The Systems Thinker, V24N1 February 2013

QUICK LINKSSubmit an ArticleRead Leverage Points BlogSearch for Products

SYSTEMS THINKERRESOURCESArchivesSubscription OptionsReading & Using CausalLoopsPermission to Distribute

CONTACT US

B U I L D I N G S H A R E D U N D E R S T A N D I N G

Copyright © 2013 Pegasus Communications, Inc. (www.pegasuscom.com) All rights reserved.

SYSTEMSTH INKER

TH

E

®

FEATURE“The Class of the Forking Paths”: Leadership and “Case-in-Point”by Adriano Pianesi

An integral part of the theory of Adaptive Leadership™ developed over the past 15 years by RonaldHeifetz, Marty Linsky, and others, case-in-point is a methodology for teaching leadershipexperientially. According to the Adaptive Leadership framework, leadership is the practice of“mobilizing people to tackle tough issues, adapt and thrive.” With case-in-point, the facilitator usesituations and events present in the classroom to illustrate real-world concepts. The groupdynamics of the class provide powerful material for reflection in real time, helpingparticipants develop their ability to innovate and adapt to changing circumstancesin their organizations. MORE �

PEGASUS CLASSICSSystems Archetypes As Dynamic Theoriesby Daniel H. Kim

In the absence of full knowledge about a system, we must create a theory about what we don’tknow, based on what we currently do know. Each systems archetype embodies a particular theoryabout dynamic behavior that can serve as a starting point for selecting and formulating raw datainto a coherent set of interrelationships. Once those relationships are made explicit and precise,the “theory” of the archetype can then further guide us in our data-gathering processto test the causal relationships through direct observation, data analysis,or group deliberation. MORE �

VIEWPOINTComfort Zonesby Sharon Eakes

Comfort zones are those things we’ve learned to do that allow us to move through our dayswithout constantly asking, “What next?” In the book The Bigger Game, by Laura Whitworth andRick Tamblyn, with Caroline MacNeill Hall (Outskirts Press, 2009), the authors state: “All comfortzones have some kind of benefit and some kind of cost attached to them.” The essential point is thatif we want to play a bigger game in life, if we want to grow, we’re going to have to identify ourcomfort zones and leave those that don’t serve us behind. MORE �

Connecting for CommunityFROM THE FIELD �

V O L U M E 2 4 N U M B E R 1 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 3

2

F E A T U R E

“THE CLASS OFTHE FORKING PATHS”:LEADERSHIPAND “CASE-IN-POINT”BY ADRIANO PIANESI

TEAM TIPThe next time pe

in a heated excha

meeting, with the

other participant

brief reflection. A

describe what is

now? What are th

debated? What in

positions expres

“It sounds like some of you feel you’re getting novalue from this class or think that we are wast-

ing time. Some would like for me to leave. I’m opento that possibility and thank you for your honesty.What do you think we should be doing now?”

This is not a simulation, a test, or an experi-ment. This is a real question I asked in one of myleadership workshops where I use a teachingmethodology called “case-in-point.” An integral partof the theory of Adaptive Leadership™ developedover the past 15 years by Ronald Heifetz, MartyLinsky, and their colleagues at the Harvard KennedySchool, case-in-point is a methodology for teachingleadership experientially.

According to the Adaptive Leadership frame-work, leadership is the practice of “mobilizing peo-ple to tackle tough issues, adapt and thrive.” Withcase-in-point, the facilitator use situations andevents present in the classroom to illustrate real-world concepts. In front of our eyes, the group dy-namics of the class provide powerful material forreflection in real time, helping participants in a dayclass, leadership retreat, or university course to de-velop their ability to innovate and adapt to changingcircumstances in their organizations.

In this article, I would like to share my learningabout the use of this methodology and explore itspotential for leadership work in 21st-centuryorganizations.

ACall toCongruenceCarl Rogers once said, “Irealize that I have lost in-terest in being a teacher. . .. I am only interested inbeing a learner, preferablylearning things that mat-ter.” Leadership is some-thing that matters to me.

Have you ever beentaught emotional intelli-gence with the instructorusing PowerPoint slides?Or taken a time manage-ment course where the in-

ople engage

nge during a

permission of

s, facilitate a

sk, “Can someone

happening right

e positions being

terests do these

s?”

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

structor shows up late for class? How about learningyoga poses from an angry and mean practitioner?When I started teaching leadership, I vividly re-member facing the challenge of how to make mycontent match my way of teaching. When teachingleadership, this call to congruence—how what I amteaching is demonstrated in how I teach it—was themajor headache of my work and a fateful question. Idiscovered that teaching leadership is in itself an actof leadership.

When you prepare to teach leadership, you facea pedagogical bind: You need to determine whichlearning tasks will get across the material effectivelyto other adults—who are not necessarily less “lead-erful” than you—and what content to select. I knewwhat I didn’t want to do: that was teach leadership“in the third person,” through mere descriptions andexplanations or five-step slides. I struggled withhow to create a space for my students where leader-ship was lived in the first person rather than studiedlike a theoretical concept.

I am a World Café host. The World Café is amethodology that allows large groups to deepen theirinquiry through important questions in a setting thatpromotes informal conversations and authenticity.From that methodology, I learned the art of hostingconversations that matter. FromAction Learning, Ialso learned how to leverage the power of greatquestions in order to learn in real-time as individuals,as a team, and as an organization. So when asked todesign a leadership course, I decided that, rather thanteaching or preaching, I would rely on evoking,naming, reminding, recognizing, questioning, ac-knowledging, and affirming. I stopped asking “howcan I teach?” and instead started asking “what ifleadership is already in the room, and my work is togive it the space and freedom to manifest itself?” Ibecame familiar with the concepts of the AdaptiveLeadership framework, in which a leader comes to agroup armed with the strong belief that creativity andinnovation are the product of interpersonal and inter-group relationships, and that leadership is about en-gaging differences for positive outcomes. I learnedthat leaders must pose difficult questions, knockpeople out of their comfort zones, and manage theresulting distress. According to Heifetz, they expose

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

3

their followers “to the painful reality of their condi-tion and demand that they fashion a response.”

