A Systemic Approach to Consultation

David Campbell, Ros Draper, Clare Huffington, David Campbell, Ros Draper, Clare Huffington

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429910517
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría en psicología

A Systemic Approach to Consultation discusses the application of systemic thinking to work within organizations. The authors draw on their experiences of consulting with teams, departments and whole organizations in both the public and private sectors. They describe their work as an integrated approach called Development Consultation, which focuses on the beliefs and behaviors in the wider system which makes it difficult for organizations to manage their own processes of change. The authors then discuss the way they formulate systemic problems and the interventions, particularly the interviewing technique, which they have used in numerous case examples. The book is intended as a handbook for professionals from any discipline who are engaged in consultation work.

Basic Concepts Underlying the Systemic Approach to Organizations.

This book is about change in organizations.

Solutions to organizational problems are found when the problems are understood in new ways; and when this understanding can be reached through the process of systemic or Development Consultation. Consultation usually refers to one party seeking, formally, the advice of another. The advice given is about work related matters: any implementation of the advice is left to the client.

We would like to introduce the concept of Development Consultation with the following definition:

A consultant helps a client solve a problem through mutual exploration and understanding of the meaning which the inability to solve the problem has for the larger organization. The meaning shows in the way relationships are organized around the problem.

Development Consultation is based on systemic thinking; it is an application of general systems theory. Specifically, what this means is that the consultant assumes that any organization is a system of inter-relating parts; this includes complementary beliefs and interconnected relationships. A systems or 'systemic' view would assume that an organization must balance its need for change with its need for stability, and that solving problems produces gains for some people in the organization and losses for others. These beliefs about gains and losses become incorporated in the belief system or culture of the organization (Marshall and Maclean 1985), and therefore to bring about organizational change, these beliefs - which are complementary and often contradictory must be explored and understood. This is the basis of Development Consultation.

Development Consultation is a complex process but it is based on some fairly straightforward ideas that are linked together in a very specific way by the consultant:

1. How organizations change
2. The great problem of difference
3. The meaning of people in organizations
4. Why organizations have trouble negotiating change
5. Connecting different beliefs within an organization
6. Feedback
7. The observer position

We recognize that the description of 'individuals' and 'organizations' will inevitably by generalized or incomplete in this section of the book. But we have chosen to present the material in this way in order to acquaint the reader with the framework for thinking that underlies Development Consultation.

a. How organizations change

We are inclined to agree with the thinking that has emerged from the field of cybernetics and particularly the work of Maturana over the years (Von Foerster 1979, Maturana and Varela 1980).

The response which an organization will make to input from the outside world is determined by the structure of that organization, whether it be a limited company, public institution or even a family. The organization's relationship to the outside world is like a vending machine being activated by a coin. The coin does not cause the machine to produce a cup of coffee. It merely sets in motion a serial process of events, each one triggering off the next, ending in a cup of coffee. If the machine is working properly, it will always respond to the introduction of coins in the same way.

Similarly, an organization can only respond to new information in the way its structure prompts it to respond.

For example, we were asked to consult a company which produced a range of dairy products, including yoghurt. A manager told us that a new brand of yoghurt was not selling in the shops. The company's explanation for this was that the product was either not packaged properly or not marketed properly. We were interested in the meaning of the fact that these were the only explanations available to the company at this time, and we therefore asked questions about market research, product testing and consumer feedback in order to explore the way people used feedback about products not selling, to support certain beliefs and relationships in the organization.

This is an example of an organization responding to feedback as it was determined to respond, by being critical of packaging or marketing. Looking at the larger issues which made it important to maintain this type of criticism gave them the opportunity to also explore the meaning of the organization's belief that all new products must be made to sell successfully.

How, then, does such a system change? In essence change occurs in such a system because certain random events are recognized as important and supported by various people in that organization. Organizations are changing all the time and they are part of a larger environment in which random events occur which will affect the organization, such as legislation, changes of values, natural disasters etc., some of which are seen as more important than others.

The random events which represent important difference for the organization will receive the most attention and support because they are congruent enough with existing beliefs; events may be greeted with enthusiasm or actively ignored. Therefore, to understand how organizations change, we must understand the process by which support is attached to certain events. For example: what does it mean to people and relationships to support one idea or event instead of another? This question can only be answered by looking at the beliefs or meaning system of the whole organization.

b. The great problem of difference.

Any comparison of two things-two events, two people, two objects - presents the observer with a choice between emphasizing the similarities or the differences. When we think of Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorvachev, we can say they are ideologically opposed, or we can say they are both interested in reducing the threat of nuclear war. The choice of emphasis we make reflects upon us and the 'system' of relationships and beliefs to which we belong.

If we emphasize differences, there will be certain advantages -for example, the boss may approve of our attitude. On the other hand, if we emphasize the similarities, other advantages may accrue: for example, a colleague may take our side against the boss.

One of the central ideas of systems theory is that every organization at each developmental stage must manage an appropriate balance between difference and sameness or stability: the life of the organization depends on it. To put it more precisely, every organization must encourage its members to notice and appreciate difference, and also to notice and appreciate stable, repetitive patterns. From a systems perspective, this is the basic task of any organization.

