Change: Pinch Here, Go "Ouch" Over There

This article is the twenty-fifth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler

"Today's environment is beginning to threaten today's organizations, finding them seriously deficient in their nervous system design.... The degree of coordination, perception, rational adaptation, etc., which will appear in the next generation of human organizations will drive our present organizational forms, with their clumsy nervous systems, into extinction."  Douglas Engelbart , 1970

 

Your Company Is a Nervous System

I don't mean it's a nervous system (although it may be); I mean it's a Nervous System. Just like the one in your body that's filled with connections. Pinch your arm. Your head and body will jerk in response while you yell, "Ouch!"

Have someone stroke you lovingly on the back. Your eyes will close, a smile forms, and your body begins to feel weak and relaxed.

We live inside of bodies whose systems work together. When we impact one, we cannot avoid impacting others.

Organizational systems work that way, too. A major Change in the marketing department prompts repercussions in Sales, Customer Service, Public Relations, printing vendors...

There's no such thing as making a Change in one part of a company without having an impact elsewhere. That's why it's super-important to intentionally connect the dots beforehand. See what the relationships, connections, and impacts might be. Then plan your strategy and communication accordingly.   

BTW: People who can "connect the dots" are exceedingly valuable because they think systemically. And when it comes to Change, that value offers a big return on investment.

Something We Know About

I had thought about this topic earlier in the series and somehow it evaporated. I've followed the conversation generated from comments because--well--that's a way to connect the dots that are important to people.

But this week the series was interrupted briefly by a combination of work projects and (drumroll) a computer system upgrade. 

A system upgrade is when you pay money for a little circular thingy filled with secret code that will make computing really, really better. You do a simple click-and-install until you find out that all of your programs and data somehow were copied to an external hard drive in Ecuador even though you are in New Jersey. The mouse no longer works but you keep moving it, firmly believing that at some pre-ordained moment it will.  And, of course, all of your secure financial passwords have been forwarded to competitors, ex-spouses, and a Third World dictator of your choice. (Only available with the custom install option).

Who knew you could get so much for $129.95.

(Thank you for your indulgence; I needed that).

And the Point Is...

Every change you make impacts something else and someone else in your system.

In the common case of computers, here's just a brief set of systemic implications from the example above:

• Ooh. Can't submit that big invoice in order to receive payment before Christmas so I can buy a special gift for my favorite niece. On Christmas Day, favorite niece will begin referring to me as "My cheesy uncle." Her father will then accuse me of secretly spending more money on other nieces. I will remind him, in front of everyone, of the time he wet his pants during football practice. In a moment of total warmth and sisterly commiseration, our wives will openly express their regrets for having ever met either of us.

• No computer? No problem. I'll borrow my wife's laptop. Whoops. Now she won't have a computer. She's still recovering from surgery, and it's her lifeline to the outside world. Well, that will save us some money when she decides not to buy me anything for Christmas as a result of my commandeering her laptop.

• Aah. I can quickly return her laptop since most of my business programs aren't on it anyway. Including the password encryption program for bill-paying. Wow. Now I get to meet new people on the telephone who wonder why I haven't been kind enough to send them money.
  
  Hey--who really needs health insurance every month?

You are now mocking me in the comfortable reflection of your 30" Apple Cinema Display because you believe there is a lapse in my own systemic thinking. I see you. You look down upon me for not having a full backup system on another computer. O, ye of little faith.

Of course I do!

It's just that I gave it to my daughter for "a while" until she settles into her new job. Which, inconveniently, is in New York.

The Real Lesson: Think "1966"

That was the year I learned-- inadvertantly-- about Systems, People, and Connections. At college there was an option to earn a certificate in a certain type of computer programming on certain IBM machines. Allow me to show you how programming was performed:

If you wanted to "run" a program, you received a copy of a wiring diagram (like this) that showed exactly how to wire-up a a plug-in board that slid into the computer. Each wired board would tell the computer what to do. This one was for Payroll. Learning programming also meant figuring out what new configurations of wiring would produce specific functions and results.

