Applying Systems Thinking and
Common Archetypes to Organizational Issues

Module 2: Organizational Learning and Systems Thinking Framework

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: What is the right amount of creative tension?

Answer: Creative tension is simply the gap between what you want and what you've got. For all of us under certain conditions, this gap creates psychological tension. Generally speaking, it is NOT productive to reduce creative tension as a response to psychological discomfort, because the only way to do this is to not tell the truth about either what we truly want, or the way things are now. There are two situations where you might find it helpful to reduce creative tension; to balance short-term and long-term focus; and to establish a goal that everyone on a team can support.

Let's say I have a vision that exceeds the time I expect to serve in a particular assignment. It's fine for me to have a long-term goal to which I want to contribute, but it would also be appropriate to define my vision for next week, next month, next year. All of these would be examples of creative tension that would be less than the original statement because they are bound by time or what I can directly influence. This creative tension still honestly represents what I want. Bounding the situation in this way can be a good technique to coach others so that they become comfortable with establishing and maintaining creative tension.

The other situation where you might find it appropriate to reduce creative tension is to arrive at a common set of goals for a team. While individuals can always aspire to more than the team has agreed to achieve, it usually doesn't work for the team to aspire to more than the commitment of many of its members. The process of defining shared vision is iterative. Over time, those who have larger aspirations can enroll others in their vision, or join a new organization that more closely matches their own aspirations.

Question: Are there only five organizational learning disciplines?

Answer: Probably not. However, the special contribution of this model is attention to systems and structures. With the exception of the work of W.Edwards Deming and his successors in Total Quality Management, most models of organizational effectiveness include attention to a common vision and teamwork, but overlook the role of structure and design on results.

Question: Is Systems Thinking just another problem solving methodology?

Answer: Systems Thinking can definitely be used to solve problems, but we believe that Systems Thinking is more about problem anticipation and problem finding. Some people have referred to this as "problem appreciation." This understanding of the situation can ultimately lead to effective solutions. In addition, Systems Thinking is best thought of as a method of COLLECTIVE inquiry into complex system dynamics.

Question: You're defining structure quite broadly. Is there anything that's not structure?

Answer: Structure is not events and patterns. In most organizations, the question is always: Is it the individual, or is it the structure? When there is a performance issue (either good or bad), the blame or credit usually goes to the individual. Structure is much more important than we typically acknowledge. From our experience, different people in the same structure produce QUALITATIVELY similar results. Quantitative differences are clearly a function of experience, skill, and other personal differences, but the effects of structure are pervasive.

Question: Do the steps of System Thinking need to be done in order?

Answer: No, but it is important to do them all. Systems Thinking is really an iterative process. For example, our hypotheses about structure may suggest important patterns that we had not previously identified. This observation then informs our data collection. If the data we find is different from what we expected, we need to revise our hypothesis about the structure, and so on.