How can we mobilize people to address tough challenges? Is a compelling vision of the future sufficient to drive people to action or is something else needed for people to embark in a transformative process? Peter Senge and Ronald Heifetz provide two complementary approaches to leading transformative change.
For Heifetz, transformative work requires individuals or groups to identify their adaptive challenge, i.e., identify the “gap between the shared values people hold and the reality of their lives, or of a conflict among people in a community over values or strategy.” Acknowledging the gap creates distress, as people have not yet developed new mental models that are better aligned with the new reality. The distress itself, when effectively managed, is the source of transformative power. The role of the adaptive leader is to mobilize the group to face its own problems, challenge old norms and assumptions, and create a holding environment to regulate the distress so that individuals and groups do not get overwhelmed as they undergo deep personal and organizational changes.
For Senge, a vision – whether it is a personal vision or a shared vision – is essential to the creative process and to generative learning – “expanding your ability to create”. As he notes in The Fifth Discipline:
“A shared vision is not an idea. It is not even an important idea such as freedom. It is, rather, a force in people’s hearts, a force of impressive power. It may be inspired by an idea, but once it goes further – if it is compelling enough to acquire the support of more than one person – then it is no longer an abstraction. It is palpable. People begin to see it as if it exists. Few, if any, forces in human affairs are as powerful as a shared vision.”
A shared vision drives and motivates people to accomplish big things – to imagine a world of possibilities and co-create a new reality. Yet, any effort to enlist people around a vision may be wasted when worldviews are at odds with the direction presented. For a vision to support transformative work it has to generate new meaning and new meaning can only arise when people are open, willing and able to challenge their traditional mental models and worldviews. As generative learning takes place, creativity becomes possible.
For a vision to be truly empowering, people need not only to buy into it but also to make it their own. While the approach taken by most traditional visionaries was to impose their own vision of the future onto others, visions today are co-created through conversations and dialogues among stakeholders. When those conversations and dialogues are conducted in a safe environment, tough issues are brought to the surface without generating conflicts while the integration between divergent ideas creates the potential for new meaning to arise. It’s the processes of open dialogue and deep listening that generate the transformative power from which a combination of new worldviews and shared vision emerge.
Heifetz, R. A. 1994, Leadership Without Easy Answers, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Senge, P. M. 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday, New York.
Don’t Fix Problems, “Dissolve” Them!
Russell Ackoff, the father of Systems Thinking, died a few weeks ago. The Ackoff Center Weblog website posted an obituary which begins with these words:
“Professor Russell L. Ackoff has been described as a Renaissance Man, architect, city planner, philosopher, behavioral scientist, trailblazer in the field of organizational operations, the pre-eminent authority on organizational systems theory, best-selling author, world traveler—even a humorist. Recognized internationally as a pragmatic academic, Russ, as he was known to all, devoted most of his professional life to “dissolving” complex societal and organizational problems by engaging all stakeholders in designing solutions.” [emphasis mine]
Today’s societal and organizational problems are complex:
• They involve numerous interrelated and interacting components;
• They are dynamic, i.e., they operate in a non-linear fashion, which means that causes and effects are far apart in time and space;
• They present unpredictable behaviors.
Complex problems cannot be resolved by applying old models and conventional solutions. Yet, while most people do agree with Einstein’s famous quote that “[P]roblems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them,” Ackoff once pointed out that, in fact, very few people know how to develop and apply new thinking to tackle their problems. We seem to be making the same mistakes over and over again. Here are a few typical pitfalls:
We do not challenge our assumptions.
We analyze problems from the lenses of our accepted mental models and worldviews, which we have developed through years of enculturation. Our current worldviews are limiting our ability to see problems with fresh eyes (we only see what we are trained to see) and restricting the solution space available to us.
We tend to fix problems by addressing symptoms and not root causes.
We are scared of complexity and try to reduce it. We focus on the tip of the iceberg and refuse to look for what’s underneath. Our environment pressures us to fix the problem, now! We “think” we know what the origin of a problem is and rush to conclusion with predetermined ideas of what an effective solution might be, only to find out later on, as the problem shows its ugly head once again (or is it a new one?), that the solution only provided a temporary patch.
We think in terms of linear cause and effect and not in terms of feedback loops.
Linear cause and effect means that a system’s output is proportional to the input. While this might be true for simple system, the majority of today’s problems are non-linear: problems get worth over time under the influence of reinforcing feedback loops that amplified their effect.
We forget to take delays into consideration.
We think we can predict what is going to happen. But in a complex world there is always a delay between the actions we take and the impact our actions have on the system we are dealing with. A solution that seems to have been working just fine for a while suddenly creates unintended consequences that are often worth than the problem we were trying to fix in the first place.
Dissolving problems means that we are able to make problems disappear. As Ackoff and other systems thinkers taught us, systems thinking, systems dynamic, and system modeling provide useful approaches and tools to:
Focus on the system’s structure and behavior.