Every aspect of the organization - definition of roles, management style, company structure, etc - must reflect this process. This is a systemic concept, because the acknowledgement of differences and similarities depends on the meaning system and the structure of the whole organization. For example, a worker will notice a difference in the client's response to the company product if his manager has encouraged him to look for such differences, and the manager can only instil such attitudes if the director shares a belief that the product must always be open to improvement as a result of feedback from clients.

c. The meaning of people in organizations.

It may be helpful to think of an organization as a system, but an organization is also made up of individuals. In order to convey systemic awareness to individuals in the organization, we must understand what the organization looks like from the individual's perspective.

When a person joins an organization, he or she is given a role, through which the tasks of the organization are carried out. Although the person affects and is affected by the role, the fit between the person and their role becomes an important aspect of a person's contribution to the organization. An employee quickly becomes part of a web of relationships, some personal and others basal upon role. The view a person has about these relationships (for example, which ones are important, how they can be cultivated, etc.), is the primary factor in determining how an individual chooses to behave in an organization.

To expand this: we believe that there are important belief systems (or meaning systems) which influence the way in which the individual sees reality and chooses to act. There are also belief systems in the organization - the organizational culture (Marshal and Maclean 1985) - which influence the way people behave in roles. There are both important personal belief systems (such as beliefs about morality and achievement) and important organizational beliefs (the organizational culture, such as loyalty, competition and risk) which come to bear on the individual and influence the way he or she sees relationships. Each belief system is supported by a history of events which have confirmed or disconfirmed the beliefs. See diagram 1.

Diagram 1: The influences on individual action

The way an individual both sees and experiences relationships will then determine which, of the many possible actions, he chooses. For example, a manager may want to create a closer relationship with his boss, and this will then affect the way he chooses to deal with his subordinates. Therefore (working backwards) if one wants to understand why a person is acting in a particular way, one must understand the relationships which are being affected. Then one must also understand the various personal and organizational beliefs that influence that particular view of relationships.

d. Why organizations have trouble negotiating change.

As an individual continues to interact within an organization, he or she tends to reinforce their own personal beliefs and the organizational culture, and a series of relationships are established with unite the beliefs, culture and behaviour in one interconnected system of beliefs and behaviour.

As this system continues through time, it acquires a stability that people can recognize and depend on. The provides personal security and an organizational identity upon which to build.

But organizations are also continuously changing. Its people change, and the culture changes with them. Here lies the inevitable tension between an organization's stability and its need to change. The tension seems to be managed through a complex set of implicit rules, guidelines and limits about how things are allowed to change; for example, two colleagues may be allowed to argue and disagree. But, at a certain point, an implicit rule is invoked which specifies the way disagreements will be solved - for example, by one person backing down.

Diagram 2: Relationships which unite beliefs and action. Dashed line indicates the flow of behaviour which creates relationships.

When people 'observe' that relationships and roles are changing too much, they feel their connection to the stable organization they have come to depend upon is threatened. It is as though old patterns of behaviour are no longer valid; and one loses a sense of security and the confidence that the organization can provide the context where new, equally rewarding relationships will develop.

At this stage, employees retreat into behaviour which aims to bolster personal security at the expense of the organisation. Here, one sees alliances and empire building, loss of role for personal needs and endless conflict over apparently unimportant issues. While this situation is always going on to some extent, the difference in this situation is that the individual no longer believes that the organization is a place that can fulfil his aims as a working person. At this point, individual and organizational goals are no longer mutually satisfying and productive.

e. Connecting different beliefs within the organization

So change itself is not the problem; rather, it is the meaning that change has for the relationships in the organization which can seem to create a problem. Organizations are nevertheless constantly changing, and for most of the time, can make the necessary adaptations to keep employees happy and the company productive. However, when changes threaten important relationships (a relationship to a role, a person or a belief), people feel insecure within the organization and behave in ways which will enhance the security of the individual.

The remedy for this situation is to re-connect the individual to the organization. The individual is then able to see again his own needs reflected in the foals of the organization, and see how carrying out his role in the organization contributes to both his own and the organisation's development. This is done through several stages:

1. People need to be aware of an individual's needs and wishes and the way the organization affects and is affected by these needs.
2. The source of the threat to these relationships must be identified and the consequences of change and no change explored fully. These beliefs must be connected to the higher-level beliefs in the organization which support what seems like a threatening belief about the lower, or individual, level of the organization. The process of discussing and enquiring has the effect of making these connections for the individual.
3. The consequences of these beliefs are then related to the way losses and gains could be experienced in the larger organization if things were to change.
4. Through a complex process of re-evaluating the individual needs in the context of the changing organization and reevaluating the organizational culture in the context of changing individual needs, a new pattern of connections is created among the individuals and the organization.

We think of this process as creating a new set of beliefs which lead to new behaviours and the creation of new relationships; and it is the basis of the systemic approach to consultation. We think of the individual and the organization as connected together as a system; and the exploration of this connection, through systemic interviewing (see Section V) leads to the creation of new behaviours.

f. Feedback

The single most important intervention to enable organizations to manage change productively is to increase the awareness of the way feedback is passed throughout the organization.

Feedback is the lifeblood of any system. In order to work together, people at both the top and bottom of a hierarchical organization must have feedback about their behaviour from other levels of the hierarchy. And, in order for a system to remain viable within its environment, feedback must be passed back and forth between the internal organization and the external environment.

One of the problems inherent in a hierarchical structure is that feedback become attenuated for the sake of efficiency; that is, employees cannot know all the variables the boss has considered when making a decision, nor can the boss spare the time to kno...