Tag: STiP

TB872: Projectification and an apartheid of the emotions

Posted on December 12, 2023May 1, 2024 by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

This abstract, 16:9 format image captures the essence of 'projectification' and the 'apartheid of the emotions'. It features a juxtaposition of rigid, geometric shapes symbolizing the structured and systematic approach of projectification, against a backdrop of fluid, organic forms or colors representing the realm of human emotions. These elements are distinctly separated, highlighting the division between the orderly, project-driven world and the dynamic, emotional human experience. The overall composition conveys a sense of tension between these contrasting aspects, encapsulated within a conceptual art style.

At the start of Chapter 9 of Ray Ison’s book Systems Practice: How to Act, he outlines “four contemporary settings that constrain the emergence of systems practice”:

The pervasive target mentality that has arisen in many countries and contexts
Living in a ‘projectified world’
‘Situation framing’ failure
An apartheid of the emotions

The chapter really put into words for me something I’ve felt throughout my career around targets, projects, and the (supposed) benefits of an ultra-rationalistic approach.

My argument put simply is that the proliferation of targets and the project as social technologies (or institutional arrangements) undermines our collective ability to engage with uncertainty and manage our own co-evolutionary dynamic with the biosphere and with each other. This is exacerbated by an institutionalised failure to realise that we have choices that can be made as to how to frame situations. And that the framing choices we make, or do not make, have consequences. In doing what we do we are also constrained by the institutionalisation of an intellectual apartheid in which appreciation and understanding of the emotions is cut off from practical action and daily discourse.
Ison, R. (2017) Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. p.225. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.

To some extent, this links to my voodoo categorisation post, something I discussed as a guest on a recent podcast episode. In that case, the ‘voodoo’ comes from the assumption that creating an ontology and then manipulating it will make a change in the ‘real world’. With Ison’s framing, the ‘voodoo’ comes from targets (e.g. KPIs) which are the results of projects. Without reference to humans as social, emotional animals, nor to the way a situation is framed making a difference both to the start and the end point, real harm can be (and often is) done.

This is probably another good place to embed Prof. Stein Ringen’s RSA talk about systemic failures in UK governance:

Change doesn’t happen just because someone has a cool idea or an organisation has some money to spend. Real change, to quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail, comes from a mandate from the masses. In this case, stakeholder and user buy-in, based on shared understandings and an acknowledgement of relationships and emotions.

Ison points out that government ministers and bureaucrats often use the term ‘systemic failure’ to wash their hands of responsibility. As he says, without being able to explain how the systemic failure came to happen, it’s a subtle way of distancing themselves from their participation in the system.

He cites a 2009 article by Simon Caulkin in The Guardian, which has helped me realise just how problematic targets in large organisations can be:

Target-driven organisations are institutionally witless because they face the wrong way: towards ministers and target-setters, not customers or citizens. Accusing them of neglecting customers to focus on targets, as a report on Network Rail did just two weeks ago, is like berating cats for eating small birds. That’s what they do. Just as inevitable is the spawning of ballooning bureaucracies to track performance and report it to inspectorates that administer what feels to teachers, doctors and social workers increasingly like a reign of fear.

If people experience services run on these lines as fragmented, bureaucratic and impersonal, that’s not surprising, since that’s what they are set up to be. Paul Hodgkin, the Sheffield GP who created NHS feedback website Patient Opinion… notes that the health service has been engineered to deliver abstract meta-goals such as four-hour waiting times in A&E and halving MRSA – which it does, sort of – but not individual care, which is what people actually experience. Consequently, even when targets are met, citizens detect no improvement. Hence the desperate and depressing ministerial calls for, in effect, new targets to make NHS staff show compassion and teachers teach interesting lessons.

What’s doubly-interesting is that my sister works for Care Opinion (which is the new name for Patient Opinion). I shall be discussing this with her!

In my own career, I’ve seen as a teacher how promises made by government ministers filter down and become an extra tick box on a scheme of work. I’ve seen in tech organisations how the introduction of OKRs mean that people spend less time actually getting anything done. And, as a consultant, I’ve seen plenty of examples of organisations who are more interested in hitting targets so their board gives them less of a tough time, rather than actually serving their audience.

Why are targets so problematic? Ison lists three reasons:

Targets often lack flexibility and don’t adapt well to changing circumstances.
Creating targets is easy, but monitoring and enforcing them is challenging and costly, often only revealing their effectiveness after a failure occurs.
Targets can hinder the creation of locally tailored solutions and more effective performance indicators specific to a particular situation, issue, or concern.

