Improve Change Success by Redefining What We're Changing

Most change efforts assume there are complicated, but clear cause-and-effect (linear) relationships that can be managed and controlled. Yet, most of our change efforts involve complex systems within complex systems.

Despite sincere efforts, the misunderstand of the systems and their dynamics results in high failure rates:

• Many organizational change initiatives assume that the ‘right’ processes, communication and training are sufficient. Yet two-thirds of organizational change initiatives fall short or fail.
• Managers often rely on their role power to get their employees to change behaviour. Yet surveys consistently show the majority of employees are not engaged in their work, largely because of "controlling bosses”. 
• People often try to change personal habits by relying on willpower or strict discipline. Many personal behaviour change efforts fail, and many result in many failures and restarts before any success is achieved. This can be devastating for a person.

Given the many well-intentioned efforts that fail, isn't it time to rethink our perspectives related to creating change?

Change is rarely a linear processes. Most change efforts involve complex and interrelated systems. In complex, interrelated systems, we control very few things, However, if we understand the systems and their dynamics, we can understand where we have influence.

If we understand both the nature and the dynamics of the systems we want to change, we can dramatically improve our success.

HUMANS, TEAMS AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE COMPLEX, INTERDEPENDENT, EVOLVING SYSTEMS

Every company is made up of departments / teams, which are made up of individuals. How each system behaves, is a function of its own internal dynamics and its relationship with other systems.

• Individuals are complex beings (systems) with knowledge, experience, interests, intuition, body systems, emotions, behaviours, etc. Each of us has fairly consistent behaviour, however, it may not always be obvious why we behave the way we do in each situation. Each person / stakeholder has different interests, and possibly competing interests. However, the cooperation and collaboration of stakeholders is essential to successful organizational change.
• Each team is another complex system made up of complex systems (people) with many layers of dynamics (eg process, power, relationships, etc).
• The organization, the industry and the broader environment are all systems that are fluid amalgamations of various complex systems. And there are a range of dynamics within and across these systems.

For organizations to succeed, people and teams inside and outside the organization must cooperate and collaborate appropriately. For example, individuals or teams have different (usually unique) roles and interests. Those roles and interests can be aligned, misaligned or independent of each other. The more effective the alignment of the stakeholders, the better their relevant cooperation and collaboration.

The functions and relationships of systems are in a constant state of flux, and therefore, alignment is constantly in flux. There are always changes somewhere that trigger changes through the systems which ripple through other systems. In response, some systems try to maintain a stable state (equilibrium or status quo), while other systems leverage the opportunity for change (usually some type of growth).

• Simple systems and their dynamics are like billiard balls bumping up against each other or like Bubble screen savers.
• Complicated systems and their dynamics are like Melody Yang’s magical “bubble carousel” and “bubble planets” (start at 3:53). Creating the amazing bubble art work requires leveraging the dynamics of several systems through their states of flux (eg mastery of fluid dynamics in the environment, etc).
• Complex systems and their dynamics are all the political, economic, social, environmental and technological forces over decades that culminated in the creation of the bubble screen savers and/or the creation of Melody Yang's amazing family bubble business.

Changing simple and complicated systems is usually a process of mechanical and linear efforts. However, most of the changes we are trying to make are in complex systems (humans / teams / organizations / the larger environment). Because humans are at the centre of each of these systems, most of our change efforts must be focused on the complex humans and their dynamics.

TO CHANGE HUMANS, WE MUST WORK WITH THEIR WHOLE SYSTEM

Attempting to manage or control complex, interdependent, constantly evolving systems will lead to disappointment. It is the equivalent of fighting the laws of physics and the laws of nature. Physics and nature will always win in the end.

Instead, we should focus on understanding the functions, relationships and dynamics of systems so we can learn where we have influence. This means we need to be conscious of how we define the systems – how we draw boundaries around the systems. We need to be conscious from which perspectives we are looking at the system.

For example, if we believe humans are cognitive creatures, then we believe that the brain supersedes all other human functions. In this system definition, we believe that cognitive and logical effort allows us to control our thoughts, behaviours, emotions and bodily needs. Leveraging the power of our cognition has allowed us to create amazing things. However, decades of behaviour modification efforts have proven a cognitive approach does not work for behaviour change.

We can moderate our behaviour with cognitive processes; however, our bodies actually determine our behaviours.

