The Paradigm Trap Part 3: From Reductionist Thinking to System Thinking

In the first two blogs in this three-part series, I shared ideas about what happens when we get trapped in a paradigm that blinds us to other perspectives (Part 1) and about trying to lead change in an organization while trapped in the paradigm of organizational culture being a single phenomenon and the second paradigm of organizations as mechanistic rather than organic systems (Part 2).

In this blog, I’ll go into more depth about leading culture change in such a system and then focus on the need for change leadership as opposed to change management. I’ll end with a brief discussion about the time required for culture change. Each of these situations often requires leaders to make a paradigm shift—a significant change in their perspective.

 We’ve learned about cause and effect thinking since we were kids—if this, then that. It’s the basis of much of science; find the root cause of something, then study or change the effect of that cause or the cause itself. Cause and effect thinking is often called Newtonian thinking, after Isaac Newton. Another name is reductionist thinking. That’s because the focus is on reducing a phenomenon to that single root cause.

 Reductionist thinking often drives change in an organization. We see a problem, work to identify the root cause, and then change the root cause to change the effect and achieve better results and outcomes. Reductionist thinking works well for simple, or even complicated, problems, but it’s rarely effective in complex situations. Organizations, by definition, are complex adaptive systems—dynamic systems in which myriad elements and factors operate. Those elements and factors constantly change how they interact with each other and also influence and are influenced by factors outside the organization—the external part of the system.

 All this means that if you use a reductionist approach to change, you’re very likely to end of frustrated, because you don’t achieve significant or sustainable change. And a big reason for this lies in the dynamic nature of the system; by the time you identify the apparent root case of a problem, the nature of the problem has changed, meaning the solution no longer fits the problem. This is why so many change initiatives fail or achieve sub-optimal results.

 What to do? Well, here’s the paradigm shift. First recognize your organization for what it is, a complex adaptive system, in constant flux. Kurt Lewin’s classic 3-stage change management model of unfreeze-change-refreeze, based on the analogy of needing to unfreeze an ice block, change its shape, then refreeze it in the new shape, just doesn’t work in a complex adaptive system. Your organization is not frozen or static. Once you see and understand your organization as a system, it’s easier to recognize the need for systems thinking as crucial to effecting change in the system.

What this means in practice is change comes about by working at the whole system level and seeing how change in one part of the system effects all the other parts. For example, if you wish to change your approach to leadership—adopting strengths-powered leadership, for example, as discussed in Part 2 of this blog—how will that affect learning and development or how you go about attracting, recruiting, and hiring people? How will leadership change affect various processes in the organization, such as performance appraisals or safety initiatives or customer service?

 If your operating paradigm is reductionist and you focus on only one of the organizational elements noted above, you set yourself up for change failure. For more on how to capture this organizational complexity, stay tuned for more blogs on that topic.

 The second paradigm shift to explore here, albeit briefly, follows from the shift from reductionist to systems thinking to effect change and foster growth. That is moving from a focus on change management to a focus on change leadership. The transformational change inherent in working at a system level means there are multiple unknowns and much ambiguity during the change process. Transformational change means that the need for change is clear, yet often the end state is not clear, at least in the early stages. Transformational change is evolutionary, even if kick-started by a revolutionary event.

 When people aren’t sure of the path forward, surrounded by ambiguity, they need leadership, not management. They need leaders who can articulate a shared vision of what could be and the bright future inherent in change, and who can make people feel safe through the change process. This is far too large a topic to cover here, yet it’s a critical element of organizational change and growth. Change management is important, but without change leadership it is rudderless.

 Finally, the third paradigm shift related to change is to move beyond the idea of fast change and done. Transformational change—change at the system level—takes time, practice, long-term commitment, vision, and more. Culture change, performance change, workforce change—none of these happen in six weeks. In fact, they never really end at all. Instead, they change continuously because both the organization and the environment in which it operates are constantly changing. If organizational leaders don’t recognize their organizations as complex adaptive systems and try to create a static organization that doesn’t flex with system changes, those leaders are likely to create conditions for failure. Change is a never-ending process—it doesn’t have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

See The Paradigm Trap – Part 1  https://kieranpatrick.com/the-paradigm-trap-part-1/      

  The Paradigm Trap – Part 2: Building a Celtic Organization https://kieranpatrick.com/the-paradigm-trap-part-2-building-a-celtic-organization/