Many of you will be familiar with the late Christopher Hitchens – the writer, journalist and polemicist who died last December.  Hitchens was particularly well-known for his vociferous atheism and his combative, no-punches-pulled style of debating.

Hitchens locked horns in public debates with many prominent religious figures including the Reverend Al Sharpton and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.  Hitchens wasn’t backward about coming forward and made excoriating attacks upon religious faith.  It was clear that Hitchens believed that reason, logic and rationale were on his side and that any ‘reasonable’ man or woman should have been won over by his oratory.

I do not for one moment intend to render an opinion on the merits of the religious question.  Rather, I merely intend to point out that Hitchens did not seem to fully appreciate the complexity of what he was attempting to overthrow or the vested interest of his adversaries in resisting him.  Let me explain.

NLP Trainers and authors, Joseph O’Connor and John Seymour observe:

“Our inner world of beliefs, thoughts, representational systems and sub-modalities also form a system.”

I would add that this system includes our sense of personal identity – the “I am…” statements we make about ourselves.  These inner or intra-personal systems integrate with other external systems – the inter-personal systems we share with friends and family, our culture, our community, our society and so on and so forth.  In totality, you have a wide system, made up of the interplay of a number of sub-systems.  What do systems like to do?  Well, if they are fairly stable and produce useful outcomes, they tend to want to preserve themselves and don’t particularly like being disrupted or thrown out of balance.  They maintain their own ecology and homeostasis we might say.

Let’s look at the sort of systems that a distinguished Rabbi, perhaps someone with a teaching position as well as a congregation, his own radio show and a number of books in print will be part of.  Such a person’s personal identity, beliefs, values, family life, relationships, self-esteem, community standing, reputation, career, financial security – just about everything, in fact – are all predicated upon the truth of his religious faith.  The impact of that faith being undermined or shattered is almost unimaginable.  Yet, Hitchens believed that it should readily yield to reason and logic and that his adversaries should have been ready to abandon their religious faith as readily as redecorating their bedroom.

Please be aware that when you are attempting to change someone’s mind, or are disagreeing with them over a matter that is enormously important to them, you may in actuality be attempting to destabilise a critical part of their personal architecture.  Proceed with tact, care and sensitivity.

• Combination Rules – these rules relate to what combinations of people can ‘safely’ be present at the same time and place. We can all think of some people who can comfortably co-exist with most people but who, if you put them in the same room as one particular person or group of people…well – light blue touch-paper and retire. Combination Rules may well emerge whereby the family system knows how to ensure that such volatile combinations of personalities are not placed in the same place at the same time. Indeed, those who are part of these particular destructive combinations may well self-police these rules with statements such as “I’m not going [to ‘x’ event] if she is going to be there!”

• Role Rules – these are the “who does what” rules. They establish understandings about roles and responsibilities. Tasks and duties are divided up and allocated. These may be according to social, family, cultural or religious convention, or they may be agreed in a more democratic manner. Alternatively, roles and responsibilities may devolve to one person because another has failed or neglected to carry out a Role for which they are more suited.

• Hierarchy Rules – these are to do with power and control. They establish a pecking order – who is subservient to who. Rules in this domain can be established through conventions such as parental authority over children. Where such inter-generational rules do not apply they can be established and enforced through symbolic means. Is there a chair that ‘belongs’ to one person? Does one person control others through spending power? Is a power hierarchy reflected by who travels to visit who – the ‘Home Team’ advantage? Power hierarchies, once established, don’t like to be tampered with.

Intelligent, self-organising systems can intuitively evolve a stable, reasonably safe balance of parameters using these categories of rules. The result is that most of the year there is a degree of harmony maintained. Come Christmas, when a completely different set of socially mandated rules of Proximity, Combination, Role and Hierarchy are imposed on the system from without – the potential for calamity is self-evident.

Here’s hoping your family system is a healthy one and that you have a fantastic Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

In our free Ebook, ‘Systems Thinking: an Introductory Guide’, our Managing Director, David Kerr, quotes Donella H. Meadows as defining a ‘system’ as:

“An interconnected set of elements that is coherently organised in a way that achieves something”.

It has long been recognised, particular in Family Systems approaches to psychotherapy, that families are systems. They are made up of ‘elements’ – the family members – which are interconnected (i.e. they relate to and interact socially with each other); and they are coherently organised (or they organise themselves) in a way that achieves something. Our ideal would be that the ‘something’ the organisation of the system achieves is harmony, safety and nourishment (at many levels) for the elements of the system – the family members. Obviously, however, many families do not achieve such desirable outcomes. Such families are often characterised as ‘dysfunctional’ as they are not organised in a way that consistently or reliably produces such positive outcomes.