The experiment started, but I failed to read thesigns: I hadn’t remembered yet that the words “ex-periment” and “peril” come from the same root,with the peril being the courageous act of trying thisleadership pedagogy in a real class.

ADaring Way to Teach Leadership“Everyone has a plan until they get punchedin the mouth.” —Mike Tyson

I knew it was bad. After that first day, the programdirector wanted to meet me after hours. She startedour conversation saying, “So, how did it go today?”She continued, “What’s going on with those evalua-tions?” and finished with, “You have to do some-thing for next class; we can’t have the sameproblems tomorrow.”

I couldn’t say that I hadn’t been warned. Mycontact at the Harvard Kennedy School of Govern-ment had suggested that I not use case-in-point; shesaid I didn’t have enough of a “name” or reputationto do it. But I pressed on. People had complained tothe program director about the class, and now I hadto change something or risk repercussions. Or did Ireally need to? It was time to step into the unknown.

The decision that night was the beginning of anew phase for me as a leadership educator. I real-ized that, in my own way, I was dealing with theadaptive challenge of teaching leadership, takingrisks, stepping into my aspirations to elevate the dis-course in the class, and tapping into a bigger call be-yond evaluation forms. I had reached a deeperawareness of myself as an educator, of my impact,and of the system I was part of.

I could have gone a different direction; instead,I reaffirmed my commitment to case-in-point andmade only two adjustments to the session. I ownedmy role as a leader and modeled the behaviors Iwanted my students to learn by practice. The resultswere encouraging. Here are a few excerpts from mystudents’ evaluations that day:• “I now lead with questions and have been ableto unleash my team’s potential as well.”• “This will likely prove to be the most importantcourse of the program in the next stage of mycareer.”• “The idea of the majority of problems being anadaptive challenge was an epiphany, and the open-ended questioning has been extremely helpful in re-orienting the way I think about things, particularlymy own behavior.”• “I missed the point, assuming that there wasone.”• “I disagree with the fact that taking responsibil-ity is what we should do in all our life events.”

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

(This student called me two months later. He hadsecond thoughts about the evaluation forms he filledout after the class.)

I was off the hook with the program directorand in for the ride—regardless of my many mis-takes—with this risky and yet powerfully invigorat-ing way to teach. Case-in-point had allowed me tolearn and practice leadership experientially in a waythat was aligned with my purpose as an educator.

Two Critical DistinctionsAccording to Heifetz, the Adaptive Leadershipframework includes two critical distinctions that arecentral for understanding case-in-point:• Authority/Leadership• Technical Problems/Adaptive Challenges

Authority/Leadership. The first distinction clarifiesthat having a position of authority does not meanthat we exercise leadership; paradoxically, the pow-erful expectations on the role make us less likely toexercise leadership. Heifetz reminds us that an ex-pert is not necessarily a leader:

For many challenges in our lives, experts or au-thorities can solve our problems and thereby meetour needs. We look to doctors to make us healthy,mechanics to fix our cars. . . .We give these peo-ple power, authorizing them to find solutions andoften they can deliver. . . . Problems that we cansolve through the knowledge of experts or seniorauthorities are technical challenges. The problemsmay be complex, such as a broken arm or a bro-ken carburetor, but experts know exactly how tofix them.To determine whether we need to exercise au-

thority or leadership, we need to analyze the natureof the problem we face. That brings us to the seconddistinction:

Technical Problems/Adaptive Challenges. Ratherthan being technical problems, many of the chal-lenges we face today are adaptive. Heifetz andLinsky maintain:

The problems that require leadership are thosethat the experts cannot solve. We call these adap-tive challenges. The solutions lie not in technicalanswers, but rather in people themselves. . . . Thesurgeon can fix your son’s broken arm, but shecannot prevent your son from rollerblading with-out elbow pads. The dietitian can recommend aweight-loss program, but she cannot curb yourlove for chocolate chip cookies. . . . Most peoplewould rather have the person in authority takethe work off their shoulders, protect them fromdisorienting change, and meet challenges ontheir behalf. But the real work of leadership usu-ally involves giving the work back to the peoplewho must adapt, and mobilizing them to do so.

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

4

The practice of leadership takes place in an au-thority structure, by those who either have or do nothave authority. In an adaptive challenge, the author-ity structure—the people in charge—can contribute,but others must participate as well. All people in-volved are part of the problem, and their sharedownership of that problem becomes part of the solu-tion itself.

Reflecting on these two distinctions, it is easyto see how professors, trainers, and consultants endup committing what Heifetz calls “the classicerror”: treating the adaptive challenge of teaching asa technical problem, and applying the power of ex-pertise by telling people what to do.

We feel as though we are fulfilling our end ofthe deal; professors, trainers, and consultants arepaid for teaching, not for facilitating learning in oth-ers. “You are the expert: teach us” seems to be theimplicit contract that students expect instructors touphold. And, indeed, many educators considerteaching a technical problem, exercise authorityrather than leadership, and deploy their power orpersonality to influence student learning. In theprocess, they avoid conflict, demonstrate resolveand focus in their use of time, and provide decisiveand assertive answers to problems through authori-tative knowledge built over many years. Learners inthe class find comfort in the predictability of the en-deavor and by its inevitable output delivered ac-cording to the plan. But both the instructor’s and thelearners’ need for control and predictability is asymptom of an inability to trust: the less we are ableto trust, the more control we need and the more vul-nerable we are to its loss.