Then:

You would grab a handful of wires, perform the necessary insertions on a rack (attached to handles), and slide it into the back of the computer as seen here.

A couple of sociological notes for those of you who haven't had a cold shutdown yet and are still here:

1. Signing up for this course was a bad move socially. There were no women in the class.  Why not? The racks were so heavy you could save on a gym membership by becoming a programmer.

2. Being an early adapter of new technology can have big benefits. One of the guys figured out how to unobtrusively wire the boards so that, after running correctly for a while, the program would not only cause the computer to stop functioning but would somehow impact the building's electrical system. The lights went out. Class would be canceled with no penalty. We would then go to the pub across the street, insist that we were 21, and order a beer. The bartender would then order us out of the pub.

And  that's  how I learned to reflect on the importance of "systemic thinking", its possibilities, and how one thing always impacted another.

Thought for Today: When people in organizations hear "systemic thinking", it often translates into "Business Systems"  thinking.  "We'll  just  install new and better technology, provide good training, and reap the rewards.

You're smarter than that. The next time you have to make a Change, remember that the effectiveness of systems is determined by the effectiveness of the people who operate them. Pinch here, Ouch there. Stroke here, smile there.

Connecting the dots is more than a clever business phrase. It's how business works.

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

;-) ;-)

You know how I love to keep everything simple, but in this instance I think you beat me!

Your "Pinch Here, Go "Ouch" over there" principle should be rule number one in any text, study (manual) book on changes. So true and so many times not seen or realised. (Could fill a whole book with examples, but won't go there now)
Isse simple, not?

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

Should you decide to put this Change series into a book (HINT!), you've landed on a great title: "Pinch here, Ouch there. Stroke here, smile there."

You've astutely connected change to one of the future paths for organizational development: social networking. Not as in Facebook or LinkedIn or Twitter (which makes me shudder).

I mean the type of research being conducted by anthropologists such as Dr. Karen Stephenson and her company, Netform.com.

Understanding how the 'nervous system' works is key in implementing a change. The social network is a significant part of that nervous system.

Great series!

Joe

Karin,

I will take that as the ultimate compliment coming from you, the Tsaritsa of Tsimple.

Now, if we can just get those manual writers to read our blogs...

[Dean Fuhrman]

Steve - When dealing with the "cats", I think you must, as has been suggested at various times in your writings on change, give the "beasts" their due and include them in your plans so they too can incorporate the those changes into their being :)

Hope all is back to normal by now and that all is well in your systems.

[Steve Roesler]

Joe, I'll take the book thing as encouragement.

Doesn't Karen Stephenson do a good job of synthesizing on behalf of those who don't inherently connect the dots? I think that's what good consulting is all about: taking a valid body of knowledge and making it practical for a client.

I'm starting to believe--more and more--that the connecting "talent" is one that should be sought after intentionally by organizations.

Any thoughts on that one?

Dean!

So good to see you here on the binary screen of life...

Thanks for the useful reminder about including the "cats" before the whole thing "goes to the dogs".

Here's the deal at the moment: Everything seems to be working OK other than some unusual black lines running down the side of the web browser. Now I realize that, in the midst of all the fixing and re-booting, I have lowered my standards and am almost happy to only have the vertical lines and still be able to function.

Nothing like lowering one's standards to make the world look good :-)

[peter vajda]

Hi,Steve,

You write, "When people in organizations hear "systemic thinking", it often translates into "Business Systems" thinking. "We'll just install new and better technology, provide good training, and reap the rewards. You're smarter than that. The next time you have to make a Change, think about the system as "people". Pinch here, Ouch there. Stroke here, smile there."

You characterize the notion of change so well, the emotional factors, the systemic factors, the practical day-to-day factors, the people factors, etc., i.e, for me, the holistic notion of change.

What comes to me as I read your post is the "butterfly theory" metaphor (or it is really, reality...hmmm) for Chaos theory. When a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo, it causes a hurricane halfway across the world.

The question is how to manage an organization, consciously, so that folks know where the butterfly is, or what the impacts of the buterfly can be. One cannot account for all consequences (forseen, unforseen, unintended...)or eventualities, but one can choose to become more conscious and focused on how change affects the system over and above, as you say, "business systems".