I modified Meadow’s term “…that is coherently organised” to suggest that systems organise themselves. That is, I am suggesting that there is inherent wisdom in systems involving human beings that allows the emergence of rules which govern the system in a way that is tolerable for the family members. In functional families these rules facilitate, indeed encourage, joy, love, companionship, nurturing, mutual support etc. In less functional families they may allow for mere survival – they are a form of damage limitation.

I posit, simply for the purposes of this blog, that there are a number of categories of rules:

• Proximity Rules
• Combination Rules
• Role Rules
• Hierarchy Rules

In a further imminent blog on this subject I will expand upon these and show how socially imposed ‘Christmas Rules’ can turn these on their head with predictable results.

Those who wish to find out more about the world-view and principles of Systems Thinking, and a range of methods for applying them, may be interested in our Applying Systems Thinking course.

“The person who sleeps eight or ten hours a night is never fully asleep and never fully awake – they have only different degrees of doze through the twenty-four hours.”

But let’s face it, Edison, inventor of the electric light-bulb, was in the daylight business. The experience of high-profile business people such as Lloyds CEO, Antonio Horta-Osorio, through his struggle with insomnia (which I discussed in a previous blog) puts matters into a more realistic context.

Horta-Osorio was signed off work for six weeks to recover from the effects of insomnia that was reducing his daily sleep to about two or three hours. This type of sleep deprivation leads to people walking zombie-like through their day, making poor decisions and performing sub-par in just about every parameter you care to measure.

I talked about the flagellant mentality and the corporate cultures that prescribe this type of inevitable outcome through their insistence (overt or implicit) on staff working ridiculous hours to show their mettle. Let’s put this in perspective – a quick Wikipedia search on extermination by labour in Nazi death camps describes:

“…excessive working hours (often 10 to 12 hours per day).”

The example of a client I gave in a previous blog shows him working 18 hours a day! Of course, those in a labour camp were beset with all manner of additional hardship and the two experiences cannot be accurately compared but you take my general point.

We should care about such working patterns for humane reasons but also for very objective business ones. Sleep deprived people perform poorly and make avoidable mistakes. Spectacular examples of mistakes that were significantly caused by sleep deprivation include the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, the Exxon Valdez maritime accident and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The number of less egregious errors, over-sights and lackluster performances caused on a daily basis in business must be in the millions.

Unfortunately, as long as institutionalized working practices continue to demand and adulate inhuman working patterns nothing will change. Transportation, fortunately, has learnt lessons. We have stringent restrictions on the hours behind a wheel that lorry drivers can work without rest. Equally, a commercial flight will be cancelled rather than letting a pilot exceed his permissible flying hours. The reason? We can clearly see that the consequences of fatigue-induced error in such circumstances are likely to be catastrophic.

In business terms, however, are the potential consequences of a mistake in legal paperwork, an erroneous calculation, or an oversight in a banking transaction not potentially equally as disastrous? Putting these down to simple ‘human error’ and reprimanding or dismissing the ‘culprit’ completely misses the bigger picture. If you create a systems that drives people to inevitably make mistakes, and such mistakes are made, what needs to change – the people or the system?

For a few ideas on how to evolve a more sustainable working culture have a look at our Working Patterns for Maximum Efficiency training course.

Not for the first time I am indebted to Andy Smith for pointing me in the direction of a fascinating piece of research showing how social psychology principles can be harnessed for positive effect in the real world. It shows how the Social Proof principle (aka Informational Social Influence) was used to reduce non-attendance of medical appointments in an NHS setting.

Non-attendance (known as Did Not Attends or DNAs) is a major drain on health service resources. Many initiatives have been undertaken to reduce the incidence of DNAs in order to conserve resources.

One approach, used in combination with other simple methods in a pilot study, involved the extremely simple and inexpensive approach of displaying a sign which stated words to the effect:

“95% of patients at [clinic name] turn up for their appointments or call [phone number] if they have to cancel.”

This differed from the previous approach of publicising the percentage of DNAs, presumably in the false expectation that identifying such waste would dissuade patients from adding to it. The combination of using the Social Proof principle in this manner with some other remarkably simple methods (having patients verbally repeat back their appointments when made over the phone or write out their own appointment card when booking in person) reduced the number of DNAs by 31.4%!

