this power can be used quite effectively. There are also a few individuals in the organisation that have personal power by virtue of their natural leadership qualities and this is used to good effect at times. Dependence power plays an important role for those managers who need to rely on their contacts within the organisation to get things done. Managers often resort to this due to the matrix structure of the organisation in order to get people to cooperate.
A senior manager or an executive will have a very different view of the problem situation than would a technical person who is confronted with the problem. In discussions with management regarding the problems being experienced, their attitude was that the process in place had to be followed and they did not seem to appreciate the length of time that it took to have a change approved or what the cost to the project ultimately was due to these delays. They especially did not seem to appreciate the negative knock-on effect that was caused to a project due to the time delay in getting approval to implement, or the effect on morale and motivation that burdening the technical resources with seemingly unnecessary administration was having. On the other hand, the people who initiated the changes found it hard to conceive of the negative impacts to the company should a change be made without following the prescribed process. They seemed to feel that they had already
"thought of everything" before implementing the change and hence there would be no unforeseen consequences.