Systems Thinking

This is a chapter from The Amplio Consultant Educators Toolkit. The book covers the content aspects of Amplio University - a new type of live, affordable training.

This chapter is modified from the corresponding chapter in Al Shalloway and Paula Stewart 's book Being an Effective Value Coach: Leading by Creating Value.

Systems Thinking (cc)

“Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing ‘patterns of change’ rather than ‘static snapshots.” – Peter Senge

“A bad system will beat a good person every time.” – W. Edwards Deming????????????????????

In this section, we discuss the importance of systems thinking. Understanding the ecosystem in which organizational transformation occurs allows you to anticipate the effects of change. It helps you determine where best to start in a particular context. It also provides a more holistic approach where you consider the entire ecosystem, not just one part.

There are several salient aspects of systems and, therefore of systems thinking that must be attended to:

• Systems are more about the relationships between their components than the components themselves.
• Systems must be looked at from a holistic perspective.
• Changes in one part of a system may affect other seemingly unrelated, parts. This implies that optimizing the parts may lead to adversely affecting the performance of the overall system.
• Systems contain sub-systems and are themselves in larger systems.
• Systems are designed (intentionally or not) to create the behavior you see.
• Systems are responsible for most of the challenges in them. This includes the effect a culture has on an individual’s actions.
• If you want consistent behavior, have the system help create it, don’t expect people to do it.

Systems thinking is the foundation of Flow, Lean, and the Theory of Constraints.

Systems thinking begins with the idea that a system is not merely the sum of its components, but rather, the system reflects the relationship between them. Russ Ackoff talks about systems as being defined by the relationships between their components. Focusing on improving parts does not get you a good system.

For example, if you simply take the best parts of the best cars and put them together, you get a pile of junk. “Carness” is from how the parts work together, not the sum of the quality of the parts. We cannot take the best parts of the best cars and put them together. Quality of the parts does not mean anything if they don’t function together as a car. This is why local optimization in systems is often not useful.

When we view systems this way, we focus on the relationships between the components. We can create theories that explain behavior. We can see cause and effect. For example, delays in feedback enable mistakes we make that create waste. Working on too many things leads to multitasking context switching and causes delays in the workflow—all these delay feedback. Lack of alignment requires more coordination, which wastes time and causes delays. This results in a lack of focus on what is most valuable.

Systems thinking tells us that changing one part of a system can affect other parts. Small changes in one part of the system can significantly affect another.? Sometimes, the interactions between parts of the system are clear and predictable. Sometimes, they are not. When these interactions are too intricate to understand, we call them “complex interactions.” Systems with a significant number of complex interactions are called “complex systems.” Knowledge work by its nature is complex. And although it is not often possible to predict how changes to one aspect of a system will impact the system as a whole there are patterns that enable us to understand how changes will affect the whole.

The interactions of the sub-components of a system is one reason why local optimizations often result in adverse global effects. We must be careful when making local changes as they may result in global problems.

We will discuss how complex systems demand quick feedback if we are to be able to make changes effectively and efficiently.

Common and special cause - how systems thinking tells us where to look when a problem occurs

It is natural to look for someone to blame when something goes wrong. Parents, friends, and society train us to do this. A lamp gets knocked down, and the first question is who is responsible. Mud gets tracked into the house, and “Who did this!” inevitably ensues. We learn that someone or something is to blame when something goes wrong.

We’ve seen this in the pre-agile space where significant time was taken to create and maintain detailed plans months and sometimes longer in advance, not kept, and executives and managers both suggested that “if they (the project team) only did what we asked, this would all be working out. Shades of today when a team doesn’t work well and proponents of an approach state that “if they’d only follow what we told them it’d all work out.”

But it’s not that simple.

One of the biggest insights Deming gives us with this systems thinking approach is that most errors are due to the system people work in rather than the people themselves.

“94% of the reasons for failure are deficiencies in the systems and process rather than the employee.” W. Edwards Deming.

Systems thinking also tells us if we have similar systems, we’ll get similar behaviors.

Deming talked about two types of errors:

●????? Common cause errors

●????? Special cause errors

In essence, common cause errors, also called “natural patterns,” are the inevitable result of the ecosystem people are in. No amount of cajoling or trying to motivate people will overcome these. Special causes, on the other hand, are one-offs that may be due to people, equipment, unique situations, or other issues.

Trying to improve people when a common cause error occurs is pointless. One must attend to the ecosystem. When different teams have the same challenge with an approach, you can be pretty sure it’s the approach, not the people.

We must ask, “Why are they having problems?” and adjust the ecosystem.

A lot of time and money is spent attempting to change people when the source of the problem is the ecosystem people are working in.

Coaches should look for these errors and similar errors on other teams. You can learn from other teams’ challenges and your own. You need to take advantage of being able to observe other teams in the same organization. Coaches who take the time to discover these errors and their impact on multiple teams are looking in the right place. With leaders encouraging them, global changes in the system can be made, there is a significant positive impact, and an organization creates high-performing teams efficiently.

Systems thinking tells us to look for “common cause” errors. That is, errors the ecosystem is generating. Telling people to do better or be more motivated when they are not the source of the problem reduces psychological safety and may increase resistance.

Eliminating assumptions and starting with observation and questions will provide the most workable practices in any context.? If a methodology works well with one team but not another, look for differences. There are many possible reasons, some of which are legitimate, including the level of team maturity, organizational barriers, the type of work being done, the maturity of product management, and digital capabilities. One hallmark of an effective coach is their ability to discover and identify root cause.

When everybody has the problem, the problem isn’t with everybody.

Systems thinking in knowledge work

Systems thinking suggests we look at all aspects of knowledge work. This means we look at the people doing the work, the customers, the other stakeholders, management, workflow, everything.?All aspects of a system are interconnected. None is totally unimportant, and none is the only one of importance. When we see people and teams as the source of problems, we often miss the actual cause. People are, of course, critical. However, the ecosystem within which people work affects their behavior. In Amplio, it may appear that we are over-emphasizing the process. But Amplio believes a balance between all these factors must be achieved. Any failure in one factor will likely lower the effectiveness of the system.

The importance of systems thinking

Since most errors are due to the system, not the individual people in the system:

1. We must consider how people will react to our approach. This is particularly true if people consistently misunderstand the approach, misuse it, or can’t get it to work regularly.
2. Common challenges should be considered a direct result of the approach's design. We modified the approach to minimize common challenges.
3. Changes must be made considering the whole system's context.
4. If we optimize a part of the system without considering how it will affect the entire system, a sub-optimization that harms the overall system will likely result.
5. Leaders can make a significant impact by ensuring their coaches have full information and can see the entire system.

Recognizing that systems are the cause of most errors and that we’ll look to the system before looking to blame people creates safety.

Additional Resource: What if Russ Ackoff Gave a Ted Talk