Abstract

1. After the session, participants will understand the system archetypes that are the building blocks of systems thinking in Senge's approach.
2. Participants will help each other discover how the archetypes can be used in facilitation practice.
3. Participants will discover new insights into a personal or an organizational issue using systems thinking.

Using the Systems Thinking Tools from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook

Step 1: Starting with Storytelling (Senge, et al, 1994, p. 97)

The purpose of exploring your own story is to lay the groundwork for a systems undertanding of your own situation. It helps you to discern a coherent story from the interrelationships of seemingly random events. (Senge, et al, 1994, p. 103).

1. The problem is…

 

 

Begin by describing the problem.

Choose an issue that is important to you, something you genuinely care about and want to understand.

Choose a chronic problem that continues to recur.

Choose a limited problem that can be stated in one or two sentences.

Choose a problem that has a known history within your organization.

Make your description as accurate as possible, but don't jump to conclusions or suggest solutions yet.

Choose a problem that has been tackled before with little or no success.

  Don't be judgmental by blaming anyone or any particular policy. (Senge, et al, 1994, p. 104).
 

The key to systems thinking is the understanding that systemic problems will cause the same outcome regardless of which particular individuals are in the system. (Senge, 1990).
 
1. Tell the story

 

 
 
 

To begin understanding the problem at a deeper level, systems thinking requires bringing the story or stories that underlie the problem to the surface. You should not generate any solutions. Instead, you begin to formulate hypotheses about what could explain why the system functions the way it does. The story will not be linear chronologically. Instead it will identify key themes and recurring patterns that describe a series of events. The key question is this:
 
How did we; through our internal thinking, our processes, and our procedures; contribute to or create the circumstances, good and bad, that we face now? (Senge, et al, 1994, p. 105).
One method is by making lists of key stakeholders, of assumptions and hypotheses, of boundaries to problem and begin considering how each contributes to keeping the pattern in place. Another method is to draw a picture that charts out the pattern of behavior along various axes.
 
1. The Five Whys

 
The Five Whys is an alternative method to telling the story by hunting backward to root causes. It is usually conducted as a group exercise within a defined team. The first why is,
 
"Why does this event (the problem) take place?"
In response to the answer, the facilitator asks,
 
"Why didn't that happen?"
The group responds, "Because…" The facilitator asks again,
 
"Why did that occur?"
and so on until the group has run out of reasons. By examining multiple symptoms using the Five Whys, recurring themes will begin to emerge and common systemic sources of problems will become apparent.
 

Step 2: The Language of Systems Thinking: "Links" and "Loops" (Goodman, Kemeny and Roberts, 1994, pp. 113-120)

Choose the element of immediate concern. Describe whether that element is increasing or decreasing in magnitude. Describe the impact of this element on the next element. Continue the story back to the starting place. Add illustrations and anecdotes that liven up the story. If your linkages add up to a system where the starting element is growing or shrinking out of control, then you have identified a reinforcing loop. If your linkages add up to a system that meets resistance and finds an equilibrium, then you have identified a balancing loop.

Reinforcing Loops

To draw a picture of your balancing loop, first describe the actual event in measurable terms. Next look for the constraint or target. Finally, identify the corrective action that keeps the event measure from growing or shrinking non-stop. Put the actions and events in boxes and connect them with arrows that describe how they are linked.

In balancing loops, the system finds a "natural operating range" that keeps it self-correcting and self-regulating. Balancing processes bind themselves to a target, constraint, or goal that keeps the system from spiraling out of control. When the system identifies a gap between the desired state and the actual state, it exerts pressure to bring the system back into equilibrium.

To draw a picture of your reinforcing loop, begin by describing an observable event. Next look for an action that causes it to grow or decline. If necessary, look for intermediate elements that may drive or result from the observable event. Once again, put the actions and events in boxes and connect them with arrows that describe how they are linked.

The third building block for describing systems is the delay that can occur in both reinforcing loops and balancing loops. Delays can make other affects have a greater impact because nothing seems to happen at first, then suddenly the reaction seems like overkill. Because links sometimes take a long time to show their effects, events that are closely related may seem to be isolated from each other. Describing delays in the system helps to show why strong oscillations can occur. Participants often overreact to events during a delay causing the situation to get worse instead of better.

