Implementing Interventions: Organizational Pathologies and Ethics

Key ideas#

Plan the implementation#

For each kind of resource (people, buildings and equipment, materials and energy, money, information, time) answer: how much is needed, where and when; how much will be available; and what you will do about a shortage or surplus. Running the implementation is itself an act of control, often regulation once the new structure is in place (see Modelling and Management). Build in monitoring, and a way to detect and correct wrong assumptions, so the organization learns as it goes.

Why stakeholders take part willingly#

Tarasenko retells three conditions from Ackoff. People participate more readily when they believe:

Their participation will affect the result. Give them equal say; prefer unanimity to a simple majority.
It will be enjoyable. Use humor, play and creative formats such as brainstorming or idealized design.
The results will actually be implemented. Involve the top people, pay for the work (people undervalue what they get for free), and build trust between the leader and the analyst.

Pathologies to expect#

Tarasenko, after Warfield and Ackoff, lists systematic barriers to change.

Individual - Self-preservation shows up as risk aversion, reluctance to admit mistakes and a search for someone to blame. - Limited attention: people hold only about seven, plus or minus two, items in focus, which limits sensible model size and span of control.

Group - Clanthink: a whole group shares a false belief and gives it up only when its own experience contradicts it. - Groupthink: a group clings to a shared view despite contrary evidence, through pressure to conform, suppressed criticism, an illusion of invulnerability, and reading silence as agreement. Antidote: make dissent safe, invite criticism, listen to outside signals, including competitors. - Spreadthink: members see the same situation very differently. It surfaces when you collect the problem mess. - The committee trap: a group moves slowly toward trivial results. Ackoff joked that the optimal size of a committee is zero.

Organizational - Superiors dismiss improvements proposed from below. Antidote: develop leaders’ receptiveness. - Subordinates wait for the boss to speak and then do not contradict. Antidote: let the most senior person speak last. - Errors of commission vs. omission (Ackoff): organizations punish doing the wrong thing but rarely failing to do the right thing, although missed opportunities usually cost more. The rational defensive strategy becomes doing nothing while looking busy. - Homeostasis, the pull toward equilibrium, yields best when stakeholders design the change for themselves instead of having it imposed.

The psychology of change#

Change hurts even when it clearly benefits people, because it forces them to rebuild habits and mental models that have sunk below awareness, like learning to drive on the other side of the road. Tarasenko notes that carrot-and-stick incentives can backfire: punishing lateness shifts attention from the work to the clock. It works better to turn attention from the problem to the solution and let people find it themselves.

The analyst’s ethics#

Tarasenko describes the analyst as an advisor, not a hidden power. That means not hiding alternatives that are inconvenient for you or the decision maker, stating every assumption behind your conclusions, and showing how sensitive each option is to changing conditions. He also cites Y. Dror’s rules for declining an engagement: no access to the needed information; a request to justify a decision already taken; or client goals that conflict with the analyst’s own values. Compromise on details is normal, such as keeping a model element the client cares about; compromise on fundamental principles is not.

How to apply it#

Build a resource table: need, availability, gap, contingency.
Define monitoring measures and a regular review of the plan’s assumptions.
Design participation to meet Ackoff’s three conditions.
Before key meetings, check for the pathologies above and plan countermeasures, such as speaking order or anonymous input.
Reward action on opportunities, not only error avoidance.
Write down your assumptions and the alternatives you rejected, and share them with the decision maker.

Example#

The Workshop is rolling out online booking. The resource table shows mechanic time for status updates as the scarce resource in spring, so updates are built into closing a job card. Mechanics resist new slot rules (homeostasis), so a group of them designs the rules for their own shops. In the monthly managers’ meeting, the owner now speaks last, after the managers have proposed options. The analyst’s report lists the assumptions (for example, that most customers will book online) and the alternative the owner disliked, keeping a phone-only booking line, with its pros and cons.

Pitfalls#

Planning the “what” but not the resources → fill in the resource table before launch.
Treating resistance as stubbornness → let people design their own part of the change.
Unanimous agreement reached too easily → check for groupthink.
Presenting only the option the sponsor likes → show all serious alternatives.

Sources and further reading#

F. P. Tarasenko. Applied Systems Analysis (in Russian). KnoRus, 2010, ch. 5, section 5.12.
R. L. Ackoff — conditions for voluntary participation and errors of commission and omission, as retold by Tarasenko.