In contrast to the traditional reductionist approach, which focuses on understanding the parts or components of a system, the systems approach puts the emphasis on understanding the interactions between the components (i.e., on defining the structure of the systems) in the goal of uncovering the system’s patterns of behavior. The understanding of the underlying structure that shapes a system’s behavior provides clues on what to change in the structure to influence the system’s behavior.
Make mental models and worldviews explicit.
There is nothing wrong with worldviews as long as we recognize they are not ultimate truths. A model (whether it is a causal loop diagram or a stock and flow diagram) is a representation of a particular worldview, i.e., the representation of the particular way an individual or group of individuals understand how a system operates and generates its behavior. By engaging multiple stakeholders in the development of models, different perspectives and understandings emerge as each participant sheds a different light on an issue.
Challenge our assumptions.
The process of modeling is a learning process: stakeholders are encouraged to challenge their assumptions and investigate new territories by including new variables in the model that change the structure and dynamic of the system. An “Ah-Ha” moment occurs when a completely new understanding of the problem arises: these new insights generate much opportunity for creativity and the development of unique solutions.
Identify the key leverage points.
A model helps uncover key leverage points, i.e., those critical variables that one needs to focus on to have a maximum effect on the performance of the system under consideration.
Dissolving problems requires discipline, practice, active listening and creative thinking supplemented by creative tools and methods for designing new solutions. It also requires us to remain flexible and humble, as our comprehension of the behavior of complex systems always remains incomplete.
Problem Solving Using Insights from Nature
A few weeks ago, I participated in the bi-annual Discovery AE Group meeting. (The Discovery AE Group is a think-tank of professionals – mainly architects and engineers – who collaborate to explore how their firms may respond to today’s adaptive challenges such as climate change and other sustainability issues.) We gathered on the Washington Peninsula, in Ocean Park, a few miles north of Long Beach, and our meeting took place at Caswell’s On the Bay Bed & Breakfast, whose property looks out over the beautiful Willapa Bay, the second largest estuary of the Pacific Coast.
While we always include a nature walk in our meeting agenda, it was the first time our walk was framed as a problem-solving exercise inspired by Biomimicry – a discipline created by Janine Benyus that studies nature’s best ideas and then imitates these designs and processes to solve human problems. In sharp contrast with traditional, analytical and reductionist methods of investigating problems and their resolution, Biomimicry follows Life’s Principles and observes natural forms, processes, and ecosystems to inspire the design of more sustainable human technologies. (Explore the concepts of Biomimicry further at the Biomimicry Institute and Biomimicry Guild websites.)
While companies as diverse as Nike, Boeing, Arup Engineers, Patagonia, Interface, and Seventh Generation, among many others, are most often applying Biomimicry to support the design of innovative sustainable industrial products and engineering solutions, our exercise was presented in such a way that it could generate insights for the resolution of non-technical problems as well. It is from this non-technical perspective that I took the nature walk.
The exercise was framed as a way to force us to slow down and to carefully and intentionally observe nature as opposed to a casual walk where we might have just looked at nature without truly seeing it while our minds meandered. I found the exercise both fun and insightful and am happy to share a few reflections about my nature observations.
Biomimicry Walk*
Step One:
Identify a particularly difficult problem/issue that you are currently dealing with.
Step Two:
Take a walk and identify and observe nature. Select plants, animals, objects, situations, or nature’s dynamics (movement of tides, wind through the trees), etc., and observe them “precisely.”
Make a list of the items you observe.
Step Three:
When you return,
- Try to identify one or more principles from nature embodied in the thing you observed. Look for ways to transfer nature’s principles embodied in the thing you observed to your subject.
And/or
- Make as many metaphors as you can between your list and your subject (problem). Look for similarities and similar circumstances.
(Metaphor: The application of a word or phrase to an object or concept that it doesn’t literally denote. Connections between two ideas/things through some similarity they share.)
- Ask yourself what new insights the principles from nature or metaphors provide as to how to solve the problem.
Step Four:
Share your problems and insights with other people and begin a group discussion/dialogue.
My Personal Observations/Insights:
I am currently in a personal and professional transition and, thus, the issue I identified for myself related to how to deal with deep transitions in general. I decided to take the walk on the tideflats in front of Caswell’s residence. The observations I made were metaphorical with some identification of principles from nature.
The first thing I noticed was oysters shell decomposing. While static in appearance, the process of decomposition is a process of change and of transition between life and death. This process is mostly invisible, yet it is very real. Only the result of the process can be observed as small pieces of shell become detached from the main oyster shell. Those small pieces will eventually become dust and be re-incorporated into the soil as nutrients. I thought of a process of re-organization of atoms, where nothing is lost but what makes the identity of the shell at a given time evolves into something different, perhaps a new life, over the long term.