The Social Proof concept is based upon the fact that human beings often seek guidance on appropriate behaviour by following the norms exhibited by others. This is particularly the case in situations where there is some ambiguity as to the correct behaviour. In the example cited, displaying a sign pointing out the number of people who did not attend their appointments had the effect of making such behaviour seem normal and acceptable. Reversing the wording of the signage to focus upon the behaviour of those people who did attend (and what they did if they were unable to) made attendance at appointments seem the acceptable behaviour.

So, knowing about the Social Proof theory, consider what aspects of your business or working environment might benefit from the subtle identification of favourable behavioural norms where otherwise there might be ambiguity.

Simple, inexpensive waste reduction methods like this, which have the effect of delivering greater value with the same resources, fit beautifully with the principles underpinning our Lean Thinking and Operations Management course delivered by experienced consultant, Geoff Elliot.

There- 395 words!

A recent article in a tabloid newspaper suggested that police officers togged up in riot gear to respond to volatile public order situations were complaining that they were not getting enough loo breaks when deployed on the ‘front line’ of crowd control situations. Senior officers were concerned that the discomfort caused by not being able to answer the call of nature was impacting on officers’ mood and state of mind to the extent that it was causing a rise in public complaints of “incivility, impoliteness and intolerance.”

Sound implausible? Well, think about it for a moment. Recall the last time you were unable to take a comfort break when you needed it and the consequent distress and frustration. Imagine if, during that time, you were face to face with a crowd some of whom were behaving very provocatively indeed – making obscene gestures, uttering verbal insults, spitting and perhaps more. Would you be in the best state to respond to such provocation with the calm and considered judgment you might desire to bring to bear?

Let’s assume that out of frustration and discomfort invisible to the crowd you responded to the provocation in an inappropriate manner – pushing someone, making an arrest with borderline justification or the like. Can you imagine the response of the crowd and the response of the police to the crowd’s response? The situation could very easily escalate into something very unpleasant as a consequence of the enigmatic Piddle Principle.

Okay, I am being a little tongue-in-cheek here but I hope you will see the principle I am attempting to illustrate. The nature of systems means that very small contributing elements can generate very large outcomes. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the senior officers are correct and attending more carefully to the physical comfort of officers in such highly charged situations could reduce the potential for conflict slightly. After all, human factors of that ilk have been shown to have catastrophic effects in the past. The Challenger space shuttle disaster, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the catastrophic oil spill from the Exxon Valdez have all been shown to have been significantly caused by poor quality decisions made by sleep deprived individuals.

One of the advantages of looking at situations in this manner is that just as systems can magnify small events into huge outcomes, so major problems can often be effectively resolved by very minor interventions – if the intervention is made at the right leverage point in the system. This, my dear reader, is very good news indeed. Imagine, going back to our opening example, if a major public order incident costing millions of pounds in damage, multiple human injuries, arrests and so on and so forth, could be averted by something as simple as providing more frequent comfort breaks to the officers policing the event.

On our Applying Systems Thinking course we encourage delegates to become aware of the fundamental properties of systems, to embrace systems thinking as a way of processing and understanding information and we look at a wide range of possible approaches and tools for designing or making strategic interventions into systems to evolve them to create the outcomes that are most desirable. The benefit of systems is that sometimes these interventions can be minimalistic and elegant.

The Piddle Principle – remember where you heard it first.

Our training is primarily focussed upon the application of systems thinking approaches to organisational change and business development and we are delighted that the course was led by three of our trainers who have a vast amount of experience in these fields. Professor Roger James, Geoff Elliott and Victor Newman have between them decades of experience both in the academic discipline of Systems Thinking and also in real world consultancy, advising major public and private sector organisations as well as small businesses in the value of Systems Thinking.

Our delegates attending the course represented varied backgrounds. We had a number of professionals from the realm of management consulting seeking to expand their knowledge and skills and several PhD students seeking an understanding of how Systems Thinking approaches could be relevant to the IT and manufacturing domains. This mix of backgrounds and agendas led to a stimulating and fertile exchange of ideas and perspectives which really helped to shape the dynamics and value of the course. As skilled trainers and facilitators Roger, Geoff and Victor allowed the course structure to respond organically to the particular needs and focus of the delegates whilst ensuring that the core material was covered.