He suggests that often, especially in the case of governments, targets are performative: “we’ve got a target for it, so we must be doing something about it!”. It’s hard not to think of the Tory rhetoric around ‘StOp ThE bOaTs’ which is essentially government by campaign leaflet. In my own life, it’s the never-ending call to “teach this stuff in school” — especially if it’s the kind of thing that was previously instilled by parents or society, or is new and scary.

Moving onto projects, Ison talks about how pervasive they are. Kids start with projects at school, and then we seemingly never stop with them until we die. Even football managers talk about their jobs as ‘projects’ these days, and entice players who are “excited by the project“.

As soon as you think about it, it becomes patently obvious that we live in a projectified world. I can hardly remember a time when a project was not part of what I did – whether at school or throughout my professional life. The word project has its origins in the Latin projectum, ‘something thrown forth’ from which the current meaning of a plan, draft or scheme arises. It would seem that the meaning, now common across the world, of a project as a special assignment carried out by a person, initially a student, but now almost anyone, is first recorded in 1916 (Barnhart 2001). From that beginning I am not really sure how we came to live with projects in the manner that led Simon Bell and Stephen Morse (Bell and Morse 2005) to speak of a ‘projectified-world order’. Perhaps mass education carried forth the project into all walks of life? Whatever this history, my experience suggests it is no longer tenable in a climate changing world to have almost all that we do ‘framed’ by our invention of ‘the project’.
Ison, ibid. pp.230-231

The difference between concept and reality is, for me, exemplified by thinking about Open Source Software projects (OSS). These exist to bring forth something useful in the world, software that people can use — even if it’s only the programmer themselves. However, if we zoom out and think about OSS as an ecosystem, we can see projects begin, fail, adapt, succeed, morph into new things, etc. In this way, it’s almost appropriate to use a biological metaphor.

In my view of the world, which is broadly informed by Pragmatism, everything is a bridge to something else. A project, therefore, does not really have a defined start or end, but is perhaps better thought of as an intervention in a given system. One needs to understand the system before trying to intervene. This is somewhat at odds with ‘project management’.

Ison discusses the PRINCE2 methodology, which I’ve had the misfortune of having to study. I got a passing grade, but I disagreed with the approach with every fibre of my being.

The understandings on which PRINCE-type methods are built perpetuate and reproduce practices that privilege a ‘technical rationality’… In other words we have arrived at a point where those who do project managing are not fully aware of what they do when they do what they do! Ironically this is largely due to the reification or projectification of project management itself. This has major implications for governance and, ultimately, how we respond in a climate-changing world.
Ison, ibid. p.234

Amen to that.

One of the things I very much appreciate is the ability to bring my full self to work. I am, as anyone who knows me well will testify, a sheep in wolf’s clothing, a velvet fist in an iron glove. (By this I mean to reverse the usual metaphors and suggest that I’m hard on the outside but soft on the inside.) I get upset easily. I get angry easily. These are all things that I’ve worked on all of the years, but fundamentally emotion is what makes us human.

To try and ignore emotion when working with other humans is therefore emotionally unintelligent. It’s a denial of a fundamental part of the PFMS heuristic.

Following Maturana et al. (2008) emotioning is a process that takes place in a relational flow. This involves both behaviour and a body with a responsive physiology that enables changing behaviour. Thus, ‘a change of emotion is a change of body, including the brain. Through different emotions human and non-human animals become different beings, beings that see differently, hear differently, move and act differently. In particular, we human beings become different rational beings, and we think, reason, and reflect differently as our emotions change’. Maturana et al. (2008) explain that humans move in the drift of our living following a path guided by our emotions. ‘As we interact our emotions change; as we talk our emotions change; as we reflect our emotions change; as we act our emotions change; as we think our emotions change; as we emotion… our emotions change. Moreover, as our emotions constitute the grounding of all our doings they guide our living’.
Ison, ibid. p.242

I agree that we should not be subject to our emotions, nor should we make policy solely on the strength of feeling. Yet there are ways to be emotionally intelligent and allow emotions to play a role within systems thinking. For example, Ison talks of Barack Obama and his capacity for listening, his encountering other people as ‘legitimate others’, his technique of ‘mirroring back’ the position of others, the ability to move between different levels of abstraction, and his awareness that change comes through relationships.

Ison talks of a “choreography of the emotions” and compares and contrasts this choreography (“one practised in the design of a dance arrangement”) with chorography (“one practised in the experiencing of territory, or situations”). One role therefore involves understanding different situations, like someone who explores new places, whereas the other role is about planning and organising actions, like a dance director arranges a performance.