Such a consciousness requires actually reflecting on how the flapping of the butterfly's wings affects the "atmosphere", i.e., the "atmosphere" of the organization...

What too often happens in organizations is folks simply take a "narrow focus" instead of an "open focus" vis-a-vis a change event. A narrow focus would be like standing next to a brick wall and staring at a single brick in a wall (e.g., in your example, the technology itself).

In many organizations, that's all one chooses to attend to and think about. It captures everyone's focus and attention. Often folks choose not to, or don't know how, to diffuse their attention to see the brick as one brick in a wall of bricks, then, with a greater diffusion of attention and consciousness, see the brick as part of a home; even more diffuse the brick is part of a neighborhood, then a city, a state, a country, a continent, then, the Earth, then the solar system.

The challenge in many orgaizations is the dearth of folks who are willing to, or able to, take this diffused, open-focus approach to change...and are caught up in their own narrow focus...the brick.

The Japanese have a philosophy of "ma" - the ability to see the space between objects as well as the objects themselves. Many today seem to be caught up in the "object"...a narrow focus approach to change....one of the major causes of anxiety, anger, depression, and head, heart and soul ailments, and mental and and psychological problems...in the individual and in the "body" of the organization. "There is more to life than increasing its speed" - Gandhi. Thank you again for this intriguing series.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Peter,

You've pointed us toward the real issues underlying personal and organizational change: having a consciousness/awareness of what could be and what might be.

The notion of "engineering" change: expecting to dot all of the "i's" and crossing all of the "t's" before the fact is futile. As I've said here before, you may be "in charge" but you're not "in control."

What can we control? Our state of awareness regarding possible cause-effect relationships that could emanate from decisions and the changes that follow.

Where does that leave us? Back at the core:

1. Awareness

2. Relationships

With thanks...

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

"I'm starting to believe--more and more--that the connecting "talent" is one that should be sought after intentionally by organizations."

This is the awareness/relationships piece! There are plenty of integrators and implementers of change, from one-person shops to the major Big 4 consulting firms.

What is missing are the 'people with the flashlights' - the ones to lead the way. The ones who have a cross-discipline awareness and will uncover the relationships. They will not have all the answers and don't have maps. They just show the entire landscape before the implementer/integrators come rushing along.

This gives a change the best chance for success.

Cheers, Joe

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Agree with your recap on Peter's insight and thoughts, but also feel there's one more thing to it than the two you mention in order to have change implemented and to keep growing ('cause changes never stop ;-))
I think it can't be done without 'bravery' (by lack of a better word) mixed in. Or is that just an other word for the true entrepreneur with vision?

Karin H.

Joe:

"What is missing are the 'people with the flashlights' - the ones to lead the way. The ones who have a cross-discipline awareness and will uncover the relationships. They will not have all the answers and don't have maps. They just show the entire landscape before the implementer/integrators come rushing along.

This gives a change the best chance for success."

That's one of the best visual images I've ever seen for what we're trying to portray here.

Someone recently asked me what my "market" is. The answer: I am Burger King to the Big 4 McDonald's. They come in, do a sweeping and quite expensive intellectual analysis, and leave. Then I get a call asking, "Will you come over and show us how to do this?"

Geez. Now I'm a flashlight in a world of halogen bulbs.

Glad it's Friday :-)

[Joe Raasch]

Some of the most exciting work I've been involved with made me feel more like a forest fire 'smoke jumper' than having to be a guru in a suit/tie with a 100-page PowerPoint deck of "answers."

As Karin mentioned: "bravery".

By the way, there are a LOT of really cool flashlights...

Happy Friday!

[Galba Bright at Tune up your EQ]

Hello Steve:

What an interesting article and series of comments. :). Along with Karin, I feel that bravery is important. I like to think of the word "courage", because it speaks directly to the heart. It also speaks to the idea of having the courage of one's convictions. Your article and the comments encourage us (there I go again) to recognise the connectedness of any single action on a system, as well as understanding that the connections are anything but linear. It takes courage to deal with that level of discontinuity and complexity and to seek to guide people amidst the chaos.

