Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: systems thinking

TB871: Power dynamics in systems thinking

Posted on 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. 

Graffiti showing the character 'Skeletor' from the cartoon 'He-Man' with the words "You have power too..."

The components of power within group dynamics, initially outlined by French and Raven (1959), can be closely related to the dynamics within systems thinking in practice (STiP) (‘French and Raven’s bases of power’, 2024). Here is a breakdown of each power type and its relevance within the context of STiP:

  1. Positional Power (Legitimate Power): stems from a person’s role or position within an organisational hierarchy. In systems thinking, understanding the hierarchical structures within a system is crucial as it affects decision-making processes and influence. An example of this would be a CEO or someone else in the C-Suite of an organisation who has the power to make wide-ranging decisions and allocate resources at scale. It can also happen at a smaller scale.
  2. Reward Power: derived from the ability to provide valuable resources or benefits, such as funds, perks, or information. In systems thinking, reward power can influence stakeholders’ engagement and cooperation. An example of this would be a funder or someone who has important (e.g. political) information which could be important to the success or failure of a project.
  3. Coercive Power: involves the threat of punishment or withdrawal of resources to enforce compliance. Systems thinking often seeks to minimise coercive power as it can create resistance and conflict within the system. An example of this would be an events organiser who refuses to platform people who don’t agree with his ideology, or a manager who threatens to cut budgets for departments who do not comply with her new strategy.
  4. Personal Power (Referent Power): based on personal characteristics such as charisma, trustworthiness, and interpersonal skills. In systems thinking, personal power can facilitate collaboration and foster a positive environment for change. An example of this might be a team leader who is well-liked and respected, and so can inspire and motivate others to achieve great things.
  5. Expert Power: comes from possessing specialised knowledge or expertise that others value. Systems thinking relies heavily on expert power for analysing complex problems and developing effective interventions. An example might be a systems analyst whose deep understanding of causal loop diagrams and feedback mechanisms, or someone who has a lot of experience with the technical standards upon which a system is built.
  6. Informational Power: derived from having access to and control over important information. This type of power is significant in systems thinking as information flow and transparency are key to understanding and solving systemic problems. An example might be a network coordinator who has insider knowledge about the dynamics and histories of various groups (subsystems) and their interconnections.
  7. Mental and Physical Power: pertains to an individual’s stamina, resilience, and ability to persevere through challenges. In systems thinking, this can be important for sustaining long-term interventions and managing complex change processes. An example of this might be someone who campaigns for change despite initial resistance and setbacks.

Activity P4.19 asks to reflect on where our power lies and how we use this power (The Open University, 2020). So let’s go through them.

I do not believe in positional power unless the person in the role has earned their position. This is why I’m a republican as opposed to a monarchist, and why I am never ‘deferential’ and why I believe respect should be earned. It has, I admit, got me into some trouble in my career. To be fair, I have stuck to my principles and when I have been in positions of power, I have been at pains to use other types of power.

I have only occasionally been in a position to demonstrate reward power, but this has made me feel uncomfortable. The only times I think I have used coercive power is in parenting. Although I wouldn’t say I’m high on the charisma front these days, I do have enough interpersonal skills to get things done, and for people to want to keep me happy. This is often tied to expert power as when I’m asking other people for things, it’s usually because I can’t get them done myself, for whatever reason.

Finally, informational power is not something I wield directly, as I share everything as openly as possible. Although I am a source of information, I try to (as I am doing here) share information in a way that others can access without coming through me as a bottleneck. Finally, reflecting on mental and physical power makes me a little sad, as although I see myself as a reasonably resilient person, my migraines have really hampered my career. I’m physically fit and determined, but as I explained in my last weeknote, although I’m fine in a crisis, my body seems to get stressed easily, with that stress causing debilitating migraines.

I would say that my power base, such as it is, comes from expertise, information, and mental power factors. My lack of power in other areas is intentional.

References

Image: Annie Spratt

TB871: Four Stages of Competence (and the Johari Window)

Posted on 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. 

The Four Stages of Competence, also known as the Conscious Competence Learning Model, is a framework used in psychology and education to help individuals understand their journey from incompetence to mastery (‘Four Stages of Competence’, 2024).

