The system as a target of change  

Traditional intervention strategies focus on the individual and the group as change targets (Manning & Binzagr, 1996). However, the increasingly turbulent competitive environment is causing organizations to develop a systems perspective that allows them to recognize and influence the dynamic social interactions throughout the organization.

Woodman and Dewett (2004) argue that limiting change efforts to a single approach or a single subsystem will not be as effective as coordinating efforts in multiple areas. More positive and lasting change comes from using many programs, processes, and change levers. To increase positive influences on individual change, managers can pay attention to congruency across all social dimensions of the organization by making sure that socialization, training, supervisor behavior, and planned change all reinforce the behaviors and characteristics.

Manning and Binzagr (Manning & Binzagr, 1996) concur. Invoking systems theory (1969) they argue that market conditions require change agents to conduct whole system intervention rather than focusing on isolated parts.

System interventions

Appreciative inquiry, Senge’s (1990) learning organization, and various stakeholder ownership techniques serve as examples of system-level intervention techniques.

Appreciative inquiry.

Appreciative inquiry has become widely used worldwide since Cooperrider and Srivastva (2001) introduced it in the mid-1980s as a philosophy for creating revolutionary change to implement global sustainable development strategies. Appreciative inquiry assumes that people create their own reality through dialogue with others, social systems have multiple positive outcomes, and social systems can build consensus around positive aspects. Watkins and Mohr (2001) propose five generic processes for change, as follows:

1. focus on positive aspects of change;
2. explore stories of life-giving forces;
3. find themes in the stories that invite deeper inquiry;
4. create shared images of the preferred future, and;
5. find innovative methods to create the preferred future.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that the appreciative inquiry method focuses on the following targets of change:

1. individual, group, and system-wide processes, while not recognizing potential tensions;
2. internal drivers and capacity for change, rather than on external drivers;
3. human systems as the means and ends of change;
4. second-order more than first-order change.

As with the learning organization concept, appreciative inquiry exposes the limitation of the dichotomous perspective on change by not recognizing the natural change processes that appreciative inquiry attempts to manipulate. Through appreciative inquiry, change agents attempt to facilitate third-order change by facilitating large social groups to be aware of established schemata so the members can believe they are creating their own future alternatives.

Regarding the characteristics of change processes, Seo, et al. say that appreciative inquiry focuses on the following:

1. positive aspects without acknowledging the negative;
2. episodic and revolutionary change rather than continuous change;
3. strong preference for proactive processes over-reactive processes, and;
4. open systems over closed systems perspective.

The learning organization.

Senge (1990) offered the learning organization as a model for transformational change by arguing that a learning organization is “an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (p. 14). Senge offered five disciplines for a learning organization: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. Seo, et al. (2004) say that the learning organization concept focuses on

1. the individual, group, and organizational processes without recognizing tensions among them;
2. internal drivers and capacity for change rather than external drivers;
3. human systems as the means and the end of change rather than on technical systems;
4. second-order change over first-order change.

The learning organization concept helps expose a limitation of considering change through a dichotomous perspective between first-order and second-order change. Neither of these alternatives explains adequately third-order change, the natural change that occurs as organizational members develop the capacity to recognize when change is necessary so they can implement change themselves (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; 1994).

Third-order change is not planned and cannot be controlled, but understanding third-order change can help agents to influence or explain natural changes. Developing a self-perpetuating organizational learning system requires that change agents foster perpetual learning environments in which people are continuously aware of their assumptions and appreciate the alternatives (Hendry, 1996). The learning organizational concept also focuses on the following characteristics of change processes:

1. both negative and positive aspects;
2. continuous aspects in preparation for episodic processes;
3. proactively responding to changing environments, and
4. (d) open systems rather than closed systems.

Stakeholder ownership. Arguing that interventions must occur at the level of the whole system, Manning and Binzagr (1996) present an inventory of large-scale intervention approaches designed to engage all system members in the intervention process, including Future Search, Search Conferences/Participative Design, Open Space, Large scale Interactive Process Methodology, Sium-Real, and Fast Cycle Participation and the Conference Model. The philosophical foundations of these approaches are built on systems theory, socio-technical systems, social constructionism, and universal human values consistent with those proposed by Abraham Maslow (1987). Considering summaries of the Future Search and Open space intervention techniques provides a taste of the similarities that have emerged in techniques built on these foundations.