The cost of this collusion—of the professor tobe a central and predictable authority figure, and ofthe student to be passive yet in control—is the en-ergy, engagement, effectiveness, and ultimatelymeaning of the learning enterprise itself. A quick-fixmentality wins, one that shies away from the con-frontation, frustration, and confusion needed forlearning and unlearning to happen. The result is thatpeople lose their ability to grow through experience,tolerate ambiguity, and use sense-making skills.

Case-in-point supports learning over teaching,struggle over prescription, questions over answers,tension over comfort, and capacities and needs overdeficiencies. It is about embracing the willingnessto be exposed and vulnerable, cultivating persist-ence in the face of inertial pushbacks, and self-regulating in the face of challenge or open hostility.Why? Because this is what leadership work lookslike in the real world. In the process, students andthe facilitator learn to recognize their default re-sponses, identify productive and unproductivepatterns of behavior, and test their stamina, re-silience, and readiness to change the system withothers.

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

Planning and Facilitating withCase-in-PointHeifetz describes the challenge in doing case-in-point:

During this process, the instructor walks therazor’s edge between generating overwhelmingstress and allowing comfortable passivity. Stu-dents learn by example that giving responsibilityfor problems back to the social system at a rate itcan digest may be central to leadership.

In case-in-point, a facilitator must not take reac-tions toward him personally (that is, he must sepa-rate himself from the role) and must encourage thesame in participants. Recognize that it is difficult tomove out of a role and analyze an event if you arepart of it. This may mean not taking offense for dis-respectful behavior and later asking the person to re-flect on how productive his statements were.

Ultimately, the role of the facilitator in case-in-point is to demonstrate the theory in practice, byacting on the system in the class. Case-in-point usesthe authority structure and the roles in a class (in-structor, participants, stakeholders) and the socialexpectations and norms of the system (in this case,the class) to practice in real time the meaning of thekey concepts of authority, leadership, adaptive chal-lenge, technical problems, factions, and so on.

Planning. How does a facilitator plan a sessionwhere she uses case-in-point? Like in Jorge LuisBorges’ novel The Garden of the Forking Paths, thetext—in this case, the lesson plan—is only the pointof departure for many possible learning events andlessons learned. The facilitator follows the emer-gence of interesting themes amid interpersonal dy-namics and investigates those dynamics, in responseto the guiding question, “What does this moment il-lustrate that is relevant both to the learning and tothe practice of leadership in participants’ lives?”What emerges in the action pushes the class downone path of many possible junctures. For the facili-tator, the implicit lesson plan turns into a labyrinthof many exciting yet fierce—and sometimes over-whelming—possibilities.

Facilitating.A case-in-point facilitator’s maintool is the question. Questions are the currency ofinquiry, and ultimately case-in-point involves ongo-ing research into the art of leadership that benefitsas more people join the conversation. Here a fewgreat questions that I have used successfully:

• “What’s your intention right now?”• “What did you notice as you were speaking?”• “In this moment, what do you need from thegroup to proceed?”• “What happened as soon as you asked everyoneto open their books to page 5?”

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

5

• “What have you noticed happens in the groupwhen I sit down?”• “Am I exercising leadership or authority rightnow?”

Michael Johnstone and Maxime Fern have ex-panded on four different levels of intervention for acase-in-point facilitator.At the individual level: The facilitator may commenton someone’s contribution or action for the sake ofreflection, trying to uncover assumptions or beliefs.For example, “Mark, could I ask you to assess theimpact on the group of the statement you justmade?” “What should I do at this point and whyshould I do it?” “Are you receiving enough supportfrom others to continue with your point?”At the relationship level: The facilitator might inter-vene to name or observe patterns that develop be-tween two or more participants. For example, shemay say something like, “I noticed that when Bethspeaks, some of you seem not to pay attention.“ Or“What does this disagreement tell us about the dif-ferent values that are present in the room?”At the group level: The facilitator might confront afaction or a group with a theme emerging from theconversation, maybe after participants agree with ordisagree on a controversial statement. For example,“What does the group propose now? Can you articu-late the purpose that you are pursuing?” “I noticedmany of you are eager to do something, as long aswe stop this process of reflection. Why is that?”At the larger level: The facilitator might commenton participants’ organizations, communities, nation-alities, or ethnicities, saying for example, “In lightof the large number of foreign nationals in the room,what are the implications of the insistence in the lit-erature that Jack Welch of GE is a model for globalleadership?”

Qualities of a Case-in-Point FacilitatorBesides a sense of adventure, here are a few quali-ties that have helped me in the class in facilitatingwith case-in-point:

1. Thinking Systemically Under Pressure.Withcase-in-point, I have relearned systems thinking andfinally appreciate what thinking systemically underpressure and acting systemically “live” really looklike. Case-in-point aims to re-create in the class thework of leaders in systems—that is, mobilizing thesocial system so it does the work of dealing withtough problems. This perspective reframes leadershipaltogether; suddenly, leadership work appears to bewhat it really is, that is, identifying and acting on theleverage points of a social structure to create reinforc-ing/balancing loops in service of organizational suc-cess. When leaders think systemically, they come tosee that people are not right or wrong in their opin-ions or actions, but simply effective or not effective at

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

influencing the many variables of the complex systemin which they operate. In teaching with case-in-point,I have found great value in making those variablesexplicit for the group to see in action.

