James Lovelock CH CBE FRS – author, scientist, environmentalist and futurist – celebrates his 100th birthday today. I first came across Lovelock’s work in the 1970s and was at first annoyed, then puzzled, then impressed, and finally inspired by his life and work. I am inspired not so much by the actual work for which he is best known (the ‘Gaia hypothesis’) but more by the way he has gone about his life and work and his own commitments to those around him and to keeping going. In this short article to celebrate Lovelock’s centenary, I’d like to try to shed a little light on his life and what I have taken from it.
James Lovelock was born on 26 July 1919 in Letchworth Garden City, north of London, in modest surroundings. His dislike of authority made him an unhappy school pupil and he could not afford to go to university – which he later said prevented him from over-specialising and therefore helped him in making cross-disciplinary breakthroughs like Gaia. During the second world war he ended up studying chemistry at the University of Manchester (initially as a conscientious objector, though he changed his stance followed news of Nazi atrocities) and followed this up with researching into the shielding of soldiers from burns. Lovelock refused to use the rabbits provided for this research, preferring to experiment on himself!
Following a post-war PhD in medicine, Lovelock worked for two decades at London’s National Institute for Medical Research. He carried out original work on cryogenics, and started to invent equipment to support his research, including the electron capture detector, a very sensitive way to look for the presence of gases. Engaged by NASA in the early 1960s to work on the Viking programme of Mars landers, Lovelock showed that life (on Mars) could be found not by looking for traces similar to life on Earth but by a much more general method of seeing whether the Martian atmosphere was in disequilibrium (being disturbed by life). In the end, the Martian atmosphere was found to be stable – so no life. However, use of the same thinking and detectors resulted in the discovery of the impact of CFCs on ozone depletion in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Gaia hypothesis emerged from this planetary thinking. Lovelock proposed that the Earth and all its living and non-living components formed a single interacting system which provided (at least thus far) a self-balancing environment, that can be thought of as a single organism. The name Gaia came from the Greek earth goddess via his neighbour and author William Golding, who pointed out that a good name would be important. Lovelock followed this up with his Daisyworld computer simulation, showing how fluctuations in white (reflecting) and black (non-reflecting) daisies could self-regulate temperature. While this hypothesis was accepted by environmentalists, it found less acceptance initially with scientists who didn’t like the concept of an ‘organism’ to be stretched in this way.
With his living expenses taken care of by royalties from the electron capture detectors and other inventions, Lovelock set up as an independent scientist in his barn/research station on the Devon/Cornwall border. He writes, pursues his own interests without interference from university funding proposals and continues to develop his ideas on the future of Earth. He is a strong proponent of nuclear energy as a low-carbon power sources, and is in favour of geo-engineering as a way to tackle the climate crisis. Both of these are (unfashionably) large-scale tech solutions which are out of favour with many environmentalists. His latest writings (Novacene, 2019) discuss how artificial intelligence will eventually combine with the planet’s natural mechanisms to provide a home for electronic, if not human, life.
I read Lovelock’s book Homage To Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist (Oxford University Press, 2000) when it first appeared. I love the idea of being an independent scientist. Lovelock described how his ‘pot-boilers’ (way of steadily making money) allowed him to develop new ideas, and I have striven to follow his example. In my case, my early career in management development and in particular teaching corporate trainers about ‘accelerated learning’ methods gave me a good income to support our efforts with Solutions Focus and later Host Leadership. It’s a great privilege to be able to follow my own interests without needing permission or funding from other people.
I also admire the way in which Lovelock takes somewhat contrary positions, backing his own reasoning. He is loved by many in the environmental community for proposing Gaia, and at the same time they dislike his principled stance on nuclear energy. The scientific community were wowed by his instrument inventions but appalled (to start with) at this hippyish proposal that the whole Earth is (or at least can be taken as) an organism. This latter position is now less controversial than it was, with earth systems science an important and growing field. I too have been a long-term supporter of nuclear energy (where I started my career in the 1980s) and have felt the disapproval of friends who (lazily in my view) take a whole group of different causes as one – CND, anti-apartheid, trades unionism, vegetarian, anti-business, anti-big tech (but pro small-tech like smart phones), anti-nuclear energy. I’ll make up my own mind, thank you.
