What might a European OD programme look like?

What would happen if ODN Europe built a short European programme that contained different perspectives on the field of Organisation Development? What might such a programme look like?

As an inspiration we can take a look at the System Thinking in Practice programme, a winter/summer school in the Netherlands which looks at a variety of systems and complexity approaches to organisations.

If you’re an OD practitioner or change agent in the Netherlands grappling with complex issues, you really have to have been there at least once. That was at least the perception of my colleague, Judith Iking, who took part in it.

As a business and change expert, she was already quite familiar approaches like the soft systems, social constructionism and group dynamics. And at the same time, she found so much to learn and discover: the book ‘More Than the Sum of Its Parts, System Thinkers on Organizing and Changing’ by Brechtje Kessener and Leike van Oss [currently only available in Dutch] covers 10 different schools of thought of system thinking in 823 pages!

Here is Judith’s report.

Seeing Organizations Differently

Judith Iking

The week had a strong structure: each day focused on a different approach with a logical progression throughout the week in terms of when each approach originated. This made it a coherent whole and simultaneously nourished multiple perspectives.

I was particularly looking forward to the day with Jesper Hanssen on sociotechnology. Long ago, during my Business Administration studies at Radboud University, I attended lectures by Ulbo de Sitter, the pioneer of sociotechnology in the Netherlands. At the time, I had no idea what an organization was, had never seen one from the inside, and lacked any frame of reference to even remotely understand what it was about. And I didn’t find it very interesting, and certainly not enjoyable, as a result. I was curious if now, 30 years later and much more experienced, I could be capable of investigating what sociotechnology has to offer in tackling complex organizational issues in a different and more appreciative way.

The Winterschool in a Nutshell

Ecosystems

Day 1 was led by Bowine Wijffels and focused on ecosystems. What do we see when we view an organization as an ecosystem, and how can we interpret issues from the perspective of natural concepts like reciprocity, resilience, and diversity? Can we “lounge” like a lion that has delivered a strong performance, or is yet to deliver, to build reserves? How do we actually do that in our own organizations?

Modern Sociotechnology (Hard Systems Approach)

And there was day 2 with Jesper on modern sociotechnology and modern sociotechnical organization from the hard systems approach. At a fast pace, with a lot of interaction and (simple) practical examples, it covered organizational design with the design chain as a framework.

In classical organization, there was a clear separation and division between thinking and doing, which over the years led to problematic behavior (such as bohica, alienation, and mental disengagement), and professionals became stuck between the system world and the intention (Hart, 2015).

From modern sociotechnical organization, the law of requisite variety applies: an organization must have complexity to survive in a complex environment. The design requirements and design principles are derived from the vision, mission, goals, ambitions, and strategy of the organization. When designing processes, you investigate where there is trouble at transfer points and whether there is a structural cause. In the rough design, the macrostructure, you sort in such a way that maximum autonomy is created. Then, through the mesostructure to the microstructure, you organize meaningful, rounded tasks or core assignments per team, creating high internal and low external dependency: if people have more to do with people outside their own team than within, something will eventually go wrong. Control is then managed as low as possible, allowing for quick adjustments, maintaining a high learning capacity, and enabling the team to be adaptive. This makes a team as strong as possible, and management can focus on strategic control. The challenge often lies at the team level: getting local control right often leads to issues in team development.

I have genuinely started to see organizational structure differently. Previously, I saw it mainly as a given that people in an organization could have (or should have) trouble with, and within this structure, they had to adapt their behavior and actions to make it workable and sustainable. Now, I see how structure influences behavior and vice versa. And how you can design with teams rather than for teams.

Discovering Dynamics, Patterns, Pitfalls, and Levers with Causal Diagrams

On day 3, Hans Vermaak took us into pattern recognition by creating a causal diagram. Causal diagrams come from system dynamics, an approach that states that the complexity of the system is not always comprehensible. This is especially the case when relationships are not only linear but also circular, forming balancing and reinforcing loops that have an impact on the system over time (Kessener & van Oss, 2019). By visually representing elements and relationships in a causal diagram, system patterns become visible. And to map, interpret, understand, and find levers for change, creating causal diagrams is helpful. The art (and difficulty) is to close the circles with others.

