Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner's Toolkit

ABOUT SYSTEMS, THINKING SYSTEMICALLY, AND BEING SYSTEMIC

ABOUT SYSTEMS

The idea of describing phenomena as systems dates back a long way, according to some as far back as Heraclitus and Aristotle. Although the modern systems field dates back to the first half of the twentieth century, it did not really develop fully as a field until the 1940s and 1950s.

We are often asked to define what constitutes a system. Frustratingly-at least for some—there is no single, concise, and generally agreed-upon definition. However, few would disagree that a system is constituted by

–  its elements, that is, all the parts that make up the whole;

–  the links between the parts, that is, the processes and interrelationships that hold the parts together in view of the whole;

–  its boundary, that is, the limit that determines what is inside and outside a system.

Within that broad constituency, almost any phenomenon can be regarded as a system. Consequently, rather than wasting precious space debating what does and what does not constitute a system, this book focuses on what makes the systemic approach distinctive: the specific ways it describes and makes sense of complex and complicated situations, that is. thinking and being systemic.

When describing a system as a set of embedded and interrelated parts, you have to bear in mind that each representation of a system is necessarily a simplification. The fundamental question is not whether these representations are right or wrong, but whether the essential aspects of a situation have been captured in relation to a specific purpose or issue.

In other words, thinking systemically is a means of making sense of not only a tree and the forest that contains it, but also the landscape in which the forest is embedded and the soil and the atmosphere that provide important resources for the tree's functioning. And seeing the tree as a small part in global exchange processes.

Let us illustrate this point with an apple. An apple's constituting elements are skin, fruit pulp, stem, core, and seeds. Each of these elements can furthermore be subdivided into many other parts. Each of these elements has a specific purpose, and all the elements are related to each other in a specific manner. The skin protects the flesh from becoming dry and being perforated. The fruit pulp protects core and seeds, which are required for the apple's reproduction. But the pulp has other purposes too—attracting animals so they carry the apple away and bury it, in order to assure good conditions for the seeds' germination. And of course the pulp provides nutrition for foraging animals like us.

But where do you stop in these infinite relationships and purposes? In reality, it is physically and cognitively impossible to describe everything, to conceive of every possible purpose from every possible angle. If you are seeking to influence or intervene in a system, having to take every possible thing into consideration would mean you would never make any decision. You would be frozen like rabbits in car headlights, quite possibly with the same result. Holism, in the strictest sense, is not even an ideal.

Perhaps more than any other area of social inquiry, the systems field provides a wealth of approaches that address the conundrum of keeping the big in mind when you can only handle the small. Together the systems tools, methods, and approaches in this book address the world in all its diversity and unknowingness in ways that are practical, comprehensive, and wise.

However, using these tools purely mechanically misses the point. It is how they are used that makes them systemic. Richard Bawden (2007) distinguishes between thinking systemically and being systemic. We think this is a useful distinction that will help you apply the various approaches in this book to your own situations.

THINKING SYSTEMICALLY

The previous section could be taken to imply that systems are wholly physical entities: fixed, universally acknowledged, largely undisputed, and mostly self-evident. Rather like that apple …

However, you will notice already in this book that we sometimes refer to systems and sometimes refer to situations. That is because some argue that systems do not exist in any absolute, preordained sense. Instead, they argue that a system is a human construct—quite literally a mental construction that permits us to comprehend more clearly what is going on. So, if we were to sit down and define what your health system looked like, or what your education system or maybe even your neighbor's plumbing system looked like, it is highly unlikely we would come up with identical descriptions. This difference is unlikely to be purely a matter of observation or definition. Even if we agreed on what constituted a knowledge management system, we would almost certainly come up with a different answer about your knowledge management system. There are many cognitive, social, cultural, pragmatic, and conceptual reasons for this, but all lead to the same conclusion. Our system is never going to be the same as yours.

So thinking systemically is about making sense of the world rather than merely describing it. It is fundamentally a sense-making process that organizes the messiness of the real world into concepts and components that allow us to understand things a bit better. To return to the apple, while an apple may look the same to you and me, we may well make sense of what that apple is for a range of reasons that this section will describe.

