No organisation is an island

Ann Stow
4 min readJan 30, 2024

--

Systems intervention, values and ‘the big picture’…

Photo by Bundo Kim on Unsplash

People talk about ‘seeing the big picture’, in terms of leadership skills, organisational change programmes and understanding the impact of decision making (in and out of house) overall on a business. It makes sense to me to think of things in terms of complex adaptive systems, in this way, I consider the whole organisation in context. I’ve written before about context, so I won’t dig into it here — but it is crucial to a broader comprehension of what, and who, are impacting your organisation as it grows (or shrinks…).

The system, or systems, that your organisation forms and sits within (no organisation is an island :-)) are all impacted by current affairs, public, or customer, perspective, and a plethora of other things from a cough to a coronary. It is important, then, when you wish to explore new approaches, changes to process or operations that these things are considered. For the purposes of this piece, I will call any change an intervention, in the interest of brevity and alignment with theory.

For me, the best approach is mixed methods approach combining social science and systems methods, to achieve an approach to understanding the challenge and appropriate solutions, which is flexible and adaptive. This approach facilitates an appreciation of the complexity, “non-linear interactions and the dynamics of multiple stakeholder relationships and perspectives”, (Midgley, 2015). Midgley calls this approach Systemic Intervention, his definition is, “purposeful action by an agent to create change in relation to reflection on boundaries”, (p157); my more basic take on it is, an intervention of any type which has an impact on part or all the organisation, or group of organisations, or wider system. I want to thank & acknowledge Gerald Midgley for his time, thinking, writing and insights which I am happily sharing here in my own words.

When we begin a process of looking at what needs to happen, change, or be fixed, often the bounds (or boundaries) of the problem are set by a small subset of stakeholders. In doing this we necessarily exclude some values, perspectives, and opinions. Often the missing information is crucial for the success or failure of an intervention.

Back to that ‘big picture’… It’s impossible to see everything; time, costs, availability all get in the way. But, nonetheless, it is important to at least grasp the boundaries we are setting, and the perceptions we are missing. In acknowledging that we don’t see everything, we can at least achieve a more balanced, fuller view.

Following Midgley (2015) and Ulrich’s (1996) lead it is important to consider a ‘boundary critique’, deciding what to include, and what not. It is also important to include a wide range of stakeholder perspectives on where key boundaries lay, to be able to consider the values which create the boundaries and determine where to ‘draw the line’.

Bear in mind that the boundaries we draw (around what we think is important) are negotiated through our own values, and we know how important our values are, as is that we feel heard and considered. Understanding that values differ, are personal, can overlap and can be different in different contexts it is crucial to logically determine the set, or sets of boundaries pertaining to a certain intervention. The knock-on effect of ill-considered change is broad, impacting staff, customers, suppliers, stakeholders and even the local community — and organisational success.

You need to achieve face to face (if possible), verbal agreement with all stakeholders who will be “involved in, or affected by an intervention” (Midgley, 2015), regarding what’s in & what’s out… This is a dialogue-led, rational process (Ulrich, 1994), which will take longer than you want it to — but will lead to better considered decisions, which are likely to produce more successful interventions.

It is not all plain sailing, because what arises between two stakeholder groups is an ethics or value-laden realm of interest for inclusion. As we know, values are firmly held and carry a strength of feeling. This can result in conflict and requires careful handling; it is the differences between which can be the focus of conflict, and this may arise from historical or institutional marginalisation of a particular stakeholder set (for benefit or detriment). The institutional perception of the marginalised boundaries will impact on where the boundary is eventually drawn — and this is why the decision must be based in reason, not emotion and be a negotiated, rational choice.

I think this paragraph from Midgley (2015) says it better than I could, “Some forms of marginalisation are relatively easy to overcome because they have their roots in quite localised histories of conflict, but some stem from conflicts that are structured into whole societies, and these are the ones that are the most difficult to change. It is vital to take processes of marginalisation into account as part of boundary critique and systemic intervention.”

This thinking has helped me link together the concept of values, collaboration through mixed methods, and of ‘seeing the big picture’, drawing them together with boundary judgements for effective systemic interventions, & has allowed me to see how tightly this all fits together. I am sure there will be duplication and overlap in my thinking. It has re-affirmed my considerations of drawing together stakeholder perspectives, and all levels of the organisation — sometimes separately, to allow the non-professionals to engage in systems thinking and to be heard.

The power of hearing all perspectives, understanding a range of boundaries, and finding consensus needs to be influential in organisational interventions and associated decision making. It takes time, people, and effort that some organisations will sadly not commit.

--

--

Ann Stow
Ann Stow

Written by Ann Stow

Passionate about making organisations more human - one conversation at a time.

No responses yet