The role of pragmatism in the use of systems thinking for organizational
change [R. K. Ellis, ISSS 1998 Paper Session, July 22/98
These notes are a rough transcription,
prepared as each individual presenter and/or commentator spoke at the ISSS
1998 conference. Gaps and errors have likely occurred. For more accurate
citations, please consult the original presenters. These notes have been
contributed to the ISSS by David Ing, of the IBM Advanced Business Institute
(sabi@systemicbusiness.org).
[Paper session, July 22/98, 1:55 p.m.]
R. K. Ellis (Lincoln School of Management, City University of London),
with W. Hutchinson, (Edith Cowan University, Western Australia)
-
Has been working in this area for 15 years.
The only constant thing is change
-
Managers tend to be reactive
-
Managers are seeking ways to handle this change.
Change itself is not a finite activity
-
Solving one problem will create another.
-
We create many of our own problems.
-
Managers accept approaches (e.g. TQM, BPR, quality)
-
Castigated by Ackoff
-
Michael Jackson also criticizes how managers accept these fads and reject
system thinking.
Systems thinking has singularly failed in gaining wide acceptance by large
consultancies and operation managers. Why?
-
Systems thinking started quite well, emphasis on well-defined problems
and engineering functionalist approaches.
-
Later developments on "messy" problems, as an alternative to straight-line
engineering thinking.
-
Desire to solve problems, find common approaches to managing problems.
-
Issue of managing change.
Why have System-Based Intervention Methods failed?
-
It takes too long.
-
It's too complicated.
-
It's dominated by academics.
-
Are systems thinkers talking to each, and not to managers?
Managers are pragmatists, with pressures to solve today's problems.
-
They're action-oriented, and paid by results.
-
Mindset is grounded in "scientific management" and the "machine" metaphor.
Structures in organizations still tend to be hierarchical.
-
Need problem management processes which are simple, quick, and address
key issues.
System thinkers are in danger of living in an illusion.
-
Denigration of pragmatism in terms of lack of learning.
-
Recent developments
-
are based in philosophy rather than empiricism.
Systems Science is a misnomer.
-
Issue with systemic, rather than systems.
-
Get involved in intellectual navel-gazing.
-
Emphasis on reflective practice, think about what worked and what didn't
-- but managers don't have time to reflect.
Priorities of systems thinkers not in line with pragmatic managers.
-
Need to create some tools.
Organizational situation should dictate choice of tools, not systems thinkers
coming it.
-
Want to do the right thing (Ackoff).
-
Pragmatism calls for the creative use of ANY tool which works.
-
Means that systems thinkers must recognize the needs of pragmatists.
System thinking does have benefits, however.
-
It helps to create understanding in a complex world.
Critical system thinking has tried to reduce tension between hard and soft
thinking.
Need tools which deliver systemic solutions.
-
Need empirical results, not philosophical.
-
Pragmatists ignore the literature.
-
Need to find easier readings.
Must also use systems thinking in own institutions (academia).
Questions
What about Senge?
-
What's he doing now?
-
[Actually, I would argue that he's consulting].
Are executives doing systems thinking, but they're not call it that.
-
"I didn't know that I knew how to speak in prose".
-
Senge: Not a production problem; need salesmen as well.
Engineers as the intermediaries between researchers and the practical world.
German university: Made the systems approach the basis of the program
in management 30 years ago.
Navigate ...
... to the 1998 ISSS Conference (Rough) Transcription
Main Page
... to the ISSS home page at www.isss.org.