• Through our senses, our bodies constantly perceive the external environment (the threats and opportunities from other systems).
• Our non-conscious physiological processes (central nervous system, body and brain) interpret that information (based on past experiences and learning) and trigger various chemical and hormonal processes that result in our emotions and non-conscious responses. 
• Our bodies react long before our conscious processes are even aware there is a need for action; this is what has allowed us to survive and thrive as a species. But in urbanized environments, these automatic reactions can also create problems.

We have limited control over our body systems in the short term, however, we can learn to work with our bodies and gain a lot of information and insights by developing body-wisdom.

To understand how to influence human systems we need to think about how we are defining human systems. If our perspective is too focused on humans as logical, cognitive systems, we assume people who don’t support our initiatives are simply choosing not to. However, if we define humans as physiological systems (which includes cognitive processes), then our approach to change is different.

To allow physiological systems to engage in collaboration and change, we need to think about the interpretation and learning processes, belief systems and identities, and the nervous system response.

COLLABORATIVE SYSTEMS NEED THE RIGHT CONDITIONS 

Another example of how we need to be conscious of system boundaries is how we define cooperation and collaboration. Cooperation is dividing up and sharing work, usually based on each person's role. Cooperation is appropriate in many circumstances, but it does not tap into the strengths, experiences and perspectives of the unique individuals in teams.

Collaboration requires multiple unique/diverse, complex human systems to engage in creative conflict and to explore, challenge the status quo, fail, learn and grow. It is an organic process that allows healthy connections, tensions and synergies to flourish among the many different systems involved in innovation and transformation. People who have worked in collective flow states, or high-performance teams describe a transcendence – it is almost like each person merges slightly with the others to form a collective entity.

Research on trees might help us visualize a collaborative system. Trees support other trees and other beneficial species by combining and sharing their root systems through which they can redistribute food, water, protective chemicals and information. The boundaries between trees can be blurry: where does each individual tree stop and start? And where does the collective begin? Similarly, the boundaries between individuals in collaboration may be difficult to define.

Because of this flow state that results in blurry boundaires, collaboration cannot be mandated.

Hierarchical or power-based approaches (ie managing and controlling) result in cooperation at best, and disengagement, self-protection and destructive conflict at worst. False team harmony (ie obedience) squelches the organic curiousity, questioning of the status quo, and growth-mindsets necessary for collaboration.

But leaders can create conditions that influence and foster people to engage in collaboration. Research on flow states and high-functioning teams shows collaboration thrives in an environment (system) where separate, unique/diverse physiological human systems are willing, able and engaged.

1. Willing (trust and alignment)

• What is the quality and impact of communication? (eg do people really believe what they are hearing, do people feel they are heard, etc)
• Are the change initiatives appropriately aligned with the interests of the individuals and teams?
• Does the change conflict in some way with individuals' belief systems or identities?

2. Able (competencies and resources)

• Is the training only at a cognitive level (technical/explicit) or also supporting physiological learning processes (experiential/implicit)?
• Is there an appropriate sense of physical and psychological safety (ie trust)? Is there a sense of fairness in the power dynamics?
• Do all stakeholders have growth mindsets (ie the willingness and ability to learn and change)? Is there a growth mindset culture in the organization?

3. Engaged in achieving a shared vision/purpose.

• Are the interests of the various individuals and teams appropriately aligned with the organization?
• Are the change initiatives appropriately aligned with the perceived interests of the organization?

DEFINING THE SYSTEMS AND THEIR DYNAMICS LEADS TO MORE VALUABLE CHANGE

Change initiatives often focus on the mechanical activities such as formal structures and power, hierarchy, technical communication and training, discipline and willpower. But change initiatives often fail because we are not linear, and neither are the systems we live and work in.

As humans, we are complex systems that interact with the systems around us. Teams and organizations are amalgamations of complex systems. These systems nested within and around other systems have lots of complex dynamics due to the constant state of flux created as each system tries to remain the same or grow in response to other systems changing.

To create successful change in these dynamic and complex situations, we need to understand how to adopt different perspectives to define systems differently (recognizing multiple definitions or boundaries for each system). With different definitions, we can better identify the things we can actually control, the many things we can influence, and the things that control or influence our systems. In reality, most of our ability to change something lies in our ability to influence by creating trust, by aligning stakeholders, and by fostering collaboration.

It is challenging to shift from a linear perspective to a system thinking perspective. However, once we develop the habit and the skills to do so, we will notice things that were previously invisible to us. And once we better understand how and why things happen (or not) we will be able to foster much more effective change personally, in our teams, and in our organizations.