2. Being Comfortable with Improvising. I haveused case-in-point with participants so accustomedto the traditional “death by PowerPoint” approachthat they walk in the room and decide where to sitbased on my answer to their question, “Where areyou going to project the slides?” What I like aboutthis new approach is that it is improvisational; incase-in-point teaching, what goes on in the class-room itself is “the grist for the mill” for learning andpracticing leadership within a social group. As such,it is unpredictable and truly emergent. For the facili-tator, this unpredictability means that you have asense of how the first three minutes will go, but thenyour trained intuition must lead you in navigatingthe disequilibrium in the class. And indeed, I had aparticipant mention to me that the class was annoy-ing because it looked too much like the work he wasdoing in his office.

It has helped me to have absolute clarity aboutthe key issues that are likely to show up in real time,like students’ expectations that the instructor willguide them and take care of their discomfort, fac-tions and the values they represent, people’s ten-dency to leap to action for its own sake, and so on.

3. Holding the Space for the Living Case Study toEmerge.As a World Café host, this concept hasbeen easy to adapt in my leadership developmentwork. I find it critical for case-in-point to create anatmosphere, a setting (Heifetz calls it “a holding en-vironment”) where inquiry, questions, and experi-mentation are welcome.

I find the first few minutes of the class to becritical for setting the context for learning and in-quiry. If this phase is successful, within a short time,we have created a space for learning through directobservation. All is there for our reflective learning:acts of deference to authority, conflict between fac-tions, character assassinations, apathy, the inabilityto act, demagogy, scapegoating, courage, fear. Theseemingly abstract concepts we read in the news orin history books—like the rise to power of a dicta-tor, the inability of an organization to deal with acorporate takeover, or the disturbing group dynam-ics of exclusion—materialize in front of our veryeyes in powerful vividness.

4. Using Emotional Intelligence and ConflictSkills.Working with case-in-point has allowed me toanalyze with more clarity the misconception I oftennotice that good decision making or good leadershipis dispassionate, rational, and totally unbiased. In fact,I believe the opposite is true: It is not only nearly im-possible, it’s counterproductive to try to eliminatepassion and emotion from decision making. The fact

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

6

is that those feelings are the same ones that will drivethe successful implementation of the team’s decision.Heifetz calls this “below the neck” work. Frustrationand verbal aggression often show up during case-in-point sessions. The trick is to deal with them as dataand manage them accordingly. You must be aware ofthe impact of your teaching. Generally speaking, it isnecessary to hold a gentle and compassionate ap-proach toward those in the class who get impatient,angry, or openly confrontational. A key metaphorfrom theAdaptive Leadership framework, “the pres-sure cooker,” helps in this endeavor. You have to reg-ulate the pressure: not too much so that the situationwon’t explode, not too little so that nothing getslearned.

If it is true that great leaders do not take “yes” foran answer, then your success as a leader and as a case-in-point facilitator may depend on your willingness topush the inquiry of a group into passionate, conflictiveterritory. Interpersonal friction, “broken record” ideas,and intolerance for new questions are symptoms ofwork avoidance that need to be dealt with directly andwithout hesitation. This is a tricky area where there ismuch learning potential for the instructor, as disputesare often a positive sign of moving an issue forwardand of the beginning of change.

AWay of Being, Not a Way of TeachingFor me, case-in-point has represented a journey ofidentity. As such, it is rooted in the distinction be-tween an ontological (science of being) versus anepistemological (science of knowing) view of leader-ship. When we teach using the case-in-point approach,we’re helping our students learn how to act their wayinto knowing what is right for their specific organiza-tion rather than bestowing our knowledge for them toapply, whether it fits their circumstances or not. Like-wise, case-in-point is a statement of congruity, of“practicing what we preach” and, in the process,learning to be better instructors. At the same time, weintroduce our students to an exciting realm of possibil-ity, aspiration, and innovation beyond technique ortheoretical knowledge.

Heitfetz says, “Live your life as a leadership lab-oratory.” For educators, doing so means experiment-ing with it, in small pieces first, then in largerincrements, celebrating mistakes, and taking pleasurefrom the journey. This process seems to me the realgift of case-in-point, and it is the best wish that I canmake to those who will dare to start using it.

Adriano Pianesi teaches leadership at the Carey BusinessSchool at Johns Hopkins University and is the principal ofParticipAction Consulting, Inc. He has 15 years of experiencein the nonprofit, government, and public sector to his work inleadership development, strategic workplace learning, and e-learning. A certified Action Learning coach and long-time

•

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

World Café host, Adriano is an innovator and practitioner indialogue education and conversational learning, and hasbeen facilitating leadership retreats since 2002.

For Further ReadingBrown, J., and Isaacs, D., The World Café: Shaping Our

Futures Through Conversations That Matter (Berrett-Koehler, 2005)

Daloz Parks, S., Leadership Can Be Taught (HarvardBusiness School Press, 2005)

Johnstone, M., and Fern, M., Case-in-Point: An ExperientialMethodology for Leadership Education and Practice(The Journal, Kansas Leadership Center, Fall 2010)

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., and Linsky, M., The Practice ofAdaptive Leadership (Harvard Business Press, 2009)

Heifetz, R., and Laurie, D., “The Work of Leadership”(Harvard Business Review 75, 1997)

Heifetz, R., and Linsky, M., Leadership on the Line: StayingAlive Through the Dangers of Leading (Harvard BusinessReview Press, 2002)

a

Rules of Engagement

Johnstone and Fern provide the following rules ofengagement for case-in-point facilitators:

• Prepare participants by warning them thatlearning will be experiential and may get heated.For example, create a one-page overview toleave on each table that clarifies all the con-cepts of the class and includes bibliographicalinformation.

• Encourage listening and respect (though not toomuch politeness). For example, establish a clearrule that participants need to listen to each otherand state their opinions as such rather than asfacts.