As we suggested in the preceding chapter, we find that the best means of understanding what is involved in thinking systemically is through three concepts or elements: interrelationships, perspectives, and boundaries.

Interrelationships

Interrelationship is the most familiar systems concept, partly because it is the oldest. The concept of how things are connected and with what consequence stems from the earliest writing about systems. It is also the concept most strongly embedded in popular imagination. When we talk about the filing system or the health system, the image we have in our minds is of a set of objects and processes that are interconnected in some way. The popularity of system dynamics (Chapter 2) with its boxes and arrows further cements the notion that interrelationships are an important systems concept.

Thinking systemically about interrelationships poses five main questions:

–  How do we make sense of the nature of the interrelationships within a situation?

–  How do we make sense of the structure of these interrelationships?

–  How do we make sense of the processes between them?

–  How do we make sense of the patterns that emerge from those processes, with what consequences, and for whom?

–  Why does this matter? To whom? In what context?

When addressing those questions, we need to consider the following aspects of interrelationships:

–  Dynamic aspects, the way the interrelationships affect behavior of a situation over a period of time

–  Nonlinear aspects, where the scale of effect is apparently unrelated to the scale of the cause; often but not always caused by feedback

–  Sensitivity of interrelationships to context, where the same intervention in different areas has varying results, making it unreliable to translate a best practice from one area to another

–  Massively entangled interrelationships, distinguishing the behavior of simple, complicated, and complex interrelationships

Perspectives

Thinking systemically is more than making sense of the way that boxes and arrows fit together or how networks operate. Just deliberating on interconnections does not make an inquiry systemic. Thinking systemically includes how you look at the picture. When people observe the result of interrelationships, they will see, interpret, and make sense of those interrelationships in different ways. To return once again to our apple: if our perspective of an apple is as foodstuff, then its aroma, appearance, or nutritional benefits become relevant. On the other hand, if we use the apple as a projectile, then other interrelationships become relevant such as weight and form. Our judgment of the appropriate size may differ.

Thinking systemically about perspectives poses the following questions:

–  What are the different ways in which this situation can be understood?

–  How are these different understandings going to affect the way in which people judge the success of an endeavor?

–  How will people's different understandings affect their behavior, and thus the behavior of the situation, especially when things go wrong from their perspective? With what result and significance?

Addressing these questions requires us to consider three aspects of per s pectives:

First, it forces us to comprehend not only that a situation can be seen in different ways but that this will affect how you understand the system or situation. That is not an inherently radical idea; the notion of stakeholders and stakeholder interests has been around for a long time. However, thinking systemically pushes us further. We need to understand that different stakeholder groups may share the same perspective, and most importantly, any one stakeholder will hold several different perspectives, not all of which will be compatible with each other. For instance, we have never held a single unified view on any project we have been involved in, including this book. You could understand our desire to write this book from several perspectives: fame, fortune, seeking to make the world a better place, our own learning, improving the skills of our various professional colleagues, something fun to do in our spare time. If we were to review this book from each of these perspectives, we would almost certainly come up with different judgments of its worth.

There is a link between perspectives and motivation and between motivation and behavior. Think about how you handle someone approaching you in the street for money. Your decision to give her $5 will be the result of a complex set of internal arguments and trade-offs that can change in the time it takes for you to reach into your pocket. One of the authors was recently waiting for a bus in a depressed U.S. city. He was asked for a small amount of money and refused, thinking the person was begging. Once on the bus, he realized that the quirky fare structure meant that nobody had the right change and it was common practice for other passengers to supply the difference. Thus the initial request could be seen as both individual begging for individual gain and a collective means of handling the eccentricities of the fare structure. In other words, understanding perceptions is important at a behavioral level. Perceptions are more than how people look at a situation; these perceptions generate behaviors that impact on the way the situation operates. Multiply these individual trade-offs up to a family, group, or organizational level, and it is no wonder that situations do not always behave in the way we expect. Thinking systemically about perspectives will help us make sense of those individual, diverse, and unintended behaviors.