To draw a delay in your reinforcing or balancing loops, break a linking arrow and insert two parallel lines perpendicular to the arrow. Next to the break, describe how long the delay lasts.

Step 3: System Archetypes
 

The next step is to build a framework of interconnected balancing and reinforcing loops that describe the system in greater depth. Some archetypes may not be as useful in describing your system as others. The only way to find out is to analyze the system using several of them and see which fit the best. The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990) and the Fieldbook (Senge, et al, 1994) describe five archetypes: Fixes that backfire, Limits to growth, Shifting the burden, Tragedy of the commons, and Accidental Adversaries.

Fixes that backfire

 
This archetype is an expansion of the reinforcing loop archetype. In it, the system responds to a symptom with a "quick fix." The quick fix may cause a short term improvement in the symptom, but it also causes unintended consequences in the long term. After a delay, the unintended consequences come back and make the symptom worse than it was before. This archetype summarizes the belief most of us have that it is better to take action immediately in response to an urgent situation, even though the long term effects of the decision are unknown. Some examples of fixes that backfire include downsizing and expediting customer orders. Downsizing improves profits in the short term but can lead to inefficiency in the long run because all of the experienced workers are gone. Expediting customer orders can disrupt production to help a single customer, resulting in delays for every other customer.

Organizations have several strategies available to deal with "Fixes that backfire." These include increasing awareness of unintended consequences, applying the fix less frequently, minimizing the undesirable consequences, or addressing the root cause of the problem instead of the symptom.



 
Limits to growth

The limits to growth archetype connects a reinforcing growth loop with a limiting process from a balancing loop. As the growth process slows, you keep doing more of what worked before, but it stops working. The system runs up against a constraint that is built infrom the start, such as limitations or resources or capacity. The harder you push, the harder the system seems to push back. Growth may plateau or it could collapse all together. Some examples include quality programs that quickly run out of steam, new product introductions, and reform efforts.

Strategies to cope with limits to growth include resisting the temptation to invest in more of what worked in the past, investing in removing constraints rather than boosting the drivers of growth, anticipating limits before they come into play, and looking for other sources for growth before the current cycle fades.



 
Shifting the burden

The Shifting the Burden archetype begins with a problem symptom, something that can be observed or measured. As with fixes that backfire, someone in the system tries a quick fix to alleviate the symptom. This action diverts attention from the root cause of the problem and reinforces the idea that the quick fix is the only possible solution. The template is made up of two balancing loops. The loop in which the real solution affects the underlying cause and drives the observable problem is constrained by the unintended consequences of the quick fix. The loop in which the quick fix creates unintended consequences and changes the observable problem is constrained by the underlying problem that never gets addressed but continues to drive the original symptom. Eventually, the quick fix may create more problems than it solves. The capacity of the system to fix itself declines because of all the energy that goes into the quick fix.

Shifting the burden gives crisis managers control over the situation. They are rewarded for making things look better in the short term, but not for fixing the shortcomings in the system that may have caused the crisis in the first place.

Strategies to shift the burden back on the root cause include clarifying the symptom, identifying the quick fix, and looking for the unintended consequences. The next step is to look for alternative solutions to the quick fix, assuming that it is no longer an option. Rather than using the archetype to identify the one best answer, it is preferable to look for a variety of options and see which ones deal with the underlying cause of the problem. Quick fixes are like an addiction. To reduce the dependency on the short-term fix you must concentrate on the long term solution and the benefits of developing that capability.



Tragedy of the commons

The tragedy of the commons results when too many people try to benefit from a common resource that no one person controls. It consists of two reinforcing loops that intersect in a balancing loop. To analyze your situation using this archetype, begin by looking at the actual performance of your unit that can be observed and measured. That outcome is driven by a growing process which creates a growing action that increases use of the shared resource. Other users of the resource are also observing a growth in their performance, driven by another growing action. The other user's growing action also creates growth in the factors that affect use of the shared resource. After some delay, your process and the other user's growth both become constrained by limits on the shared resource. Consequently, outcomes for both degrade. The archetype gets its name from the "Commons," a shared field that everyone in a village can use to graze their livestock. The tragedy of the commons occurs when no one has an incentive to reduce overgrazing and everyone appears to benefit by adding one more animal to the herd. Each additional animal over the capacity decreases the benefits for everyone, but no one has an incentive to reduce their use of the common resource.