Both chorography and choreography includes figuring out how emotions lead to certain results and looking at how long-standing patterns of behaviour develop in places like work or in personal life. Part of their job is to keep planning and adjusting how people communicate and act, which is both a creative and important task. They focus on managing emotions because they believe that our feelings and desires are what really drive our actions, more than the tools or resources we have.

Too often change is understood systematically rather than systemically. From a systemic perspective change takes place in a relational space, or dynamic, including the space of one’s relationship with oneself (i.e. through personal reflection). Russell and Ison (2004, 2005) have argued that it is a shift in our conversation and the underlying emotional dynamics that more than anything else brings about change in human social systems.
Ison, ibid. p.246

Particularly in this time of climate crisis, we need new and more joined up ways of thinking and acting. An understanding that projects and targets aren’t going to save the world will help. As will framing the situation in a way that promotes a shared (urgent) understanding. But, in my opinion, more than anything, it’s the emotional aspect that will make the difference. After all, as Jonathan Swift may or may not have said, you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: A virtuous circle of inquiry

Posted on December 12, 2023May 1, 2024 by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

One of the things I appreciate about this module is the way that it is scaffolded. New ideas and concepts are introduced incrementally, with prior learning referenced and reinforced.

System diagram showing a person (P) in a situated practice with two boxes - S1 (your systems practice) and S2 (managing change in your situation). There is an arrow pointing out of the S1 box to outside the situated practice with the label 'another situation'

The above diagram introduced multiple systemic inquiries, S1 and S2. The former is my study and developing Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP), whereas the latter is a situation of concern that matters to me, and which I will focus on in my End of Module Assessment (EMA).

Simply put:

Understanding my own practice (S1): I start by learning about my own way of thinking and working with systems. In other words, I get to know my own style and approach when handling complex problems.
Applying what I’ve learned (S2): I use what I’ve learned about my style and approach to tackle a problem or situation. This is about putting my skills to work in the real world.
Learn & improve: as I work on real-world problems, I’ll get better at understanding and applying STiP.
Report & reflect: I’ll then write about what I’ve learned and how I’ve applied it. This is where I’ll show what I’ve done (and how I’ve understood what I’ve done).
Keep going: the ‘virtuous cycle’ continues as a way of learning and solving problems (even after I complete TB872).

Initially, I was confused and assumed that S1 and S2 applied to ‘situation 1’ and ‘situation 2’. As they actually refer to ‘systemic inquiry 1’ and ‘systemic inquiry 2’ I guess it might have been clearer to refer to SI1 and SI2.

Over the next few weeks I’ll be defining S2 in more detail. Based on my learning contract, I should imagine it will be the project WAO is doing with the Digital Credentials Consortium (DCC). There is another project that could be interesting that we’re kicking off in the new year with Badgecraft and partners, but we won’t have held the stakeholder workshop before I’m due to submit my Tutor Marked Assessment 2 (TMA02).

In Ray Ison’s book Systems Practice: How to Act, Reading 5 (p.172-182) explains how he managed to carry out a systemic inquiry which resulted in changing modes of thinking among UK organisations involved with agriculture. As I’ve experienced before, it can be very frustrating working with people who either bring you in to tell you what they already know, to bolster something they’ve already decided they want to do, or to act as a scapegoat should a project fail.

In this situation, Ison was being brought in to advise on a knowledge transfer strategy (KTS) which seemed set up to fail. Not only had previous KTS initiatives failed, but communication was seen as ‘signal transfer’, and the focus was on changing other people’s behaviour. What was interesting to me was the way that Ison flipped the script to “build an invitation upon an invitation”. He conducted short one-to-one interviews in an initial stakeholder meeting, followed by a meeting bringing together all of the interviewees. He then used a spray diagram to show what he’d learned.

Even more interesting was the fact that Ison focused on the metaphors, both implicit and explicit, that interviewees used to describe what was going on:

Metaphors provide both a way to understand our understandings and how language is used. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we think and act, is metaphorical in nature. Paying attention to metaphors-in-use is one means by which we can reflect on our own traditions of understanding. Our models of understanding grow out of traditions, where a tradition is a network of prejudices that provide possible answers and strategies for action. The word prejudices may be literally understood as pre-understanding, so another way of defining tradition could be as a network of pre-understandings. Traditions are not only ways to see and act but a way to conceal (Russell and Ison 2000a).
Ison, R. (2017) Systems practice: how to act. London: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.