Second, perspectives importantly draw the focus away from the system or situation as it supposedly exists in real life and allow us to consider alternatives: what it might be like, could be like, or even should be like. Or how different people imagine how it might be like. When this notion was introduced into the systems field in the late 1960s, it substantially widened the field's scope. Not only could you draw conclusions based on a study of the world as it is, but you could also compare alternative perceptions of what people think it is with what actually is, or with perceptions of what is or with what could be. The similarities and differences between perceptions of what is, what people think it is, and what people think it could be create puzzles and contradictions that can achieve deeper learning. Acknowledging perspectives also generates better insights into the actual behavior of programs in real life. That is because people usually behave on the basis of their perceptions of what is or what could be rather than some official line imposed by someone else. Thus thinking systemically about perspectives gives us a window into motivations through which we can explain and predict unanticipated behaviors. It acknowledges the reality that it is people who make things work, not some imagined logic or management edict.

Finally, perspectives helps us deal with interrelationships that are massively entangled. When observing a situation, one person might see it as simple, another as complicated, and yet another as complex (see Chapter 10). Many disagreements in organizations over what to do about something can be traced back to different perceptions of what is going on. Each person's observation may well be accurate, yet because the way each person sees it is different, each person's way of addressing the situation will be different. In principle, everyone is right—but only within the limits of his or her own perspective. Thus thinking systemically about perspectives shifts the focus from seeking patterns and solving issues on the basis of what happened before or somewhere else, toward seeking puzzles and creating new possibilities from what had been contradictions. Thinking systemically forces us to do what we are not always good at: that is, identifying the assumptions we make when we observe and make sense of a situation. We intuitively put ourselves, our values, our beliefs at the center of the analysis. Instead, thinking systemically forces you into being an observer of your own mind and your own behavior.

Boundaries

As we stated earlier, the popular idea that thinking systemically is about wholes has a major snag. We cannot think about everything; setting boundaries around our thinking is not optional. We make situations manageable by setting boundaries.

So what are the constituents of boundaries, and how can we think systemically about them? In the simplest form, a boundary differentiates between what is in and what is out. Thus a boundary determines what is deemed relevant and irrelevant, what is important and what is unimportant, what is worthwhile and what is not, who gets what kind of resources for what purpose and whose interests are marginalized, who benefits and who is disadvantaged. Boundaries are the sites where values get played out and disagreements are highlighted. Boundaries also determine how we approach a situation, what we expect from it, and what methods we might use to manage it.

Power issues are often wrapped up in boundaries. Just as the person with the magic marker controls what goes on the whiteboard, the person whose perspective dominates a project decides the boundaries. While it is fine to map relationships and it may be fine to acknowledge that there will be different perspectives on those relationships, those relationships and perspectives are not neutral; someone somewhere decides which are most important. Boundaries therefore form an important aspect of thinking systemically, posing the following questions:

–  How is a situation being framed? In other words, who is drawing what kind of boundary?

–  What are the practical and ethical consequences of this framing, and what do those consequences imply for action?

The subfield of critical systems (see Chapter 19) takes these issues very seriously indeed. It highlights three core boundary issues:

–  Marginalization. As soon as you draw a boundary, you marginalize what is outside that boundary. The marginalization might be profound, or it might be (to you, anyway) relatively unimportant. But thinking systemically about boundaries will always focus on the process of marginalization.

–  Ethical aspects. There are ethical dimensions of setting boundaries, and by setting a boundary in a particular position, you may exacerbate social or other injustices. Thinking systemically provides ways of exploring what those might be, as well as whether and how to address those consequences..

–  Practical aspects. For every action, there is a reaction. Excluding a viewpoint, an institution, or a person when drawing a boundary invites a response. That response may not be in your interests; indeed, it may well undermine everything you do. Thinking systemically provides ways of exploring what those reactions might be and how to manage, neutralize, or accommodate them.