• Distinguish between case-in-point and debrief-ing events. For example, set up two differentplaces in the room—one for case-in-pointsessions and one for debriefs—or announceahead of time which kind of event will follow.

• Facilitators must not take reactions towardthem personally and must encourage the samein participants.

• Recognize that no one, including the facilitator,is flawless. Acknowledge and use your ownshortcomings by recognizing mistakes andopenly apologizing for errors.

• Treat all interpretations as hypotheses. Askpeople to consider their own reactions andthoughts as data that clarifies what is going onin the room.

• Respect confidentiality.

• Take responsibility for your own actions. Invitepeople to own their piece of the “mess” by ask-ing how they have colluded in the problem theyare trying to deal with.

NEXT STEPS

ry 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

7

P E G A S U S C L A S S I C S

SYSTEMSARCHETYPESAS DYNAMIC THEORIESBY DANIEL H. KIM

This article wasoriginally publishedin The SystemsThinker® V6N5,June/July 1995.

Part 3 of a 3-partseries

Part 1: Using Arche-types as Different“Lenses” (V23N7)

Part 2: SystemsArchetypes asStructural PatternTemplates (V23N10)

Part 3 of a 3-part series

As we previously mentioned, there are at least threeways to use the archetypes to better understand com-plex situations: as different “lenses” on a problem, asstructural pattern templates, or as dynamic theories.In this issue, we will focus on using systems archetypesas dynamic theories.

Most people are familiar with the Sufi tale of thefour blind men, each of whom is attempting

(unsuccessfully) to describe what an elephant is likebased on the part of the animal he is touching. Try-ing to understand what is going on in an organiza-tion often seems like a corporate version of thatstory. Most organizations are so large that peopleonly see a small piece of the whole, which creates askewed picture of the larger enterprise. In order tolearn as an organization, we need to find ways tobuild better collective understanding of the largerwhole by integrating individual pieces into a com-plete picture of the corporate “elephant.”

A Starting Point for Theory-BuildingQuality pioneer Dr. Edwards Deming once said,“No theory, no learning.” In order to make sense ofour experience of the world, we must be able to re-late that experience to some coherent explanatorystory. Without a working theory, we have no meansto integrate our differing experiences into a com-mon picture. In the absence of full knowledge abouta system, we must create a theory about what wedon’t know, based on what we currently do know.

Each systems archetype embodies a particulartheory about dynamic behavior that can serve as astarting point for selecting and formulating raw datainto a coherent set of interrelationships. Once thoserelationships are made explicit and precise, the “the-ory” of the archetype can then further guide us inour data-gathering process to test the causal rela-tionships through direct observation, data analysis,or group deliberation.

Each systems archetype also offers prescrip-tions for effective action. When we recognize a spe-cific archetype at work, we can use the theory ofthat archetype to begin exploring that particular sys-tem or problem and work toward an intervention.

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

For example, if we are looking at a potential“Limits to Success” situation, the theory of that ar-chetype suggests eliminating the potential balancingprocesses that are constraining growth, rather thanpushing harder on the growth processes. Similarly,the “Shifting the Burden” theory warns against thepossibility of a short-term fix becoming entrenchedas an addictive pattern (see “Archetypes as Dy-namic Theories” on pp. 9–10 for a list of each ar-chetype and its corresponding theory).

Systems archetypes thus provide a good startingtheory from which we can develop further insightsinto the nature of a particular system. The diagramthat results from working with an archetype shouldnot be viewed as the “truth,” however, but rather agood working model of what we know at any pointin time. As an illustration, let’s look at how the“Success to the Successful” archetype can be usedto create a working theory of an issue of technologytransfer.

“Success to the Successful” ExampleAn information systems (IS) group inside a large or-ganization was having problems introducing a newemail system to enhance company communications.Although the new system was much more efficientand reliable, very few people in the company werewilling to switch from their existing email systems.The situation sounded like a “Success to the Suc-cessful” structure, so the group chose that archetypeas its starting point.

The theory of this archetype (see “‘Success tothe Successful’ Email” on p. 8) is that if one person,group, or idea (“A”) is given more attention, re-sources, time, or practice than an alternative (“B”),A will have a higher likelihood of succeeding thanB (assuming that the two are more or less equal).The reason is that the initial success of A justifiesdevoting more of whatever is needed to keep A suc-cessful, usually at the expense of B (loop R1). As Bgets fewer resources, B’s success continues to di-minish, which further justifies allocating more re-sources to A (loop R2). The predicted outcome ofthis structure is that A will succeed and B will mostlikely fail.

When the IS team members mapped out theirissue into this archetype, their experience corroborated

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

8

Resourcesto B

Allocation to AInstead of B

s Successof B

R2

Resourcesto A

Successof A

o

o

R1

s

s s

Use ofNew

Email

Comfort withExisting Email

vs. NewSystems

sUsefulness of

New Email

R4

Use ofExisting

Email

Usefulness ofExisting Email

o

o

R3

s

s s

Use ofNew

Email

Comfort withExisting Email

vs. NewSystems

sUsefulness of

New Email

R4

Use ofExisting

Email

Usefulness ofExisting Email

o

o

R3

s

s ss

B5

B6

s

“SUCCESS TO SUCCESSFUL” TEMPLATE

CORE DYNAMIC THEORY

EXTENDED DYNAMIC THEORY

“SUCCESS TO SUCCESSFUL” EMAIL

Starting with the “Success to the Successful” storyline (top), the IS team created acore dynamic theory linking the success of the old email systems with the successof the new system (middle). They then identified structural interventions they couldmake to use the success of the old systems to fuel the acceptance of the new one(loops B5 and B6, bottom).

the relationships identified in the loops (see “CoreDynamic Theory”). The archetype helped paint acommon picture of the larger “elephant” that thegroup was dealing with, and clearly stated the prob-lem: given that the existing email systems had such ahead start in this structure, the attempts to convincepeople to use the new system were likely to fail. Fur-

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

thermore, the more time that passed, the harder itwould be to ever shift from the existing systems tothe new one.