I can relate to your flashlight analogy. There is a time, perhaps whe the moon is in the right place, when the flashlight becomes a laser.

By the way, when you write your book, perhaps you should encourage your readers to share how they feel that they have changed as a consequence of the series.

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

As always, an important angle on an important topic, setting off an interesting range of responses. I agree with Joe that you've got the core of a book, here.

I think the most difficult issue here is getting people far enough away from the specific change models they've fallen in love with to see the impact of those models on their organizations, to see how the wire diagrams play out in the real world of organizations populated and propelled by humans. This can be really challenging, and people can become almost hostile when asked to consider the possibility of flaws in the design or implementation of the models they've begun to see as things of beauty in and of themselves.

That's where the "pinch here go ouch over there" stuff comes in. I've found that it's useful to take the proud parent's side, advise him or her of the perils out there for this precious child, the metaphorical jealousies and peculiar dynamics its sudden presence will unleash that may come back to harm it, and to find ways to ensure that it is robust enough to survive/repulse/absorb/integrate these in such a way as to survive to realize its promise.

When you get on the manager's side of the table in that respect, examining what harm might be done to the model by its exposure to the organization, it's usually not long before a professional manager, who is in fact "smarter than that," begins shift his or her focus from the change model to the organization which is to undergo the change; from its effect on the model to the model's effect on it. The transfer from micro- to macro-systemic thinking is taking place, and the change model is being prepared either to be truly effective, or to be replaced with a macro-integrative one that will be.

Jim, I don't think I've ever thought of it in exactly that way before. I must have been attached to my model :-)

The idea of framing it as "harm being done to the model" as a way to shift focus is food for thought. Certainly re-focusing on the organization is what it's all about. I'm going to ponder this one for a while for sure.

Now I'm wondering if an extension of that could be to sit down with a manager, lay out his/her change model, and put two more right next to it. Then ask, "Given what you are trying to accomplish in the company, what are the elements in each of these that make the most sense in your situation?"

Maybe the integrative approach is a way to accomplish two things:

1. Help select the methodology that will be most effective

2. Provide a legitimate opportunity to help educate managers on the variety of options that they may not have even known were available.

As always, thanks, Jim.. .

[Jim Stroup]

Steve, actually, if you, as a consultant, can get into the process before the dynamics have started to build blinders around a particular solution, the approach you describe in your comment is vastly preferable to mine, which I only offer for those cases where senior managers have built an image of themselves that they've fallen in love with, and can't figure out why - and are frustrated by the fact that - everyone else doesn't love it also.

Some of these situations can get pretty intense, with the model's protectors becoming positively hostile, or, alternatively, sticking their heads in the sand to avoid acknowledging the problems with their product. Sometimes, this is when the consultant gets called in: to correct the wayward organization - not the model or its implementation. It can be difficult to get such managers to back up far enough to be able to see the dynamics you describe in the post objectively enough to enable them to see what's really going on and to properly address it. This is especially challenging if they've already spent from their personal credibility in the defense of their solution, and, perhaps, in ill-considered responses to its critics.

I've dealt with several instances of this in the last few years. It's a struggle to get them to consider redefining the problem, but that is one way to do it that can work.

[Steve Roesler]

Hadn't considered the "timing" factor, Jim. But I see its validity.

In fact, I had reason to recall your previous comment just a couple of hours ago during a coaching session. The client wasn't having trouble looking at changes from different angles. He was trying to figure out how to get the presidents of three merged companies to let go of their individual models and view the new entity in a new way. You describe the situation perfectly: they've already spent their personal credibility in defense of their solutions. The new solution? Defend it even more vigorously!

In the case above, there is one leader who is more equal than the others. However, he seems to be playing the game in a way that will line him up for the next position he desires.

Unfortunately, no amount of truthful intervention will make a difference if the top leader is working an agenda other than the corporate one.

What continues to amaze me is that these folks will still engage and pay consultants, knowing that genuinely meaningful guidance and recommendations will be ignored if they get in the way of the personal goal.