BEING SYSTEMIC

In talking to people about systems ideas over the years, we are struck with how many people feel uncomfortable with the consequences of thinking systemically. If describing systems is essentially a way of observing the world and thinking systemically is essentially making sense of the world, then being systemic is an orientation toward the world. It is about the way we engage with situations. Although the systems field is a deeply practical field, many find systems ideas disturbing and unsettling. Systems ideas confront our ideas about expertise, purpose, values, and certainty in ways that are often more emotional than cognitive. Some people are comfortable about these challenges and ambiguities, while others are not.

So what kind of orientations allow you to be systemic?

Be Reflective

There are many definitions and understandings of what it means to be reflective. At the core, it means observing yourself as others might. It means being aware of your assumptions, your mental models, and your values. It means seeking out ideas that contradict your own, engaging in those ideas, and making sense out of them. It means being very aware of how your own assumptions and values affect what you see and hear. It means checking constantly to see if the assumptions you are making are valid. It is a life of puzzling things through rather than always leaning back and grabbing what worked elsewhere. Above all, it implies a fundamental understanding of and skill using perspectives and boundaries.

Trust in Self-Organization

Treating every situation as if it were a simple system (i.e., linear, predictable in that the same input will always lead to identical output, managed by fixed roles and routines) is not uncommon. The way most organizations are formally structured and supposedly run is based on that world view, the desire to control. There is nothing inherently wrong in a desire to control. Most of us are very happy that certain aspects of organizations, like payroll, are not allowed to self-organize. But there are benefits from allowing certain situations to self-organize. To allow that to happen, you have to work in a slightly different way. Self-organization does not just happen; you have to set the conditions for self-organization—and then breathe through your nose and allow it to happen.

But what is self-organization? Is it just a directionless ramble, disorder rather than order? Or is it something more manageable?

One of the tools in this book explicitly focuses on these questions (see Chapter 8), but in the meantime, here is an introduction to the notion of self-organization.

The unpredictability yet relative stability of complex adaptive systems results from their specific capacity to self-organize. Complex adaptive systems maintain their structure by continuously renewing their elements in a process of self-creation (autopoesis), for which they only dispose of their own operations (operational closure). This is the mechanism that brings forth self-referential behavior, that is, the tendency to focus on internal structures and processes. But systems are not entirely closed off from their context; they are linked to their environment—including other systems. Thus systems and their context mutually influence each other; they continuously adapt and co-evolve.

Therefore, the behavior of complex adaptive systems is determined by both their internal structure and contextual relations. Change can be induced from the outside, but these contextual influences do not result in uniform, predictable output; as these external perturbations are ambivalent, they can be both disturbing and the source of further development. They are modified and rearranged in line with the system's internal state and structure. The resulting behavior can be explained neither by the external influences on the system nor by its internal states alone, but through the interaction of both. So having trust in self-organization is about paying attention for emerging patterns and responding to them.

Assume Evolution

Self-organization assumes development, that is, the gradual transformation of situations through their capacity to produce and reproduce structures that are capable of dealing better with changes in the environment.

The appearance of new structures, patterns, and properties during the process of self-organization is called emergence. This can take place when a number of interrelated elements or systems form a new and more complex collective behavior. Emergence often does not take place continuously, but can come rather suddenly and represents a new level of a system's evolution. Emergent properties are not the properties of any single element, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from their behavior; they are the result of their complex interaction.

For instance, the evolution of self-organizing systems can be characterized by a succession of distinctive properties. Reflective systems mirror changes of their environment and determine the impact of external influences. Autopoetic systems recognize which external factors are good for their existence; they are capable of analyzing their environment and constructing models. And recreative systems are capable of defining their own goals and taking measures for achieving them, thus consciously influencing their environment.

Act in a Responsible Manner

In simple systems, where the relationship between cause and effect is clear and predictable, the notion of accountability and blame at the individual level is plausible and valid. For complicated and complex systems, the notion of I am accountable to should be replaced by I feel responsibility for.

Our behavior is based on decisions taken as a result of value-laden judgments, and the values of individuals are in turn influenced by the social groups in which we grew up and were socialized. The values that guide our behavior are controlled by our consciousness, the link between us and the groups to which we are attached. This relation works both ways: we feel guilty when acting against the rules established for a group, and the group transfers the responsibility upon individuals to act in line with (or at least not against) the principles of the group and for its benefit.