Using the “Core Dynamic Theory” diagram as acommon starting point, group members then ex-plored how to use the success of the existing systemto somehow drive the success of the new one (see“Extended Dynamic Theory”). They hypothesizedthat creating a link between “Usefulness of ExistingEmail” and “Usefulness of New Email” (loop B5)and/or a link between “Use of Existing Email” and“Usefulness of New Email” (loop B6) could createcounterbalancing forces that would fuel the successloop of the new system. Their challenge thus be-came to find ways in which the current systemcould be used to help people appreciate the utility ofthe new system, rather than just trying to changetheir perceptions by pointing out the limitations ofthe existing system.

Managers As Researchers and TheoryBuildersTotal Quality tools such as statistical process con-trol, Pareto charts, and check sheets enable front-line workers to become much more systematic intheir problem solving and learning. With these tools,they become researchers and theory builders of theirown production process, gaining insight into howthe current systems work.

Similarly, systems archetypes can enable man-agers to become theory builders of the policy- anddecision-making processes in their organizations, ex-ploring why the systems behave the way they do. Asthe IS story illustrates, these archetypes can be usedto create rich frameworks for continually testingstrategies, policies, and decisions that then informmanagers of improvements in the organization.Rather than simply applying generic theories andframeworks like Band-Aids on a company’s ownspecific issues, managers must take the best of thenew ideas available and then build a workable the-ory for their own organization. Through an ongoingprocess of theory building, managers can developan intuitive knowledge of why their organizationswork the way they do, leading to more effective, co-ordinated action.

Daniel H. Kim is co-founder of Pegasus Communica-tions, founding publisher of The Systems Thinkernewsletter, and a consultant, facilitator, teacher, andpublic speaker committed to helping problem-solvingorganizations transform into learning organizations.Editorial support for this article was provided by ColleenLannon.

•

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 February 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.9

ARCHETYPES AS DYNAMIC THEORIES

The “Drifting Goals” archetype statesthat a gap between a goal and anactual condition can be resolved intwo ways: by taking corrective actionto achieve the goal, or by loweringthe goal. It hypothesizes that whenthere is a gap between the goal andthe actual condition, the goal islowered to close the gap. Over time,the continual lowering of the goalwill lead to gradually deterioratingperformance.

The “Escalation” archetype occurswhen one party’s actions areperceived by another party to be athreat, and the second partyresponds in a similar manner, furtherincreasing the threat. It hypothesizesthat the two balancing loops willcreate a reinforcing figure-8 effect,resulting in threatening actions byboth parties that grow exponentiallyover time.

The “Fixes That Fail” archetypestates that a “quick-fix” solution canhave unintended consequencesthat exacerbate the problem. Ithypothesizes that the problemsymptom will diminish for a shortwhile and then return to its previouslevel, or become even worse overtime.

The “Growth and Underinvestment”archetype applies when growthapproaches a limit that can beovercome if capacity investmentsare made. If a system becomesstretched beyond its limit, however,it will compensate by loweringperformance standards, whichreduces the perceived need forcapacity investments. It also leads tolower performance, which furtherjustifies underinvestment over time.

Archetype Dynamic Theory Prescriptive Actions

• Anchor the goal to an external frameof reference to keep it from sliding(e.g., benchmarking, voice of thecustomer).

• Determine whether the drift inperformance is the result of conflictsbetween the stated goal and implicitgoals in the system (such as currentperformance measures).

• Establish a clear transition plan fromcurrent reality to the goal, including arealistic timeframe for achieving thegoal.

• Identify the relative measure that ispitting one party against another, andexplore ways it can be changed orother ways the two parties candifferentiate themselves in themarketplace.

• Quantify significant delays in thesystem that may be distorting thenature of the threat.

• Identify a larger goal thatencompasses the individual goalsof both parties.

• Focus on identifying and removingthe fundamental cause of the problemsymptom.

• If a temporary, short-term solution isneeded, develop a two-tier approachof simultaneously applying the fix andplanning out the fundamental solution.

• Use the archetype to map outpotential side effects of any proposedinterventions.

• Identify interlocked patterns ofbehavior between capacity invest-ments and performance measures.

• Shorten the delays between whenperformance declines and whenadditional capacity comes on line(particularly perceptual delays aboutthe need to invest).

• Anchor investment decisions onexternal signals, not on standardsderived from past performance.

Actual CorrectiveAction

Pressure toLower Goal

Gap

B2

B1

s

s

s

s

o

o

Goal

Delay

Drifting Goals

Escalation

Threatto B

Quality of A’s PositionRelative to B’s

s

o

Activityby B

B’s Result

B2

s

Activityby A

Threatto A

A’s Result

ss

ss o

B1

Fixes That Fail

FixProblemSymptom

UnintendedConsequence

s

s

s

o

B1

R2Delay

Growth and Underinvestment

Capacity Perceived Needto Invest

Impact ofLimitingFactor

B2

B3

s

s

s

s

o

s

Demand

Delay Delay

Investmentin Capacity

R1

PerformanceStandard

o

GrowthEffort

s

s

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 February 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.1 0

The “Limits to Success” archetypestates that a reinforcing process ofaccelerating growth (or expansion)will encounter a balancing process asthe limit of that system is approached.It hypothesizes that continuing effortswill produce diminishing returns asone approaches the limit.

