The Importance of Organizational Culture
The last section of Systems Thinking Made Simple highlighted the importance of motivating individuals to be system thinkers in order to shape a successful system thinking organization. To support this claim, Cabrera unveils the organizational design and leadership method called VMCL. This concept represents:
- Vision (V)- An organization’s future goal
- Mission (M)- An organization’s rules that help lead to the vision
- Culture (C) – Individuals in an organization’s ability to shape mental models, mission, and vision
- Learning (L)- Using systems thinking to improvements of culture, mission, and value
I really enjoyed this concept, especially the idea of culture (C). The author defines culture as “a cycle that revolves around building an organizational culture that supports the learning, mission, and vision” of an organization (193). One can’t build this culture without a shared understanding and belief of the mission and vision of the organization. Cabrera continues stating that the more deeply these mental models are shared the more robust the culture is, leading to faster, better and more adaptable operations. Working at B Lab, I see this concept in motion daily. Becoming a B Corp takes hard work in implementing and sustaining impactful operations in an organization’s DNA. To become a B Corp, you can’t just add a fluffy mission statement to your website. As Cabrera states “words mean nothing” and “if every member of your organizations cannot recite and explain your mission- vision, you don’t have one” (228). Building a shared mission and vision requires the whole organizations to come together to build a cohesive culture that meets all individuals values. Once this culture is created, organizations gain the ability to grow faster and more efficiently and even become more resilient and adaptable. Evaluating B Corp performance, once a company’s builds a culture working collective towards a clear goal, in this case, sustainability, individuals work hard, smarter, faster together.
Do you agree that strengthening an organization culture leads to a more productive company? If so, do you have an example?
Posted by Carly Snider on 04/25/2017 Systems Thinking Applied to Organizational Structure
In the last section of Systems Thinking Made Simple, the authors highlighted how systems thinking and particularly their systems framework might be incorporated into organizational structure. I find their (VMCL Cycle) methods idealistic in their “simple solutions” which they claim will enhance all organizations:
- The selection of agents (aka systems thinkers”)
- The explication of simple rules (mission statement)
- The explication of the goal (corporate vision)
- Building a culture that supports learning, mission, and vision
These are pretty straightforward goals, and every company that I have ever worked with, essentially tries to do these four things, with varying success. These “simple” rules sound great on the pages of a theoretical book, but in real life, are again, anything but simple. While I continue to struggle with the Cabrera’s esoteric system’s thinking framework, I did find myself agreeing (somewhat) regarding their theory of “Control & Command” and that an adaptive responsive organization needs to place the power in the hands of the employees. This reminded me of Katrina, and the lack of responsiveness from several federal agencies, particularly the National Guard, FEMA, and Homeland Security. All of these agencies were somewhat frozen during the crisis, waiting for orders from their “bosses” to come down the chain of command. But a failure in communication undermined the quality of information that the “bosses” were receiving, resulting in the crisis being downplayed and leading to thousands of deaths, that could have been prevented. One of the bright spots during Katrina, was the performance of the US Coast Guard, which has been deeply praised and lauded for their timely effective response during the disaster. The Coast Guard has widely credited their efficiency and effectiveness with individual Coast Guard members being granted the power and trust to make decisions hard and fast while on the ground. They were able to respond and adapt quickly, and had the ability to make drastic decisions in a high-pressure environment of which time was of the essence, without waiting on the hierarchal chain of command to approve their rescue efforts. In doing so, they saved countless lives and aided significantly in response and recovery efforts.
Are there times and places in which the traditional chain of command is helpful or even necessary?