A coloured pyramid labeled "Hierarchy of Competence" with layers indicating unconscious competence, conscious competence, conscious incompetence, and unconscious incompetence from top to bottom.
CC BY-SA TyIzaeL

The initial stage, Unconscious Incompetence, is where individuals are unaware of their lack of a particular skill. They do not recognise their deficits and may even deny the usefulness of the skill. For example, I’ve experienced rejections for jobs I’ve applied for without feedback .This can leave job seekers unaware of the specific skills needed for improvement.

At the Unconscious Incompetence stage, transparent feedback mechanisms and opportunities to observe skilled practitioners are important. Meanwihle constructive feedback, mentorship programmes, and self-assessment tools can provide the necessary support.

Moving to Conscious Incompetence, individuals become aware of their incompetence and recognise the value of acquiring the new skill. This stage is often marked by the realisation of mistakes as part of the learning process. For instance, I realised that I didn’t know much about Systems Thinking but it seemed relevant to my professional life. So I decided to Systems Thinking through an MSc programme giving me a structured way to learn the necessary knowledge and skills.

For Conscious Incompetence, this kind of structured learning programme and access to comprehensive resources can be ideal. Additionally, peer study groups, workshops, and extensive learning materials help individuals at this stage.

In the Conscious Competence stage, individuals start to acquire the skill and consciously apply it. This requires significant effort and concentration. For me, applying skills in project management and learning design with conscious effort and focus would be good examples.

As individuals reach Conscious Competence, they need opportunities for practical application and to receive continuous feedback. Collaborative projects, such as the ones WAO works on, performance reviews (if you work in that sort of organisation), and real-world practice scenarios are helpful.

Finally, Unconscious Competence is reached when the skill becomes second nature. Individuals can perform the skill effortlessly and may be able to teach it to others. For example, over the past weeks I’ve been recognised as a warm and generous facilitator for online events. I didn’t even think about this, which shows that I’m doing it effortlessly.

For those at the Unconscious Competence stage, mentorship roles, leadership opportunities, and continuous professional development are ideal conditions. Advanced training, leadership roles, and opportunities to mentor others support this stage.

It struck me, especially given that the module materials represented the four stages as four quadrants of a square (The Open University, 2020), that this has overlaps with another technique that I’ve used before.

Comparing and contrasting with the Johari Window

The Johari Window is a psychological tool used to improve self-awareness and mutual understanding. in other words, it’s a technique designed to help people better understand their relationship with themselves and others. Designed as a heuristic exercise by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, the ‘Johari’ window is named after a combination of their first names (‘Johari Window’, 2023)

Johari Window with four quadrants labeled Open Area, Blind Area, Hidden Area, and Unknown Area.

This approach complements the Four Stages of Competence by focusing on self-disclosure and feedback.

AspectFour Stages of CompetenceJohari Window
Stage 1

Lack of awareness		Unconscious Incompetence

Not aware of the lack of a skill or need to learn it.		Blind Area (Unknown to self, Known to others)

Aspects of self that others see but you do not.
Stage 2

Awareness of the need to improve		Conscious Incompetence

Aware of the lack of skill and need to learn it.		Open Area (Known to self and others)

Aspects of self that are known and shared.
Stage 3

Effort to improve is known internally but may not be visible to others		Conscious Competence

Learning and practising the skill with conscious effort.		Hidden Area (Known to self, Unknown to others)

Aspects of self that you know but others do not.
Stage 4

Skill becomes second nature; internal processes are automatic and not always visible (or understood)		Unconscious Competence

Mastery of the skill, performed without conscious thought.		Unknown Area (Unknown to self and others)

Aspects of self that neither you nor others are aware of.

It’s not a perfect fit between the Four Stages of Competence model and the Johari Window, but there’s enough of an overlap for me to mentally file it in a similar place.

Application to Systems Thinking

Applying the Four Stages of Competence to systems thinking highlights the progression individuals undergo in mastering this complex discipline. Initially, one might not recognise the need for systems thinking skills, but through structured learning and feedback, awareness grows, marking the shift to conscious incompetence. As students engage with concepts and tools, such as those offered in my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice, they enter conscious competence, where deliberate practice and application in real-world scenarios become essential.

