using causal loop diagrams to deal with complex … · to provide an impression of a cld, figure...

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.