The future search intervention technique is designed to discern and enact the organization that members desire, allowing the organization to fit the collective dreams of members and creating an environment through which they can exercise collective free will. The technique involves holding a three-day conference during which selected stakeholders meet to establish common ground by analyzing data and creating a shared understanding of needs, issues, ideals, and actions. The members create an action list of assigned accountabilities and commit to working toward the common vision in their jobs. This creates a “future pull” designed to influence the entire system.

The Open Space intervention technique attempts to facilitate change by focusing and unleashing the energy of shared responsibility. Open space assumes that people who accept responsibility for enhancing the organizing system will energetically act to be part of the change process required for organizational success.

During an Open Space conference, facilitators invite individuals to share opinions, ideas, and suggestions on issues for which they are willing to take responsibility. Facilitators promote open conversation and debate, and encourage members with similar interests to join and develop specific plans to influence the whole system.

The open space intervention serves as a prerequisite to a large-scale change effort by helping members make sense of historical actions, create a shared understanding of current actions, and define future outcomes. This approach can be particularly helpful for unfreezing organizations immobilized by inaction because it sets in motion the group’s bounded action.

Assumptions of whole system intervention

In their survey of systems-level intervention methods, Manning and Binzagr (1996) extract assumptions that are useful for guiding systems-level interventions, as follows:

1. Organizations are whole systems that are more than the sum of their parts. Since the parts of a system interact in a dynamic holarchy, implementing changes in one part can have unpredictable consequences throughout the emergent system and its interconnected parts and relationships.
2. The concept of organizations as whole systems requires a new dialogue among stakeholders. Developing awareness of the interconnected relationships within and outside the system boundaries helps to engage all stakeholders in system change to facilitate lasting change.
3. An organization does not exist, but processes and procedures do. This means that an organization is neither a tangible nor a static entity, but a reflection of tangible processes and actions. Understanding organizations as organizing processes helps to avoid perceptions of organizations as static entities.
4. Perceptions of reality become the organization. The organizational members collectively construct and maintain the reality of the organization. This reality shapes members’ thoughts about and behaviors in the organization. Understanding these mental models is a key to implementing change. Making changes within the dominant framework helps change agents facilitate consensus for change.
5. Individuals can self-organize and redefine reality. A change intervention that challenges the collective reality creates discomfort for a social system. Exploring competing paradigms helps individuals and groups self-organize around new realities.
6. The desire to be good and improve is a universal human characteristic that influences voluntary collective action. System-level intervention requires personal ownership. Aligning organizational values to the values of the members can strengthen the commitment of members while encouraging good citizenship behavior.

Systems thinking as “subtle reductionism”

The systems perspective seems comprehensive and inclusive, but it is not without limitations. From outside the field of organizational studies, philosopher Ken Wilber (2000) criticizes the systems perspective by labeling it as “subtle reductionism” (p. 147); postmodern flatland dogmatism that “is part of the disease we are trying to overcome” (p. 71). The systems perspective, Wilber argues, simply replaces reductionism with holism, while essentially disregarding all other perspectives. He argues that systems perspectives deny “the lifeworld of the interior dimensions” (p. 147).

While it claims to provide a unified theory of everything, Wilber holds that systems theory “leaves out half of the world” (p. 147). In other words, while the systems lens may be vital, a greater understanding of reality might be gained by integrating the best of all lenses, which Wilber describes as: “the very best of pre-modernity, the best of modernity, and the best of post-modernity” (p. 73). Applied to the social dimensions of organizational culture, this means to discover the right combination of intervention approaches that address the individual, social, and cultural development within the organizational boundaries while adapting to the demands of the environment. Such a philosophy does not lend itself to applying pre-packed intervention approaches but selecting the right mix of approaches for the context.