James Lovelock and I are both scientists. I sometimes refer to myself as a ‘recovering physicist’. This always gets a laugh, with its sideways glance at the difficulties of alcohol addiction. It’s only partly a joke though; having had a strong science education to PhD level I have a low tolerance for those who poo-poo science, those who steal and twist its language in their own interests (‘energy facilitation’, anyone?) and those who don’t share my interest in using words as precisely as possible where science or logic are concerned. Only last week, I was asked whether in change management it was necessary to involve top management at the start. Yes, it’s a good idea. Yes, it can pay dividends. Yes, if you don’t do it you may run into difficulties later. But necessary? For something to be necessary it must be present in every single case. So no, it’s not necessary – there are examples of successful work without it. (I have learned since my PhD that not every question is about physics, and that there are many aspects of life to which science is not the answer.)
Lovelock keeps on going, developing his thinking, writing about it and making interesting interventions. I hope I can do the same. Happy birthday James and ‘lang may yer lum reek’ (as we say here in Scotland).
Mark McKergow is director of the Centre for Solutions Focus at Work based in Edinburgh, Scotland. He proudly continues the tradition of working as an independent scientist and seeks to show people how things they thought were very hard can in fact be tackled with a counterintuitively modest amount of awareness, skill and capability. http://sfwork.com
The UK Association for Solution Focused Practice (UKASFP) has launched a new and very worthwhile podcast series. The host, Alun Parry, really does his homework and the five issues out so far all over in-depth insights into different aspects of SF practice. You can also subscribe from your usual podcast provider.
SFWork’s Dr Mark McKergow was very honoured to be offered a chance to be interviewed about ‘SFBT 2.0’ – the latest development in SF work which seem to be evolving into a subtly new form of practice. It’s free to download and a great listen!
Nearly 20 years ago Paul Z Jackson and I were writing the first business book on using Solution Focused (SF) approaches in management and coaching – published as The Solutions Focus (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2002, second revised edition 2007) . We found that, in order to move beyond the therapy context of helper-helpee, we needed to reconceptualise the ideas of SF away from a two-part dialogue into ways in which team leaders, facilitators, managers and others might use the ideas in different settings. This led to our SIMPLE principles, and our six Solutions Tools – pieces of conversation which were not based simply on a question to be answered but on chunks of conversation around a particular topic.
One of these tools is ‘Future Perfect’ – discussing life with the solution in place, or (in the old pre-SF 2.0 days) the problem vanished. I had an email last week asking about the origins of the name of this tool, and it’s worth a blog post to expand on why we chose Future Perfect and why I still think it’s a good name.
Future Perfect is, of course, the name we gave to conversations based on the miracle question (or other future-oriented starting points). The idea is to get descriptions of life ‘the day after the miracle’ – when suddenly the problem is resolved, or the client’s best hopes are realised. This is more than just the miracle question – it’s a whole piece of work with lots of building, details, different perspectives and so on. It’s a very distinctive piece of work which is not found, in the same way, in other approaches. So, we thought it deserved a name of its own. It’s not a goal (although to some people it looks like one), so a different name makes the distinction between this future description and a normal goal.
Why did we choose Future Perfect? Several reasons.
- It’s a grammatical play on words. There is a tense in English grammar called the future perfect, characterised by the form “I will have(done something)”. So it’s a past take on the future – “I will have completed my degree by this time next year”. It’s about moving into the future and looking back (as opposed to the simple future tense – “I will complete my degree next year”). This is precisely what the miracle question does – asks the client to ‘beam into the future’ (albeit only to tomorrow) and then look around them for signs of change.. It’s not a perfect (ho ho) match, but there was enough similarity to appeal to the punning funsters that Paul and I are.