Posted by Jessica Fleck on 04/24/2017 The Mission and the Vision
The Cabreras managed to conclude Systems Thinking Made Simple with a third section that was more digestible and clear than the previous two. I found Chapter 11 to be an interesting way to apply basic systems rules to the issue of organizational design. The authors introduce the concepts of Vision, Mission, Culture, and Learning as the four foundational rules for good organizational leadership. They describe Vision as the concise future goal or state an organization is striving to attain, and the Mission as the simple repeatable rules that lead to the vision. Culture refers to the shared mental models that support the Mission and Vision, and Learning describes the incremental improvements of the other three rules through systems thinking analysis. I think the clarification between Mission and Vision is an important one. Too often, mission and vision statements in organizations are synonymous. This seems especially pervasive in the nonprofit sector. Sometimes, visions are articulated that are either unrealistic or truly unattainable. While I do think it’s good to set high organizational goals, having a Mission (as defined by the Cabreras) is crucial to keeping the organization grounded. It’s important to lay out simple, conceptually clear pathways towards reaching the Vision in a way that everyone involved can grasp. I can think of several environmental nonprofits that could stand to benefit from using the VMCL framework.
I also liked the 10 rules for testing Mission–Vision effectiveness. They were succinct and easy to grasp, but also were fairly intuitive. For example, rule number 6, which reads that Mission–Vision should be measurable, gets at a systemic organizational issue—the lack of usable metrics. Visions statements are often vague, and without legitimate tracking measures it’s impossible to determine progress. This reminded me of an assignment we completed last semester with Sharon for our Leadership class, where we analyzed an organization’s annual report. I chose The Nature Conservancy, and was pretty impressed by their goals and robust monitoring techniques for each category. But they were still vague in some areas, and could likely improve overall by consulting these 10 rules for effectiveness.
Question: What did you think of the VMCL rules? Do they apply well, or are there exceptions you can think of? To me, they seem designed to work best for nonprofit organizations. What about for businesses? Neil Brandt on 04/24/2017 Information Diet
This week’s reading on meta-mapping focused on creating a graphic distinction between system structure and information or content. In other words, how do we map our systems with clarity while maintaining the complexity of relationships and perspectives? As I worked my way through the different mapping structures, I recognized similarities between system structure and another diagram I’ve become familiar with – org charts. In the final example of Chapter 6, Cabrera maps out the different components of Sustainability including 3 major elements: water security, food security, and energy security. The authors connect these elements with Solutions (Governance, Finance, Infrastructure/Tech) and Action Areas (Society, Economy, and Environment) before devising a set of desired outcomes. I found this visually compelling in its simplicity, but also potentially useful in team organization. I’ve made similar maps in an attempt to untangle the complexity of future transportation systems, but I never know what to do with them. It might help to think of each category as a topic to be explored by a designated team member and presented in relation to other system elements. I also wonder whether topic delegation is detrimental to interdisciplinary systems thinking. In splitting up topics, are we working backwards toward specialization? Maybe a discussion about how teams integrate systems thinking into their process would be helpful at this stage.
A second and unrelated thought was inspired by the Charles Darwin anecdote. During his Atlantic voyage, Darwin used the structure of Sir Charles Lyell’s ‘Principles of Geology’ as a template for his own ‘The Origin of Species’. Cabrera uses this example to illustrate the effect of transferred knowledge across disciplines. In another example, Kindergartners learn part-whole exercises and then automatically start to apply them in different scenarios. This reminded me of the concept of “information diet” in the context of personal media consumption. In the world of sports, athletes depend on food diet to regulate chemicals and maximize performance. In the world of music, musicians depend on a “music diet” to inspire solo and songwriting melodies. In my experience, research and academia are no different. As students of the environment, we need to be conscious and intentional about the information we consume. Often times, this information isn’t immediately relevant to current coursework or assignments, but meant to be stored for later use.
