Applying Systems Thinking and
Common Archetypes to Organizational Issues

Module 2: Organizational Learning and Systems Thinking Framework

Module Summary

This module supports the course objectives to deepen your understanding of Systems Thinking and its applicability, and to learn a new language to communicate more effectively about complex problems.

You should be able to:

  • Identify the characteristics of organizational learning and the role of Systems Thinking in enhancing collective intelligence.
  • Describe the discipline of Systems Thinking.
  • Look at situations from the perspectives of events, patterns, and structure using the iceberg model.


The Characteristics of Organizational Learning

We are defining organizational learning as the ability to "continually expand the capacity for creating the future." In other words, reliably producing desired results is evidence of organizational learning. The ability to produce results can be described as a mastery of "creative tension" or maintaining clarity and attention on both desired results (vision) and reality.

The basic quality of learning organizations is that they are vision-driven. Aspiration is the primary motivator in contrast to organizations that primarily react to their circumstances.

Alignment around a shared vision provides a context for learning and for collaboration. This is not to say that conflict is absent; in fact, organizational learning can produce significant differences of opinion about the appropriate course of action. However, the recognition that this diversity generally produces superior thinking and outcomes dramatically reduces unproductive competition.

Aspiration and collaboration make it possible for organizations to develop and maintain a strategic and systemic orientation to change and complexity. This practice stands in contrast to approaches where short-term results are always the highest priority, information is shared on a need-to-know basis, and where work is defined in narrow, functional terms. Aspiration supports a strong future orientation; collaboration fosters a comprehensive understanding of past, present, and future reality, and insight about how to realize the vision. From a systemic orientation, all members are encouraged to build a deep understanding of the work of the organization; conversation is dominated around inquiry into how to improve system performance and achieve desired results rather than an inquisition about how to assign blame for problems.

The Discipline of Systems Thinking

The practice of Systems Thinking is a focus on the "what" and "why" of current reality over time, across organizational functions and levels, and through various levels of structure in order to effectively and efficiently achieve the results we desire.

The discipline of Systems Thinking is particularly useful in generating new approaches to chronic problems. It illuminates the choices embedded in complex circumstances, their likely results and unintended consequences. Systems Thinking can also be used in planning, to identify and reinforce engines of growth, to design investment policies, and to anticipate possible limits to success.

Systems Thinking is a discipline of collective inquiry rather than individual analysis. It enhances collaboration by creating a forum for multiple perspectives; the techniques assume that recognizing these differences is an essential part of generating new approaches to chronic problems.

In the process, Systems Thinking requires us to consider how we are part of the problems we are trying to solve. While recognizing our own contributions is sometimes discouraging, it also reinforces the validity of aspiration - we have a powerful effect on producing the results we want.

The Iceberg Model: Events-Patterns-Structure

We use an iceberg to remind us of the basic steps of Systems Thinking because, like an iceberg, much of the relevant structure of interest to us lies beneath the surface.

Events are like the tip of the iceberg. They are most easily observed and tend to get our attention. A set of events creates a story about a situation of interest. However, a perspective that only includes events limits our response to a reaction after the events have occurred.

When we step back and observe many events, patterns emerge. In particular, we are interested in the trends over time of performance measures and our efforts to change them. A perspective that includes patterns as well as events allows us to anticipate events and act in advance to produce the results we want.

A systems view leads us to ask about the cause of the patterns. The basic premise of Systems Thinking is that structure determines performance. Structure can be tangible or intangible. We are most interested in the relationship among elements of structure that lead to observable patterns, and ultimately to specific events. A perspective that includes structure allows us to anticipate patterns and events in a different way because we now have an idea about the source of these patterns. As a consequence, we may also be able to redesign the structure to produce the desired results.

Each perspective is valuable. The ability to react to events is a critical survival skill. However if all we do is react to events, we spend an enormous amount of energy but don't necessarily get the results we want. A systems view that includes an understanding of structure creates the potential for higher-leverage strategies leading to improved performance.

There are many tools and practices that enhance our understanding of structure. One of the unique attributes of this approach to Systems Thinking is attention to the interaction between intangible structures (values and beliefs) and more tangible structures (organizational policies and choices). In this framework, leverage for change exists at the deepest level of structure we can affect. The bad news is that these changes may require a significant overhaul of our thinking; the good news is that they can often be made fairly quickly and with little expense. In many situations, more conventional redesign may be needed too, but the odds of successful implementation increase significantly when accompanied by the change of intangible structures.