The “Shifting the Burden” archetypestates that a problem symptomcan be resolved either by using asymptomatic solution or applying afundamental solution. It hypothesizesthat once a symptomatic solutionis used, it alleviates the problemsymptom and reduces pressure toimplement a more fundamentalsolution. The symptomatic solutionalso produces a side effect that sys-tematically undermines the ability todevelop a fundamental solution orcapability.

The “Success to the Successful”archetype states that if one person orgroup (A) is given more resourcesthan another equally capable group(B), A has a higher likelihood ofsucceeding. It hypothesizes that A’sinitial success justifies devoting moreresources to A, further widening theperformance gap between the twogroups over time.

The “Tragedy of the Commons”archetype identifies the causalconnections between individualactions and the collective results (in aclosed system). It hypothesizes that ifthe total usage of a common resourcebecomes too great for the system tosupport, the commons will becomeoverloaded or depleted and everyonewill experience diminishing benefits.

• Focus on removing the limit (orweakening its effects) rather thancontinuing to drive the reinforcingprocesses of growth.

• Use the archetype to identify potentialbalancing processes before theybegin to affect growth.

• Identify links between the growthprocesses and limiting factors todetermine ways to manage thebalance between the two.

• Focus on the fundamental solution.If necessary, use the symptomaticsolution only to gain time while work-ing on the fundamental solution.

• Elicit multiple viewpoints todifferentiate between fundamental/symptomatic solutions and to gainconsensus around an action plan.

• Use the archetype to explore potentialside effects of any proposed solution.

• Evaluate the current measurementsystems to determine if they are setup to favor established practices overother alternatives.

• Identify goals or objectives that willdefine success at a higher level thanindividual players “A” and “B.”

• Calibrate internal views of marketsuccess against external indicatorsto identify potential competency traps.

• Establish methods for making thecumulative effects of using thecommon resource more real andimmediate to the individual users.

• Re-evaluate the nature of thecommons to determine if there areways to replace or renew (orsubstitute for) the resource before itbecomes depleted.

• Create a final arbiter who managesthe use of the common resourcefrom a whole-system level.

Archetype Dynamic Theory Prescriptive Actions

Performance

s

LimitingActionB2Efforts

o

s

R1

s

s

Constraint

Limits to Success

Shifting the Burden/Addiction

Side-EffectProblemSymptom

B1

B2

s

s

o

SymptomaticSolution

FundamentalSolution

Delay

s

o

o R3

Success to the Successful

Resourcesto B

Allocation to AInstead of B

s Successof B

R2

Resourcesto A

Successof A

o

o

R1

s

s s

Tragedy of the Commons

R4

R3

R2

R1

R1

B5

TotalActivity

A’sActivity

Net Gainsfor A

ResourceLimit

Gain perIndividualActivity

B’sActivity

Net Gainsfor B

s

ss

s

s

ss

s

o

o

o

s

Delay

B6

1 1

V I E W P O I N T

COMFORT ZONESBY SHARON EAKES

(Continued on page 12)

“In the long-term we would be more happy with livesjust outside of our comfort zone.”

—Brandon A. Trean

It’s a good thing we have comfort zones, those waysof acting and thinking that do not cause us stress orrequire much thought. Comfort zones are those thingswe’ve learned to do that allow us to move through ourdays without constantly asking, “What next?”Wegravitate toward what has become comfortable or fa-miliar. When I worked in drug and alcohol treatment,one of the things patients often said was that as lousyas their lives had become, it was familiar. Gettingsober, living in greater light sounded good, but was sounfamiliar it was scary. Out of their comfort zones.

This essay was inspired by a chapter on comfortzones in a book, The Bigger Game, by Laura Whit-worth and Rick Tamblyn, with Caroline MacNeillHall (Outskirts Press, 2009). My attention wasgrabbed by this sentence: “All comfort zones havesome kind of benefit and some kind of cost attached tothem.” The essential point is that if we want to play abigger game in life, if we want to grow, we’re goingto have to identify our comfort zones and leave thosethat don’t serve us behind.

Kinds of Comfort ZonesWhitworth and Tamblyn identify two types of comfortzones: habits of action and habits of thinking. Habitsof action could include never missing a particular TVshow, eating certain foods, always brushing yourteeth, reacting by yelling when something doesn’t goyour way. Habits of thinking might be things likenoticing what’s going well, feeling grateful for smallthings, focusing on what’s going wrong, finding faultwith others, feeling inadequate to many tasks. Habitsthat include both action and thinking include the roleswe gravitate toward in our lives. We may find our-selves repeatedly playing the caretaker, the expert, thegeneral, the free spirit, the martyr, or some other role.

The IronyThe irony is that we develop comfort zones to keepourselves safe and happy, yet over time, these habitsactually devolve us to a state of boredom and com-placency. So if we’re interested in growing, havingmore meaning in our lives, or succeeding at a newlevel, we need to:

THE SYSTEMS THINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1 Febru

• identify our comfort zones, and• ask whether or not they’re serving us.

The trouble is that we are usually blind to ourcomfort zones because they’re so familiar to us wethink they ARE us. All the more reason this is im-portant. Whitworth and Tamblyn say, “The fact isthat unexamined comfort zones run our lives.”

The Good NewsThe good news is that when we actually do identifyand step outside a comfort zone, we build a newcomfort zone with greater capacity. The more we dothis, the more we grow, the more we’re able to ac-complish, and the better we feel about ourselves.

Cost/Benefit AnalysisPart of the examination of our comfort zones needsto be identifying what the benefit is and what thecost is. So one comfort zone my friend Stephaniehas developed is cooking healthy, homemade meals.The cost is that it takes more time and some think-ing ahead. The benefit is that she stays amazinglyhealthy. Sometimes this analysis is tricky. I have acomfort zone of doing yoga and chi kung everymorning. I’ve been doing this for a long time.Because I do almost the same thing every day, it’sbecome really easy. I realize now I need to do somedifferent or more difficult moves.