Ultimately, with extensive experience and reflection, systems thinking becomes second nature, allowing practitioners to seamlessly integrate these skills into their professional and personal contexts. This journey highlights the importance of tailored support at each stage, ensuring that systems thinking principles are internalised and effectively used to address complex problems.

References

TB871: Supporting the development of others

Posted on 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. 

Understanding how people learn is a complex business. As an educator, though, it’s a crucial underpinning to be able to do your job. Learners can progress through various stages of cognitive and ethical development, with one model presented in the module materials as Knefelkamp’s Four Development Instructional Variables (The Open University, 2020).

Knefelkamp’s work was based on the work of William G. Perry, whose framework outlines a sequence of positions through which learners progress as they develop cognitively and ethically. These positions range from a simplistic, dualistic understanding of the world to a more complex, relativistic view where learners make commitments in a contextual world.

The key positions include:

  • Position 1: Basic Dualism: Absolute thinking, reliance on authorities.
  • Position 2: Multiplicity Pre-legitimate: Beginning to see multiple viewpoints.
  • Position 3: Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate: Recognizes multiple viewpoints but relies on authority for correctness.
  • Position 4: Multiplicity Legitimate: Accepts multiple viewpoints as legitimate.
  • Position 5: Relativism: Understands that knowledge is contextual and relative.
  • Positions 6-9: Commitment in Relativism: Integrates personal values with learning, making commitments in a relativistic world.

Knefelkamp’s four variables are, as far as I understand, Positions 2-5.

This struck me as being rather similar to the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy developed by John Biggs and Kevin Collis, which I’ve used extensively in my career. In fact, I created the image below, which is used on the Wikipedia page for the topic.

Stepped bar graph of the SOLO Taxonomy displaying five stages of understanding from Prestructural to Extended Abstract.

The SOLO Taxonomy describes levels of increasing complexity in learners’ understanding. The taxonomy consists of five levels:

  • Pre-structural: Lack of understanding, irrelevant responses.
  • Uni-structural: Focus on one relevant aspect.
  • Multi-structural: Focus on several relevant aspects independently.
  • Relational: Integration of multiple aspects into a coherent whole.
  • Extended Abstract: Abstract and generalised understanding, application to new areas.

Both Perry’s framework and the SOLO taxonomy describe a developmental progression from simple, dualistic thinking to complex, integrated understanding. They emphasise the need to adjust educational strategies to the learner’s developmental stage, providing more structure and guidance at earlier stages and promoting independence and critical thinking at advanced stages.

Mapping Perry’s Framework to SOLO Taxonomy

Perry’s FrameworkSOLO TaxonomyCharacteristicsEducational Needs
Position 1: Basic DualismPre-structuralAbsolute thinking, reliance on authoritiesHigh structure, clear guidance, simple and direct feedback
Position 2: Multiplicity Pre-legitimateUni-structuralBeginning to see multiple viewpointsStructured support, introduction to diverse perspectives, controlled experiential learning
Position 3: Multiplicity Legitimate but SubordinateMulti-structuralRecognizes multiple viewpoints but relies on authority for correctnessMore information, additive learning, structured exploration
Position 4: Multiplicity LegitimateRelationalAccepts multiple viewpoints as legitimateModerate structure, encouragement of connections, diverse perspectives
Position 5: RelativismExtended AbstractUnderstands that knowledge is contextual and relativeLow structure, high autonomy, encouragement of abstract thinking, real-world applications
Positions 6-9: Commitment in RelativismExtended AbstractIntegrates personal values with learning, making commitments in a relativistic worldMinimal structure, high autonomy, diverse and abstract concepts, facilitation of deep personal engagement

Any kind of well-researched developmental framework can help educators design effective learning experiences that cater to the needs of learners at different stages. By aligning educational strategies with the developmental levels described by Perry and the SOLO Taxonomy, educators can better support the cognitive and ethical growth of their students. I think I prefer SOLO, because I’m more familiar with it, but I’m interested in further exploring the ethical dimension of Perry’s framework.

References

css.php