In previous sections we have explored the need for organizations to stand back and reflect on their own reality, observe themselves as part of the ‘whole’, and create ideas and perspectives which avoid relying on ‘old frameworks and established ways of seeing’24. We have also noted that organizations can be seen as dynamic human systems which are part of, and interact with, the wider social, cultural, economic and political context. The complexity of these systems can make change, whether internal or external to the organization, difficult to predict with any certainty. However, this paper suggests that in order to be successful and effective, organizations not only need the capacity to analyses complexity but also to identify when unpredictable events and patterns might require actions to be adapted. Such responses should be guided by a clear vision and mission which can be lacking in CSOs25.
Sensing Emerging Events
There is a tension between encouraging CSOs to define a clear focus, objectives and intended results for their work, but yet be flexible enough to respond to the dynamic nature of change in human systems and the environment in which they operate.
Gaining an understanding of the environment or context has always been an integral part of strategic planning. However, the environment was often perceived as stable and predictable. More recently, the inherently unpredictable nature of the aid environment has been recognised, moving strategic planning away from ‘forecasting and plotting straight courses to a far more participative process which stresses internal factors such as values, consensus and collaboration’26. It is also clear that no easily understandable model can hope to capture the complexity of human change, since change takes place within a tangled web of relationships in which a number of different actors are the subjects of change at the same time. Change does not usually occur in convenient, sequential, logical steps, but is more characterised by meanderings back and forward between steps. Sometimes change is radical and other times more incremental. Different levels of change can also cause different levels of discomfort27. The secret of an effective strategy may therefore be to respond to the complexities of change without meandering too far from the main objective.
Change does not usually occur in convenient, sequential, logical steps, but is more characterised by meanderings back and forward.
Mintzberg uses the concept of emergence to make an enlightening differentiation between planned and emergent strategies. Change brought about through emergence is not predictable because it is derived from the consequences of the tangled web of interactions that take place continuously within a system. Mintzberg recognises that, as a result, those strategies which are actually realised (implemented) by an organisation are rarely exactly what was originally intended (planned)28. Some elements of strategy emerge in response to the opportunities and threats that an organisation faces as it carries out its work. Some may even remain unrealised for whatever reason. These emergent properties do not respond to detailed plans, targeting or timetables because they arise from the dynamism of the interrelationships within the system, not from the nature of its constituent parts
29.
The distinction between these different types of strategy can be useful because it obliges organisations to identify, and reflect upon, the various elements of emergent strategy (i.e. unplanned but implemented), deliberate strategy (i.e. planned and implemented) and unrealised strategy (i.e. planned but not implemented). The process of planned and emergent strategy development is illustrated in the figure below:
Planned and Emergent Strategy30
A wider awareness of emerging events and patterns can help to avoid the ‘tunnel vision’ that afflicts many organizations and reduces their ability to see beyond what is expected and predetermined. However, developing analytical and adaptive capacities does raise the question of how CSOs can be supported to manage both planned and emergent strategies effectively. Emergence involves a new pattern which can only be identified if a scanning or ‘radar’ facility is used to pick up events as they occur. Problematically, emergence can be easier to identify in retrospect, making Mintzberg’s concepts difficult to implement in practice. Organizations also
tend to be better at predicting hypothetical futures, and perhaps even evaluating the past against these hypothetical futures, rather than noticing ‘what is happening now’31. Developing the capacity of CSOs may involve finding a balance between developing the logic of strategic planning in parallel and a holistic understanding of the organizational systems and dynamics.
Recognising the need to enhance the capacity of CSOs to scan the environment and notice emerging events and patterns also raises wider issues. For example, can the current aid system, with its linear pursuit of pre-selected outcomes and tendency towards donor dominance, control and hierarchy, provide an enabling environment which is open and flexible enough to accommodate both planned and emergent strategies? This might require a significant shift both in mindsets and ways of working.
Sensing Emerging Events: Section Summary
Organizations need to be aware of the unpredictable way in which change occurs within a system, and to develop ways of identifying, or scanning for, new patterns as they occur and to judge which of these might require a response.
Adjusting Actions
An awareness of emergence can help to enable organizations to respond to open-ended change in a more holistic, dynamic and flexible way, drawing on intuition, experience, and experimentation to complement more traditional cause and effect analysis. However, the type of response depends on the type of issue or challenge identified.
Recognising the Challenge
Within systems thinking it can be useful to distinguish between two categories of problems or challenges which may in turn require different types of response. These are:
• Difficulties: where the nature of the challenge, possible solutions, and the time and resource implications are relatively clear.