By showing that the metaphors that people use are problematic, are based on outdated approaches, or are in conflict with other stakeholders, a space is opened up for discussion. This can be a small ‘chink’ of light in what is otherwise a command-and-controlled, information-as-dissemination environment. From there, Ison managed to separate the ‘what’ needed to be done from the ‘how’ — which, he notes, was “something that I sensed had not occurred to those present”.

Ison suggested that a systemic inquiry, based on some design criteria, would be a good place to start. From this point on, he perceived a shift in the language used to be more participatory. Of course, the claim was that this more participatory approach had already started before Ison became involved but that the language used “had not yet caught up”. People are easily embarrassed, I guess, and try to cover their tracks.

Context is extremely important. It’s the reason that people behave as they do in certain situations and not in others. For example, it’s the reason why you might get told off for swearing in front of kids but not in front of adults. The trouble is that we assume a shared context when people might actually be having very different experiences. For example, you may be forgiven if it transpires that you had just accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer.

The first thing to establish when working with other people is therefore what the shared context might be. If there is a lot of conflict or misunderstanding, it’s likely that there is a lack of shared context, and that people are ‘talking past one another’ as their mental models differ. This can even happen when people are using the same words or terms, as they are dead metaphors.

Take, for example, the word ‘sustainability’ which is used very differently depending on the specific context. From an environmental perspective, sustainability usually refers to ecological balance, so environmentalists might focus on preserving ecosystems, biodiversity, and reducing pollution. In a business context, however, sustainability usually means financial viability and long-term profitability, so business leaders might focus on creating business models that can withstand market fluctuations and economic downturns. And then, from a social point of view, sustainability is often about creating equitable and inclusive communities, so sociologists might focus on social justice, equal access to resources, and supporting marginalised groups.

As you can imagine, bringing environmentalists, business leaders, and sociologists together can mean that they could be using the same word quite differently. This is something for me to bear in mind when thinking about my S2, my real-world systemic inquiry.

Ever since being involved with eye-opening user research as part of a project I led during the pandemic, we’ve included it wherever possible in our work through the co-op. In fact, with the DCC work we kicked off recently, which is ostensibly about documentation, asset creation, and storytelling, we began with a first round of interviews with staff. We’ll be widening this out to a second round of interviews with other stakeholder groups in the new year.

What’s interesting about this is that we’ve already found a slight discrepancy between the implicit theory of change coming from reports that the DCC put out, and that which emerged from user research interviews. This provides the ‘chink’ mentioned above, the space to start thinking about design criteria and think about what we’re doing as “a system to (X)” rather than simply a project.

TB872: The role of narrative in STiP

Posted on December 3, 2023May 1, 2024 by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category.

An abstract depiction of the journey of storytelling, reflecting the transition from past experiences to anticipated future narratives. This image symbolizes the importance of stories in personal and professional growth and captures the shift in storytelling techniques and their impact on identity formation and worldview, in line with Systems Thinking in Practice.

As I get older, I find myself consciously shaping the stories I tell for impact. This might be informally, over a drink or on the side of a football pitch, but equally it could be at work. The stories that we tell about ourselves and others are often, ultimately about identity and worldview. Narratives are therefore a fundamental consideration with Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP).

From the course materials:

Constructing a story or narrative is a very human thing to do. Some people are better at it than others, but at some level we all compose stories that we tell ourselves about what we have done, what we might do or about situations and others. Key capabilities within STiP are:

to be sufficiently aware i.e. critically reflexive, to appreciate your own stories that make you who you are. These stories/narratives constitute your traditions of understanding out of which you think and act;

to appreciate the cultural, including professional, narratives in which you and others are immersed;

being willing to amend our stories i.e., open to learning, when something discordant with our story becomes apparent (even as a sense of unease). We (as individuals, groups, communities, or societies) have the choice of rejecting, adapting or expanding our story;

to be able to actively listen and create enabling conditions for others to tell their story – something they may have never done before

The table below is one that the course authors shared which they consider helpful for structure when questioning and listening to others.

	Past	Present	Anticipated future
Issue/driving force/concern
Action(s)
Usefulness/result

All stories have some form of meaning, otherwise there would be little point in telling them. For example, meaning could be literal, it could be symbolic, or it could be ritualistic. Ultimately, though, as I mentioned above, they’re about identity and worldview — confirming or distancing ourselves from some other kind of group.

Narrative can be thought of as a combination of three aspects: (i) stories, (ii) the telling of them and (iii) their meaning. Stories consist of a series of events around a theme as told by the storyteller. In narrative, meaning consists of more than the events alone (as in storytelling) – it also consists of the signiﬁcance these events have for the narrator and the listeners in relation to a particular theme (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 160).