My second observation was of a spider at the center of her net. It was quite windy that day, and the net was moving back and forth with strength. There was an interesting contrast between the movement of the net from the wind and the seemingly static position of the spider. It felt to me like if the spider had to really hold on to her spot, as she seemed fragile under the influence of the elements. She did not seem to be able to do anything else besides hold on. Yet, as I looked more closely, she was, in fact, working on her thread as though nothing could disturb her process.
Finally, I walked further out on the tideflats, where the terrain started to become quite treacherous. Under my feet, I felt the instability of the ground and the further I ventured, the clumsier I felt. At the same time, my body reacted with increased alertness while I paid more and more attention to where I was laying my feet. My body started to react and interact with the environment, my feet hesitating and testing out the ground in front of me before making the next step. Now, I was truly paying attention as I could have twisted my foot or ended up in mud up to my ankles. As my awareness increased, I became interconnected with the ground as it sent information to me about its condition, which influenced my decision on where to make the next step (a typical feedback loop).
Perhaps not new insights per se, my observations reminded me of the impermanence of everything. One cannot always see (with the eyes or with the mind) the destination of our journey. The process is what matters. Strength can sometimes takes the appearance of fragility and does not need to be forceful – strength can be light and seemingly passive to the uneducated eyes. While external conditions influence us, how we respond is up to us. Information and feedback loops are critical to adaptation. And when the body and the mind are connected, increased awareness arises.
*The Biomimicry Walk exercise was created by my friend and colleague Kyle Davy, Consultant, Berkeley, CA. Kyle’s website: http://www.kylevdavy.com
What Managers Can Learn From Designers
Back in July, the MIT Sloan Management Review published a special report on Design Thinking, which explored how to apply design thinking in a business context. In the article How to Become a Better Manager…By Thinking Like a Designer, Nancy Duarte, CEO of Duarte Design Inc. (who helped shape Al Gore’s Inconvenience Truth presentation) and Garr Reynolds, an associate professor of management at Kansai Gaidai University in Japan and author of an influential blog on presentation design, answered the question: What can managers learn from designers about how to attack a problem?
Reynolds’s answers included: embrace restraints (what he meant by “restraints” is what I call “constraints” in my recent post); take a risk; question everything; and, it’s not about tools, it’s about ideas. Duarte’s answers were: hierarchy; balance; contrast; clear space; and harmony.
To their input I would like to add a few insights of my own:
Collaboration – Like design, no business activities can be effective, productive, and creative in today’s complex world without collaboration between individuals from different disciplines and organizations. But effective collaboration is an art – one that requires active listening, checking ego at the door, and willingness to stay in the process when things get tough.
Creative Abrasion – Conventional thinking is built on the idea that friction and conflicts are a nuisance. I would instead argue that no productive collaboration effort takes place without some tension. The term “creative abrasion” was coined by Jerry Hirshberg, founder and president for Nissan Design International (NDI), to describe the competition between different design ideas that provide the “creative energy” necessary to original thinking and the achievement of high quality design. This process of simultaneous collaboration and competition means that “…as the creative fusion of ideas occurs by holding seemingly antithetical thoughts in the mind simultaneously, so creative collaboration between people can occur by an effort to retain conflicting cultural and disciplinary viewpoints in the mind without discarding or allowing either to dominate.” The best innovative ideas emerge when the juxtaposition of divergent professional perspectives stimulates team creativity and helps transcend the obvious solutions.
Embracing complexity – The business tendency of rushing toward the resolution of a problem before the problem is fully understood is often creating more harm than good. Designers know that the design process is inherently complex and that they must embrace that complexity before making decisions. The design process provides a structure for problems investigation and inquiry. It is an open-ended learning process that supports information and knowledge exchange in the goal of defining the problem while simultaneously testing out different ways for resolving it. While designers, and architects in particular, have developed the specific skills required to embrace complexity, the process may overwhelm most individuals. It is imperative for managers to facilitate the process of inquiry in their organizations and define a structure that allows knowledge sharing and creativity to take place while maintaining stability.
Prototyping – Designers develop prototypes (drawings and models) to explore different design alternatives, simulate reality, visualize constraints, facilitate trade-offs and manage expectations. Models are objects that support experimentation, play and learning. The most innovative companies today are developing a culture of prototyping to facilitate creativity and innovation.
Context – Architectural design occurs within a particular context, which informs it. A clear understanding of the context provides a framework within which design ideas can be developed. In our global economy, many businesses have lost touch with their immediate business context and locality. Solutions developed for a Western world may be completely ineffective in the context of a developing country and vice versa. Products and services must be re-evaluated and customized based on the context of their specific markets.
Hirshberg J. 1998, The Creative Priority: Driving Innovative Business in the Real World. HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
Constraints
A few weeks ago, I was asked by my friend Jeff Klein, author of the recently published book “Working for Good: Making a Difference While Making a Living,” to write a post on his blog on the topic of Constraints. As it turns out, Constraints can be very useful in catalyzing creativity and innovation.
beatrice benne 