Creating Meaning Together

After learning to look at organizations as ecosystems, understanding the principles of organization design according to modern sociotechnology, and recognizing system patterns through creating causal diagrams, Leike van Oss took us on day 4 in a wonderfully fast-paced manner to explore another systems approach: social construction or ‘creating meaning together.’ No matter how strong the organizational design is, organizations are made up of people. And people construct knowledge about their environment, including their organization, mainly contextually and in interaction with each other. And it is precisely through this interaction that an organization can be seen as a social construct in which people build a social reality together. People take this as true, behave accordingly, and it limits them.

They do this from their own reference frameworks, which they themselves may not always be aware of because they are taken for granted. Problems between people arise when reference frameworks are closed. Then you can no longer listen, no longer be open to another opinion. Meanwhile, the process of meaning-making is an ongoing one.

Organizations are built on continuity, not on change. At the same time, people protect their own construct and tend to fall back on what they already know, on their own reference frameworks. For organizational change, it is important to avoid looking only at individual people. Investigate the construct: which behavioral and interaction patterns and routines are no longer helpful? Routines are deeply ingrained and individual, developed by people based on behavioral and interaction patterns that have emerged in an organization.

The question I often get from clients is, ‘How do I get them to move?’ And now I know that this is not the right question. The question is, ‘How can I help them make the process more meaningful and make them aware of their own beliefs (convictions and opinions)?’ Because by doing this together, you construct a new social reality that facilitates new behavior.

Systems Are Self-Organizing

The last day was presented by Anne Lemaire. She introduced us to the CDE model, which fits within the natural scientific approach to systems thinking. The CDE model is a model for self-organization and was developed by Glenda Eoyang. The model has three conditions that influence the speed and direction of a self-organizing system:

Containers: what holds the system together, such as a physical space, an agenda for a meeting, or fear of change. But also, for example, the vision, mission, and values of an organization. A container sets a boundary, defines it, and keeps people, departments, etc., together. And thus also keeps patterns together.

Differences: ‘the difference that makes the difference.’ The differences that matter and determine the likelihood of change, such as different interests.

Exchanges: the quality of the exchange in interactions and relationships.

The C, D, and E must be in balance and correct. Is the container flexible enough to take action with many different interests? And are the Exchanges sufficient? Because a lot of difference requires high-quality interactions. The model is a methodical tool to recognize patterns and explore in which condition (C, D, or E) you need to do something to achieve change. And that can be something very small: changing the Container from ‘manager’s room’ to ‘park’ can have a significant effect on the quality of the relationship and interaction (Exchanges).

The Power of Systems Thinking

The strength of this Winterschool lies in the various system approaches provided to look at organizations and organizational issues. This way, you can better understand complexity and unravel organizational patterns. ‘You only see it when you understand it,’ a famous footballer once said. When you learn to look at organizations from the perspective of systems thinking, you can’t help but do that.

In most organizations, there is still too much linear thinking, in terms of cause and effect, and from problem to solution. Or there is only a focus on one specific team or one specific hierarchical level to solve an organizational issue. I often notice it in the questions that come to me, for example, on the theme of leadership: the request to develop a program for middle managers, without considering that if they develop in their role and fill it differently, this automatically means that the layer(s) above and below also need to do something different or stop doing something. And they also need to develop. Because middle managers, otherwise, get pushed back into their old role and old behavior (patterns) by the (often stubborn) system. Too often, a board or management still states that ‘they’ need to change. But if you want to do it right and develop sustainably, then ‘they’ is always ‘we.’

It also becomes apparent when I notice that there is only a focus on the individual development of participants in a program, while it is also about collective development and its contribution to the desired organizational development.

This makes it important for every organizational professional who, even if only indirectly, deals with (complex) organizational issues, organizational change, or development, to delve into systems thinking. To learn to see the interconnections and the sum of the parts and thus help prevent the organization from entering symptom management mode. Learning to explore with a pluralistic and systemic perspective to find the real causes, often attributable to obstructive organizational patterns. These are the most important things to anchor when it comes to change because they focus on where you can make a difference. And thus, as an organizational professional, you can also make a difference.

In conclusion…

• What would happen if a European OD programme which explored various OD approaches existed?
• Wouldn’t that lead to offers a transformative perspective on organizational development? By integrating different views of the field our diversity could become our strength, our differences could make us and our organisations more resilient.
• What would take to make this happen?

Jesse Segers

An earlier version of this blog has been posted in Dutch: ‘Je ziet het pas als je het door hebt’: systeemdenken helpt complexiteit te duiden en organisatiepatronen te ontrafelen – Sioo