• Messes: where the definition of the challenge is unclear, the way forward seems uncertain and ambiguous, and the time and resource implications are unknown32.
Within the aid system pressures often exist to define tangible results or outcomes from the outset as if all problems could be characterised as ‘difficulties’. In some
situations this may be appropriate in the short term – for example, the challenge of delivering water supplies during an emergency situation could be addressed by using a reductionist, step-by-step approach. However, the nature of the systems in which development occurs is often complex and dynamic and therefore the challenges that arise are more likely to be categorized as ‘messes’. This is particularly true for more intangible development processes such as capacity building and empowerment where it is not always possible to define intended change with any certainty or to establish a clear link between cause and effect.
The ambiguous nature of ‘messes’ can be interpreted in many ways and from different perspectives. Discussion and consensus is therefore required to resolve this type of challenge without jumping to quick conclusions or to inappropriate actions (such as ‘papering over’ previous mistakes). Not recognising this could not only result in ‘messes’ remaining unresolved but may also lead to unintended consequences, whether positive or negative. In these situations an understanding of the complexity of systems may be useful in deciding how to respond to ‘messy’ challenges or problems.
Responding to Complexity
There is a growing interest in the theories of complex systems and the new possibilities these provide for innovation in organisations33. These expand on systems thinking to explore the ways in which organizations can respond more effectively in their ever-changing and turbulent landscape, drawing on elements of organizational ecology, chaos, complexity and evolutionary theories. The strategic adaptation perspective adds to this by suggesting that organizations also have the power to influence and shape their environment34. Complex Adaptive Systems can also help to understand the influence of complexity on organizations (see text box below).
Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems
A Complex Adaptive System is an open system, such as an ecosystem, immune system or social system, which is constantly adapting to its environment35. As with organisms within a natural ecosystem, organisations can operate as open systems that respond to environmental changes and co-evolve with them in order to survive and make progress36. The complexity arises from the multiple relationships and interactions within and beyond the system. From these interactions regularities emerge and start to form patterns. This process of adaptation is mostly slow and incremental, but at certain times, environmental turbulence may lead to more radical organisational transformation. This evolutionary process can be influenced but not controlled. The range of interconnections and feedback loops make it difficult to predict the consequences of interventions in the system, leading to both intended and unintended consequences. In addition, as part of the system, an organization can itself influence the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the system and environment through the consequences of the actions it takes.
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) can also be used to analyse and understand problems using a complex systems approach (see text box below).
Soft Systems Methodology using Rich Pictures37
The Soft Systems Methodology has been used to establish learning processes to identify, analyse and understand complex problems.
‘SSM aims to bring about improvement by activating the people involved in the situation in a learning cycle which is ideally never ending. The learning takes place through the iterative process of using systems concepts to reflect upon and debate perceptions of the real world, take action, and learn from change using systems concepts and models. It is taken as given that no objective and complete account of a problem situation can be provided’.38
The SSM process begins when a problem situation has been identified. The participants involved can then use rich pictures39 to explore the issues and context and represent their different perspectives. Once a consensus has been agreed, participants can go on to identify the key themes, or ‘root definitions’, involved. On this basis, they construct a conceptual model of the system and determine the sequence of activities that would help to achieve the desired change. Defining clear conceptual models requires the ability to simplify complexity to a level which loses detail but maintains the essential connectedness. The use of locally appropriate proverbs, stories, metaphors or analogies may facilitate this40. The overall SSM is illustrated in the diagram below41. The simplified level is separated from the real world issues by a dashed line.
As with other living human systems, organisations have the potential to self-organise, develop temporary forms of leadership for specific purposes and create new structures and systems when needed43. It has also been suggested that if groups within organisations are allowed to self-organise spontaneously, creative strategies may gradually develop as a result of the exchange of different perspectives and ideas. This can form the basis for making informed choices about how to adapt. Adaptation may therefore be triggered or shaped by:
• increasing the connections between different individuals across the organization (rather than top-down control)
• facilitating space for dynamic tension between shared values and differences, between co-operation and competition, which can set the stage for adaptation and reshape organizational patterns
• encouraging experimentation and risk-taking while allowing for failure44.
Greater organizational effectiveness can be achieved through increased creativity and innovation in response to triggers for change, both internal and external to the system. In turn, organisational sustainability can be enhanced by the continuous interpretation of, and adjustment to, the complexity and dynamics of the system over time and at various levels45.
No comments:
Post a Comment