The course structure reflected the experience and background of our trainers working across many diverse fields. One of the potential hazards of Systems Thinking is that less qualified and perceptive proponents become wedded to one particular approach or model and continue to apply it in situations in which it is contraindicated. As Roger observed, those ‘instant gurus’ of Systems Thinking who have become obsessed and blinkered by one particular model develop a limited perspective whereby:

“To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

The Watt Works team, by contrast, stressed the fact that Systems Thinking is a world-view, a way of perceiving and understanding information, processes and structure that gives rise to a wide range of flexible models, rather than a limiting set of inflexible techniques that can be applied on a ‘one size fits all’ basis. This rich and perceptive understanding was exemplified by two case studies used to illustrate the correct and flawed application of Systems Thinking in two different scenarios. These case studies, explored on an interactive basis between the trainers and delegates, formed a major part of the three days and were particularly well received by the delegates as really fleshing out and making real the concepts that we were learning.

We were very pleased with the value that our delegates obtained from the course and their enthusiasm to delve deeper into a field, the expanse of which was really becoming apparent to them. Just a couple of the feedback comments that delegates said they were happy for us to quote were:

“The facilitators were fantastic. I knew very little about Systems Thinking before I attended the workshop and now I can’t wait to find out more.”

- Neil Winkworth – Baringa Partners

“Very knowledgeable and personable presenters who went out of their way to engage the participants and enhance the learning experience and provide more than expected.”

- Samuel Short, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge

We are currently scheduling further dates for this course and our team is working on developing a suite of courses exploring specific Systems Thinking concepts in further depth. We also plan to run some evening ‘taster’ sessions in London to give attendees a flavour of how Systems Thinking can benefit their organisation. If you would like to find out more about this exciting field please feel free to Contact Us.

These have included (and are not limited to) BPR / BPM, TQM work study / industrial engineering, knowledge management, quality management and more recently six sigma, lean sigma Toyota and TPS. Each has been trumpeted the answer to all management problems; each have their origins in the scientific management which began with the renaissance and standard production of galleys for the Venetian navy. And, each of these management panaceas – or to some people ‘fads’ – has given rise to thought leaders such as Deming and Ackoff … along with 20,000 instant “linkedin” gurus all claiming to be the expert (all with an instant solution package and branded just like any super market product with a myriad of claims and advantages).

We have seen this more recently with several instant gurus claiming to be the true interpreters of Ohno, his lean philosophy and the Toyota Production System supposedly based on systems thinking. Often these gurus claim the dangers of being a “tool-head” … not appreciating that engineers regularly use a range of quality tools and techniques to design cars and aeroplanes. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t fly the Atlantic. Also, not realising or admitting that aerospace and auto companies have been using quality tools and techniques for several decades as a normal part of “this is how we work around here”. Use of tools is, in fact, firmly embedded in their culture and way or working.

So what is systems thinking? Is it a single method or methodology which can be applied to generate a solution any problem. Is it a tool? Or, is it a way of thinking about the world to understand a situation or problem?

Quite simply, systems thinking is a way of thinking about the word. It is not a method, tool or techniques.

Systems thinking (ST) is underpinned by fundamental ideas and concepts and covers a continuum … where either people dominate a problem and its context (setting) or things dominate a problem and its context.

So what does this mean in practice?

In practice a number of systems thinking approaches have evolved to deal with problem situations. These approaches include and are not limited to:

• Systems dynamics where there is a need to understand the dynamics of an organisation in terms of process flows and feedback,
• Soft systems where there is need to develop a conceptual model of an organisation which represents the future capabilities (resources and capabilities),
• Critical systems heuristics where there is a need to understand differing views, perspectives and beliefs of all the actors and players (stakeholders),
• Systems engineering where there is a need to specify and manage customer requirements,
• Viable systems modelling where there is need to validate the purpose and structure of an organisation and carefully assess its capability for managing complexity,
• … and many more.

The application of the above approaches in any context is not prescriptive. Often one or more of the above approaches are used in combination support by appropriate tools and techniques.

Regardless, the key to all of this is to ensure that the right approaches are selected to match the characteristics of the presenting organisational problem or challenge.

If you’re struggling with some difficult organisational challenges, you may interested to find out more about systems thinking – and how it can help you and your organisation – at our next Applying Systems Thinking course.