What are the most nutritious brain foods in your “information diet” and how can we work to better curate knowledge consumption to improve our own capacity for systems thinking? Information Diet
This week’s reading on meta-mapping focused on creating a graphic distinction between system structure and information or content. In other words, how do we map our systems with clarity while maintaining the complexity of relationships and perspectives? As I worked my way through the different mapping structures, I recognized similarities between system structure and another diagram I’ve become familiar with – org charts. In the final example of Chapter 6, Cabrera maps out the different components of Sustainability including 3 major elements: water security, food security, and energy security. The authors connect these elements with Solutions (Governance, Finance, Infrastructure/Tech) and Action Areas (Society, Economy, and Environment) before devising a set of desired outcomes. I found this visually compelling in its simplicity, but also potentially useful in team organization. I’ve made similar maps in an attempt to untangle the complexity of future transportation systems, but I never know what to do with them. It might help to think of each category as a topic to be explored by a designated team member and presented in relation to other system elements. I also wonder whether topic delegation is detrimental to interdisciplinary systems thinking. In splitting up topics, are we working backwards toward specialization? Maybe a discussion about how teams integrate systems thinking into their process would be helpful at this stage.
A second and unrelated thought was inspired by the Charles Darwin anecdote. During his Atlantic voyage, Darwin used the structure of Sir Charles Lyell’s ‘Principles of Geology’ as a template for his own ‘The Origin of Species’. Cabrera uses this example to illustrate the effect of transferred knowledge across disciplines. In another example, Kindergartners learn part-whole exercises and then automatically start to apply them in different scenarios. This reminded me of the concept of “information diet” in the context of personal media consumption. In the world of sports, athletes depend on food diet to regulate chemicals and maximize performance. In the world of music, musicians depend on a “music diet” to inspire solo and songwriting melodies. In my experience, research and academia are no different. As students of the environment, we need to be conscious and intentional about the information we consume. Often times, this information isn’t immediately relevant to current coursework or assignments, but meant to be stored for later use.
What are the most nutritious brain foods in your “information diet” and how can we work to better curate knowledge consumption to improve our own capacity for systems thinking?
Posted by Matt Frommer on 04/19/2017
The Cabreras’ attempt to map out perspectives, while intended to expand our understanding of their influence in a system, perpetuates the categorizations that they insist must be avoided in systems thinking. As we discussed in our group last week, examining perspectives requires limitations in order to avoid looking at seemingly endless information on influences in a system. In order to do this, we are literally containing these perspectives in boxes. While this helps to generally categorize perspectives, we also must consider the fluidity of perspectives among those in the system.
At the beginning of Chapter 6, the authors’ note that we naturally look for associations when asked to look at things within a group. Although true, these perspectives are not necessarily fixed. Is our first observation of a lemon next to a banana that they are both fruit? That they are both yellow? That they are different shapes? Depends on the context of the situation in which we’re asked. While there will likely be some outlying perspectives, most will arguably fall into one of a few categories. However, this does not mean that we will see the same thing each time. Experiences may shift people into different categories. In the lemon and banana example: if you’re hungry, you might see food.
Perhaps one of the most famous symbols of visual interpretations and perspectives is the Rorschach inkblots test. Designed as a tool for psychological treatment of patients with severe mental illnesses, these images have become a symbol of our perspectives’ abilities to be ever-changing. This idea, embraced by many artists over the past half century, suggests that we come to see things through our perspectives – but that these perspectives come in the context in which these images are captured. They also suggest that these perspectives can be manipulated – and are not fixed, but malleable. If this is true, then perhaps we need to treat complex systems mapping as a momentary observation that can easily be deemed irrelevant by the ever-changing nature of the system.
Question: If perspectives may easily be altered by context or manipulation, how can we effectively examine perspectives over time?
04/18/2017 Cognitive Jigs… Say What?
In section two of “Systems Thinking Made Simple”, Cabrera provides guidance on how to become a better systems thinker. The chapter highlights visual mapping and metal models as crucial tools to help understand and represent how a system works. The section calls out ways to improve modeling and mapping by creating diagrams that successfully balance information content (words) and cognitive structure (shapes). Using the DSRP rules, Cabrera explains the importance of color, shape, lines, and size in diagrams as well as how they are commonly abused in everyday models. This was interesting and helpful in reflecting on how I use system mapping for my capstone project.