 
To cope with the tragedy of the commons, individuals must become aware of the collective cost of their efforts. Sometimes the common resource must be closed off until it can recover. Sometimes the common resource can be replenished from outside sources. Authority outside the system must regulate individual behavior because the system drives them to keep using up the shared resource. "One car driver can't fix gridlock by staying off the freeway. (Senge, et al, p. 144).



Accidental Adversaries

The Accidental Adversaries archetype explains how people who want to be in partnership with each other end up bitterly opposed. It begins with two interdependent individuals or groups, whom we'll call Actor A and Actor B.

Actor A takes actions that benefit B. This leads to B's success. B takes actions to improve on that success. These actions unintentionally obstruct A's success even though they help B improve.

At the same time, Actor B takes actions that benefit A. This leads to A's success so, like B, A takes actions to improve its results. The fixes unintentionally obstruct B's success.
 

To cope with the "Accidental Adversaries" archetype, Senge, et al, (1994) recommend investigating how your fix or solution undermines the other partner's fundamental needs. Leverage may come from strengthening the actions that support the other partner and inducing them to do the same for you, rather than increasing actions that help you at their expense.

 
Step 4: The Archetype Family Tree connects the other archetypes

One approach is to widen and deepen the loops in the previous archetypes. Senge et al recommend asking:

 
What else is affecting this element? Trace these elements into new loops.

What are the interrelationships between the elements that we did not notice before? Add these elements and links.

Are the added links part of balancing loops or reinforcing loops?

Are the loops relevant and important to the story?

What theme is emerging?

What are the implications of this structure?

Have we moved to a new archetype?

How do we redesign this to meet our purposes?

Where do we have leverage?
 

To find where you have the most leverage, Senge, et al, (1994) recommend that you describe the situation using one of the archetypes and then follow these steps:

1. What is the goal of the system?
2. What is the system capable of?
3. Where is the system going?
4. What should be changed?

1. What crutches and dependencies exist in this situation?
2. To achieve the fundamental solution, who would have to be the fundamental actor?
3. Would any reorganization of human relationships be required for this fundamental solution?
4. Could anything be done to make the necessary shift of orientation easier for the people involved?
5. Is there a delay which makes it difficult to see the value of your fundamental solution, or a lack of delay that makes the "quick fix" appealing?
6. As you look at the system, what is it capable of? At its best would be the most desired outcome which your system could achieve?
7. To achieve the most desired goal, what parts of the system would have to be changed further?

For facilitators, the benefits of the systems approach are many. First, it helps groups work at a fundamental level that goes beyond personalities and political conflicts. It helps them to see how systems drive behavior regardless of which individuals are in the system at any given time. It helps the facilitator work with the group to uncover leverage points that will achieve the most positive change with the least expenditure of energy. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook is an excellent resource for building an organization's capabilities for learning about itself and solving difficulty problems.

References

Goodman, M.; J. Kemeny; and C. Roberts (1994) The language of systems thinking: "Links" and "loops." In Senge, et al, (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook.

Senge, P (Editor), C. Roberts, R. Ross, B. Smith, and A. Kleiner (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook : Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1992) Systems Thinking: A language for learning and acting. Framingham, Mass.: Innovation Associates.

The Presenter

Jim Spee has been a student of group facilitation since 1986. He has facilitated strategic planning, action planning, focused discussions, and ground rules development for nonprofit agencies, schools, colleges, and small businesses.

Jim has been a member of IAF since 1996. In Santa Clara, he facilitated a workshop titled "Using ToP in the Classroom" with about 15 participants. Jim holds MBA and PhD degrees in Management from Claremont Graduate University. He is assistant professor of management and business at University of Redlands and teaches working adults throughout Southern California.