AReason to ChangeThis whole idea of looking at your comfort zonesmay be interesting but not make any difference inyour life, unless there is a vision or a dream bigenough to pull you out of that space. For me, thegoal of staying healthy to enjoy my children andgrandchildren keeps me walking outside even whenthe weather is cold. My friend Krishna is leaving agood job he’s had for years because he’s written abook that is changing people’s lives. He wants toshare that message broadly through workshops andwebinars (see Beyond The Pig and the Ape by Kr-ishna Pendyala).

So what is your reason to move out of a comfortzone? Where might the benefit be greater than thecost? I love the “final note” in Whitworth and Tam-blyn’s chapter on comfort zones:

ary 2013 © 2013 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Connecting for CommunityApril 24–26, 2013

Cincinnati, OH

The second Connecting for Community gathering will take placein Cincinnati, OH, in April. In 2012, 90 community builders fromaround the world engaged in a two-day dialogue, stimulated by insights from provocateurs PeterBlock, Peter Koestenbaum, John McKnight, and Walter Brueggemann. This year, Peter Block,John, and Walter will be joined by cultural anthropologist Angeles Arrien, Open Space Technologypractitioner Harrison Owen, and Time Banks founder Edgar Khan.

The first two days of the gathering will explore a range of topics about community building, in-cluding the meaning of citizenship, economies of compassion, scarcity vs. abundance, the power ofstory, and our roles as community builders. On Day 2, Harrison Owen will provide a brief primer onOpen Space in preparation for Day 3’s Open Space dialogue.To learn about the experiences of some of last year’s attendees,visit http://axiomnews.ca/node/3408.For more information or to register to attend Connecting for Community,visit www.connecting4community.com.

EEaarrllyy--BBiirrdd DDiissccoouunntt for SoL’s Leading for Sustainability Workshopwith Peter Senge and Darcy Winslow

F R O M T H E F I E L D

(Continued from page 11)

If this chapter makes it seemthat leaving comfort zones inthe service of your Bigger Gameis a grim slog, let us correct thatimpression here and now. Leav-ing comfort zones—and learn-ing all the new ways you canstep up to what matters most—is seriously delightful. Thepleasure of channel surfingdoesn’t come remotely close tothe fulfillment of discoveringwhat you’re made of and seeingwhat you’re capable of doing.

Sharon Eakes is an executivecoach with Hope Unlimited LLC andis a teacher in the Choice in Coach-ing Program through the ArbingerInstitute. This article originally appeared in her free “Fresh Views”ezine; subscribe here.

•

June 24–27, 2013

Warren Center & Inn, Ashland, MA

Now in its fourth year, Leading for Sustainability has been attendedby more than 300 executives, leaders, and change agents exploringthe shift from sustainability as a problem to be solved to sustainabil-ity as a future to be created. The workshop guides participantsthrough the process of seeing human beings and our environment asone—a connection between nature and social systems.

This highly experiential, hands-on workshop explores organizational learning in a sustainabilitycontext—offering case studies, tools, methods, and hands-on practice for leaders at all levels tobuild healthy value chains, protect communities and ecosystems, encourage responsible consump-tion of resources, and enhance business outcomes.Register by March 22 to take advantage of the Early Bird Discount.

1 2

EDITOR: Janice Molloy ([email protected])

FOUNDING PUBLISHER: Daniel H. Kim

PRODUCTION: Nancy Daugherty

CIRCULATION: Mark Alpert ([email protected])

THE SYSTEMS THINKER® explores both the theory and practice of systems thinking and related organizational development disciplines.Articles by leading thinkers and practitioners articulate the challenges and issues involved increating organizations on the leading edge of innovation. We encourage dialogue about systemic issues and strive to provide a forum fordebating such issues. Unsolicited articles, stories,and letters to the editor are welcome.THE SYSTEMS THINKER® (ISSN 1050-2726) is published 10 times a year by Pegasus Communications, Inc. Signed articles representthe opinions of the authors and not necessarilythose of the editors. The list price is $189.00 forone year. Site licenses, volume discounts, andback issues are also available.Copyright © 2013 Pegasus Communications, Inc.All rights reserved. No part of this news-letter may be reproduced or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopying and recording, or by anyinformation storage or retrieval system, withoutwritten permission from Pegasus Communications.

ORDERS AND PAYMENTS INFORMATIONPhone 800-272-0945 • 781-398-9700 • Fax 781-894-7175 [email protected]

EDITORIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFPhone 781-398-9700 • Fax 781-894-7175 [email protected] 319 Littleton Road /Westford, MA 01886-4133 USA

THE S YS T EMS TH I NKER®

THE SYSTEMS T

REGISTER

L EARN ING QUO T ES

“Is the system going to flatten youout and deny you your humanity, orare you going to be able to makeuse of the system to the attain-ment of human purposes?”

—Joseph Campbell

“Quantum theory thus reveals abasic oneness of the universe. It

www.pegasuscom.com

HINKER ® Volume 24, Number 1

shows that we cannot decomposethe world into independently exist-ing smallest units. As we penetrateinto matter, nature does not showus any isolated ‘building blocks,’but rather appears as a compli-cated web of relations between the various parts of the whole.These relations always include the

February 2013 © 2013 PEG

observer in an essential way. The human observer constitute the final link in the chain of observational processes, and theproperties of any atomic objectcan be understood only in terms ofthe object’s interaction with theobserver.”

—Fritjof Capra

ASUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.