Individual accountability makes it possible to blame someone for undesired consequences, even though in many cases it is a gross simplification to single out individual actions from a range of factors. Such well-established, simplistic patterns tempt us to think in linear categories (cause and effect, culprit and victim), even in cases where manifold influences would require more profound and sophisticated approaches. Since our actions become more and more entangled, we need to move on from using only simplistic cause-and-effect thinking. In more complex situations, every interaction can be both cause and effect and does not only work one way.

In contrast with being held accountable, responsibility can be regarded in a circular manner, by connecting individual actions between them and with the wider context. On one hand, the transfer of specific tasks and the attribution of consequences for these actions should always acknowledge a wider range of factors or influences, but on the other hand, every individual should assume their own responsibility before blaming others. When seen in this interlinked way, all involved actors in a social system are responsible for a given problem—and for finding solutions (but of course with differences in power, resources, etc.). No one is to be singled out and blamed individually; instead, the aim is to become aware of mutual interdependence and respective tasks or capacities.

Be a Part of the World

Being systemic is about balancing on the edge of reality and meaning. Yes, there is an objective reality, but we all gain meaning from it in different ways. Furthermore, reality is bounded; we experience only one specific part of reality. We are often not aware of the blind spots, because we don't see what we don't see. Interactions in social systems are the results of actions and the meaning attributed to them observed with others, who in turn are observing others. As an observer, you construct a frame of reference, an internal map, consistent with your orientation.

Systemic family therapy was one of the first applications of systems thinking for inducing social change. These therapists made explicit use of the links between the reality constructions, emotional well-being, and capacity for action of their clients. Their approaches dismissed the intention to reveal truth; instead, they took their clients' model of the world as granted and used it to achieve intended change. In doing so, it was not important to thoroughly understand how the intervention worked, as long as the defined goal was reached (e.g., mental well-being, family consensus).

Being part of the world also implies that you as an observer are part of the system. The notion of an observer being uninvolved or outside the boundary of what he or she is observing is inconsistent with being systemic. As consult ants, teachers, evaluators, and researchers, our very presence makes a difference to the situation we are supposedly observing.

Act Circular

Circularity means that a system's operations are interconnected, and thus the result of one operation leads to other operations within the same system. But as we mentioned earlier, every system is also connected to its respective environment and therefore has to reach beyond such operative closure.

All living (e.g., social) systems possess an inherent paradox: the contradiction between closure (= self-referential, autonomous) and openness (= structurally linked to their context). Living systems can neither be reduced to their internal dynamics nor be completely controlled from the outside. Any attempt to overcome this paradox in a directive manner (e.g., through external force or hierarchic orders) can be ineffective beyond simple systems because such an attempt threatens the system's identity and reinforces its defensive structures. Complicated and complex systems can therefore best be influenced in an indirect manner, and external interventions are most effective when they build on their capacity for self-organization.

We can train for this by mentally stepping inside systems, learning about their structure and processes, and discovering the rules that steer their behavior. Or on more general terms, by assuming various positions or roles and seeing the world from these different perspectives. Being conscious and responsible for our boundary decisions.

In other words, welcome to our book.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Bawden, Richard. 2007. A systemic evaluation of an agricultural development: A focus on the worldview challenge. In Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology, ed. Bob Williams and Iraj Imam. Point Reyes, CA: EdgePress / American Evaluation Association.

Three books provide excellent historical overviews of systems ideas. They are: Jackson, Michael C. 2003. Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. New York: Wiley.

Midgley, Gerald. 2000. Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Ramage, Magnus, and Karen Shipp. 2009. Systems thinkers. London: Springer.

PART ONE

DESCRIBING AND ANALYZING SITUATIONS

There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

Oscar Wilde

1

CAUSAL LOOP DIAGRAMS

What are the key variables in the situation that interests us?

How do they link to each other?

How do they affect each other? Does each variable have a reinforcing or dampening effect on the variables to which it is