The later chapters moved into new and dynamic concepts surrounding visual mapping and metal models. One concept, in particular, that I found confusing was cognitive jigs. Cabrera calls out P-Circles, Part-Parties Barbells and R-Channels as common structures used in systems thinking. The chapter provide countless examples of how these jigs work and how they are used to create models of complex and wicked problem. These elaborate and creative diagrams left me completely overwhelmed. At one point of the chapter, I flipped back to the cover and had to remind myself of the title of the book- “Systems Thinking Made Simple”. I chuckled to myself as the last chapters of the section were nothing close to ‘simple’. Ironically, all the example diagrams were in need of a manual or translator to aid in expressing a clear explanation of what the model was representing. I strongly urge Cabrera to take his own advice and work to make these diagrams simpler in order to make wicked problems more approachable for an audience. Do you believe that these elaborate diagrams are helpful in representation wicked problems or create more confusion?
Posted by Carly Snider on 04/18/2017
In Systems Thinking Made Simple, the Cabrera’s suggest that all our problems stem from the way we think and the way we perceive. In part 2, they provide many visual aids to understand the relationships within a system. To increase efficiency level of understanding, the book uses ‘cognitive jigs’. These cognitive jigs offer visual aids to represent thoughts and ideas. These jigs are divided into several categories: p-circles, part-parties, barbells, and r-channels. They propose the use of colors, shapes, and diagrams influence the way we understand a system. If a system diagram is intensely complex, it can lead to a more complicated perception of the system. In a way, it can makes systems thinking more complicated, and not made simple. As a visual learner, I’ve found the opposite to be true. For example, if a professor conveys concepts on a white powerpoint presentation with black writing, I usually get more convoluted because I can’t separate one idea from another. If materials are distinguished with many colors and shapes, I can easily access information in my brain in the future.
As I did find these concepts helpful, I’m amazed at the structure of this course and the way the readings have essentially worked backward. We’re covering even more basic of concepts that are still inherently confusing and abstract. I enjoyed this reading solely because it got the points across in the least boring of ways, but still would like more real-time, hands in the dirt work in socio-environmental systems.
What facet of systems thinking has been the more digestible for you?
Posted by Morgan Schacker on 04/18/2017
Less Crystal Balls and More Applications, Please
The Cabreras introduce a plethora of new concepts in Section 2 of Systems Thinking Made Simple, including proposals for “cognitive jigs,” or structures of systemic thought. These content agnostic tools seem particularly applicable in designing the metacognitive maps they reference in Chapter 4. The jigs include:
- P-Circles (diagrams that include perspectives and viewpoints)
- Part-Parties (diagrams breaking down concepts/things into parts)
- Barbells (diagramming the relationships between two things
- R-Channels (connecting 2 systems of parts together via a channel)
I thought these were conceptually valuable, and I liked how the Cabrera draw a distinction between maps including such jigs and traditional system maps (which focus on information rather than structure).
In Chapter 6, the authors claimed their simple DSRP rules had predictive power. What seemed to be the most relevant example was the disciplinary nature of scientific community. They discuss how hyperspecialization within academic science has led to the unfortunate result of highly skilled specialists that are more focused on their individual field than overall problem solving. I agree that this is a systemic issue and that categorization plays a big role. But I’m not quite sure how the DSRP rules are supposed to have predicted that. In general, we know that social sciences are largely evaluated by their explanatory abilities rather than their predictive ones. Economic modelers have never successfully predicted upcoming recessions, and political scientists repeatedly fail to tell us who will win presidential elections. I certainly don’t mean to discount social sciences—I believe their role is just as valuable as natural sciences, despite their inability to predict. Instead, I’d just like some clarity from the Cabreras about how systems thinking (a discipline grounded in social sciences like sociology and psychology) could possibly be predictive, even with their simple rules. I found that section to be fairly inaccessible, so if anyone else understands it better and wants to counter-argue, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Finally, the applications section seemed a little weak. Rather than applying the theory to relatable examples, the authors made the theories even more abstract by discussing how other academic theories had roots in DSRP. So my question this week is:
How do we apply any of the concepts from this chapter to relevant environmental issues?
Posted by Neil Brandt on 04/18/2017 at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
