I promised yesterday to clarify some aspects of Cynefin. This was triggered by Roger's Linked In post and some of the response (reported yesterday) but it is not a specific response. Rather see it as a summary of multiple responses both articulated or otherwise over the last few years.
Systems thinking can be described as “trying to understand reality by examining the relationship amongst the parts of the whole and the relationship of the parts to the whole instead of examining only the parts”.
Systems failure and systems thinking. This article first appeared on the Nesta website on 18 March 2013. Professor John Seddon - 18.03.2013. Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and successive tragic events in ...
It’s time for a new style of leadership. Today’s employees want to work for an organization that they can feel proud of: an organization that has values and viewpoints compatible with their own; an organization that is oriented toward the long haul, working toward the prevention of ills, not just curing the symptoms; an organization that cares about morals and ethics, doing what is in the best interests of its customers; and an organization that cares about the impact it has on the environment. Employees want this because they recognize that such an organization will also care about them.
The idea that nothing exists in isolation−but only as part of a system−has long been embedded in folklore, religious scriptures, and common sense. (Some big-picture #systemsthinking around #sustainableurbanplanning from PCI Fellow David Orr....
Russell Ackoff, known for his work on systems thinking and management science, provided a very helpful, simple way to look at people, organizations, and problems. This approach is rooted in systems thinking, which is the ...
People don't resist change, they resist being changed. Enough with regurgitating this awesome quote, start THINKING about what it means!
...there’s no way to “ensure” everyone is progressing through the change at the same rate and same intensity.
...Explore the symptoms of resistance:
[Try] using David Kersey’s Temperaments combined with the stages of Satir:
Satir Change Model Stages: Old Status Quo, Foreign Element, Chaos, Transforming Idea, Practice and Integration, New Status Quo. This model explains how people respond to change physically, psychologically and logically. David Kersey’s Temperaments (Carl Jung based): SP (Artisans): Live for the chaos! Love the excitement... inventing problems that might not exist so they have “something to solve. SJ (Guardians): Fight to preserve the status quo because it’s familiar...because they don’t want to dive into chaos until they know every possible detail of the change NF (Harmonizers): Help people through the pain of chaos...Will want to not implement a change if it’ll upset the ‘herd.’ NT (Rationals): Fly through the change when it appeases their logic and moves on to the next change before anyone else has integrated the first change.
...Imagine...a team with people [with] competing preferences trying to make sense of an Agile transformation? How about if you have Artisans [the author of this piece - Jason Little] keeping the organization in a constant state of chaos? ....Now I realize it isn’t “the other people”, it’s my approach.
...I need to know when to push, and when to lay off...and I didn’t even touch the hundreds of cognitive biases that affect how people respond to change.
...you cannot put a budget and schedule on change, there’s no way to “ensure” everyone is progressing through the change at the same rate and same intensity.
Related tools & posts by Deb:
Stay in touch with Best of the Best news, taken from Deb's NINE multi-gold award winning curation streams from @Deb Nystrom, REVELN delivered once a month via email, available for free here,via REVELN Tools. Creator, Challenger, Coach through Change: Getting out of the Drama
Beyond Resilience: Black Swans, Anti-Fragility and Change
Messing up a Change Implementation with Someone Else’s Learning Culture?
Why do so many articles on implementations of management-less companies being referred to as “eliminating hierarchy” mix that with Holacracy? Why would a company then need Holacracy?
Take the Zappos gets rid of managers example – read on because there’s no mentioning of eliminating hierarchy. They are implementing a holacracy for a clear Purpose: they attempt to prevent bureaucracy from infiltrating Zappos, while maintaining a start-up culture within what is now, a quite large organization. They attempt to build Resilience against bureaucracy. It is what they believe to be needed to maintain a start-up culture.
This week, at the 23rd annual Systems Thinking in Action conference, leaders of organizations around the world are gathering to learn how to make sense of complexity, shift an organization's culture, and create meaningful ...