We have already noted that Resolutions should be:

1. Stated in the Positive
2. Described in Sensory-based Language
3. Self-initiated and Self-maintained

Our next criterion is:

4. Appropriately contextualised: Our lives contain many different contexts and interactions with widely varying qualities and characteristics. If we initiate a change across the board, so to speak, it may be that the change serves us well in one or more particular contexts but is not appropriate in others. An example that is exaggerated a little for effect would be someone deciding to be tougher and more assertive in their interactions with others. This might be appropriate in their business and professional life but might cause friction and damage relationships if applied to their new born baby. Another example might be that someone decides no longer to eat desserts as they wish to modify their diet. They might decide, however, to make an exception for business lunches with clients or family celebrations. Useful questions to contextualise change would be – in what situations do I want this change and in what situations do I not desire it? Where, when and with whom do I want this change? Do I want this change all the time, with everyone and everywhere without limitations? The answers to these questions can help to more appropriately delineate the contexts within which change is and isn’t desired.

5. Maintain the positives of the previous situation: When people desire change and set Resolutions it is likely that they will want to do things that are different from what they have been doing. It is unlikely, however, that the previous state of affairs will have persisted as long as it did if it didn’t have at least some benefits, even if these have been diminishing or have become outweighed by the negatives. Identifying what positive pay-offs have been provided by the previous situation and carrying them forward (albeit in a different form) can make change more fluid as nothing is being “lost” so to speak. Again, a very simple example might be a smoker who realises that his smoking behaviour enabled him to take time away from his work desk to clear his mind. Such a person may be able to find a way to take similar mind-clearing breaks by going for fifteen minutes a couple of times a day to a quiet place in the office for a brief period of meditation (our Working with Natural Rhythms course looks at how regular, brief periods of ‘down-time’ can have a remarkable rejuvenating effect on staff that can be seen in performance improvements).

6. Identify and access the required resources: In NLP terms a resource is anything that is needed to achieve something – it really is more or less as simple as that. A resource can be a physical thing such as a tool, location, vehicle, book, computer or the like. It can be time. It can be knowledge or information. It can be advice, support and guidance. It can be experience from the past – personal experience or the experience of a mentor. It can be emotional states or attitudes, such as confidence, determination, joy or courage. Identifying the resources you require to make your Resolutions real can start you on a search to locate, remember, create, borrow or receive them as a gift from a sponsor or mentor. They can then be crafted into the form that is required to make change real.

7. Ecological for the system: Ecology is often thought of these days as related to the environment but really ecology is an awareness of consequences. We live in systems – social systems, inter-personal systems, intra-personal systems etc, and a change in one small part of the system is likely to influence the system as a whole. Applying Systems Thinking is an important business skills that we teach at Watt Works. Consider what other aspects of the systems you are part of will be influenced by the changes you are planning. Are those influences acceptable or will they generate unforeseen problems? An example might be someone who is planning to double their salary this year. Considering the impact of this change upon other systems might flag up the fact that it will reduce the amount of time s/he can spend with the children. A person who plans to become smoke free might wish to consider how this decision will influence their relationships with their friends/partners who still smoke. Becoming aware in advance of the ecology of the change we propose can help to identify potential problems in advance and steps can then be taken to amend the Resolutions or to actively manage the systemic changes that will result.

That brings us to the end of our whistle-stop tour of Well-formed Outcomes. When you are setting your New Year’s Resolutions, it may be useful to use these principles as a template for their structure. We wish you all the best for 2011 and please bear in mind that if you feel you need extra one-to-one guidance or support Watt Works offers skilled and experienced Coaching to work with you in pursuit of your goals.

The process of setting Well-formed Outcomes is just one of the fundamental NLP skills that we cover on our NLP for Business courses in Cheshire and London.

Watt works know exactly what works in business because we are professionals – our coaches and trainers have years of experience in a huge variety of business and commercial sectors and are each professionally qualified in their field of expertise.

We use our keen understanding of personal and organisational psychology to help you create business systems and structures which are flexible and versatile, and guarantee survival in the harshest of atmospheres.

As the nation rebuilds form the economic crisis, the private sector is likely to become ever more competitive and we can arm your staff members, managers and executives with the personal, interpersonal and organisational skills which ensure not only survival, but a competitive edge over rival organizations.

We know that without people, business is impossible and it is essential that a healthy life-work balance is achieved for every staff member, so that they are happier, healthier and more motivated to deliver results.   For a full description of our superb range of training courses, please take a look at our clear and concise website at www.watt-works.com today!