A couple of days ago, Andrew Curry reminded me that the author Kurt Vonnegut created graphs to illustrate the world’s most popular stories. He found, like others before and after him, that there are essentially seven types. The one below, for example, is a Cinderella-type story:

This image illustrates Kurt Vonnegut's concept of graphing stories. The graph plots the protagonist's fortune over time, with the vertical axis representing the spectrum from ill fortune to good fortune and the horizontal axis marking the story's progression from beginning to end. The dotted line traces the fluctuating fortunes of Cinderella, starting with a low point, rising to a peak of good fortune, dropping back down, and then soaring to infinite good fortune at the story's end, as indicated by the infinity symbol. The graph conveys the narrative arc of Cinderella's tale in a simple, visual form.

Likewise, when you listen to stories from founders of companies, or middle managers, or people who have had a hard life, you start to be able to categorise them. This can be particularly useful when working with clients, as you can either reinforce the story that they’re telling others (and therefore themselves) or you can help them change their story (and therefore their self-image). This works for organisations as well as individuals, because what are organisations other than collections of people?

The example I’ll share reinforces the DAD vs EDD post I wrote yesterday, based on course materials I found particularly enlightening. I’ll use the table above as a structure to indicate a clash between the story that the founder was telling themselves and their organisation, and the story we as consultants were trying to tell them.

To recap: the acronym DAD (decide-announce-defend) describes an approach where an individual or organisation decides on something, announces it to stakeholders, and then has to defend the decision when things don’t go to plan. The acronym EDD (engage-deliberate-decide), meanwhile, describes a transparent, collaborative, and inclusive process with stakeholder engagement from the outset.

I think it’s fair to say that the client, run by a founder who is well-known in the sector, employed a DAD approach to change. The organisation in question provided a tool which was used widely in the sector they support. However, they realised that it needed updating and so asked one of our more technical sister cooperatives for some help. That co-op brought us in to help with some of the change management side of things.

Without getting into details, on reflection the following table summarises the narrative from the client’s point of view:

	Past	Present	Anticipated future
Issue/driving force/concern	Important big issue for sector	Improving and scaling the tool with funding from partner org	Financial sustainability and relevance
Action(s)	Creation of tool to help with big issue in sector	Getting in outside technical help to assist with tool and map future options	Increased funding, hiring, and training
Usefulness/result	Establishment of metrics for the sector	Iteration of tool and creation of new tool to help with big issue in sector; hiring of new Digital Lead role	Increased digital capacity

We did a lot of work on this project, but ultimately the vision terrified the founder. We moved too quickly for them, leaning too heavily on our ‘expert’ credentials and not explaining well enough their next steps.

From our point of view:

	Past	Present	Anticipated future
Issue/driving force/concern	Important big issue for sector; reputation of organisation and founder in particular	Financial stability and relevance of the organisation	Increased organisational relevance, reputation, and impact
Action(s)	Creation of a tool which was created and maintained by a freelancer (who was sometimes unavailable)	Working collaboratively with sister co-op on deliverables for current project; mapping future options to diversify funding	Making first digital hires, announcing pivot in business model
Usefulness/result	Establishment of metrics for the sector, based on a tool which was increasingly unfit for purpose	Documentation of a different business model to enable a new version of the tool(s) to be white-labelled by other organisations	Diversified funding streams, impact on big issue for sector, long-term sustainability

The subtle mismatch between these tables was enough for us and the organisation to decide to go our separate ways. Although we did help them make their first digital hire, that person then, in effect, became their in-house consultancy.

Reflecting on this using the modified PFMS heuristic introduced in this activity (L = Learning, T = Tools):

PFMS diagram with addition of L (Learning) arrows coming out of Situation for both Practitioners. There are also T (Tools) arrows pointing from M (Methods) to the Situation. — Modified PFMS diagram based on an original provided by the TB872 course authors. Tap to enlarge.

Together with the tables, this diagram should help explain how the difference in frameworks and methods led to a lack of shared future vision for the organisation. We reflect on this occasionally as a co-op in relation to current clients. This activity has helped me, personally, understand what happened in a new way. Although we tried to be consultative, the clash of frameworks was never adequately resolved, meaning that the founder could describe us as ‘not understanding’ the sector.

If and when I come across this situation again, I will explicitly use the DAD vs EDD language to explain the importance of early stakeholder engagement, iteration, and a systemic view of the problem in hand. In founder-led organisations, there tends to be a lot of ego and emotion bound up with the future success or failure of the organisation, which we would do well to remember. Sometimes things need to be said one-to-one instead of to a wider group.

Image: DALL-E 3