- It’s not a goal – so if we call it something different, people will not confuse it with a goal. A goal, much used particularly in the business/organisational world, is a target, a result with a timescale. It is used to measure success – has the goal been met or not? This is not the purpose of the Future Perfect conversation, which is to discover and enrich descriptions of ‘how would we notice things have improved’.
- It is (potentially) about things being ‘perfect’ – at least, the things relating to the Platform or topic of conversation. The thing about a miracle is that it can bring anything at all to pass. So, the possibility of having a conversation about what ‘perfect’ would look like (or 10 out of 10 on a scale, to put it another way) is very real. In normal goal setting and organisational talk, the topic is not usually ‘perfect’ but ‘achievable’ – what could we actually aspire to? The Future Perfect cuts through this – it’s not a goal, so there is no worry about being judged against it.
- It’s a very incisive tool – you can use it to cut through the fog of the problem and get right to what’s really important. The phrase ‘preferred future’ – used by some SF folk – just doesn’t cut it for me. A preference is about whether I want sugar in my coffee or not – not a bold leap into a new and emerging future. The phase ‘preferred future’ is still around, and I still think it’s weak and feeble.
- We wanted to get away from ‘miracle’ in the title of this tool. The miracle question is of course one way of launching a Future Perfect conversation – but there are others. A time-quake is one – where time slips and suddenly it’s six months ahead. Another is a magic wand, or something magical in the coffee. The key point is that a sudden, unexplained and inexplicable thing happens which somehow causes things to be resolved. This is asking the client to make a leap of imagination, it’s a creative process. So, getting past the miracle into a broader concept made sense to us.
This idea of broadening the concepts and tools of SF work was a central part of the book. So, rather than look simply for ‘exceptions to the problem’, we introduced the idea of Counters – things that count/matter – which includes example of the Future Perfect happening already, useful resources, skills, co-operation and anything else which is connected to movement in a useful direction. There’s another story about why we chose the name Counters for this (hint – it’s nothing to do with the thing shop assistants stand behind), but that’s for another day.
Thanks to Nick Burnett for asking the question and forcing me back in time to revisit all this.
I was lucky enough to be invited last week to a meeting of the Scottish Institute for Business Leaders (SIBL). Over the past 15 years, Drew Pryde has built this organisation into an extremely valuable mix of leadership development, combining learning from others (using outside speakers) with a flow of action learning and peer group reflection. (Anyone who joined one of our EDGe groups or SFCT chapter meetings will be familiar with the general idea!)
The speaker on this occasion was Lance Ramsay (pictured with me above), until very recently General Manager of the Bakerloo line on London Underground, who spoke about “Key Insights in Transformation and Leadership”. Lance has been at the sharp end of a number of transformation programmes with London Transport and TfL, and he was keen to explore the distinctions between ‘change’ and ‘transformation’.
There were various views in the room about this (of course). Lance came up with a very interesting possibility – that change is motivated by the past, whereas transformation happens from the future, using the energy of a new possibility to create something not just ‘better’ but in some way fresh. Lance put up this statement:
“Transformation – the business of reinventing an organisation from the perspective of a future point with an aim to change culture, values, beliefs and behaviours, and discover (rather than create) a new way of working.”
My eye was very much caught by the last piece of this definition – ‘discover rather than create’ a new way of working. I think this is worth a closer look.
In some philosophies of change the future can be ‘created’. This phrase crops up all over the place – I think I might have first seen it in Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline in the early 1990s. It seems to me to come from a re-engineering perspective, where the future is ours to create in whatever image we wish. It’s a bold idea, of course, and at least invites us to a position where we have some role in building a future for ourselves rather than it just happening to us. (This was a dominant view in previous ages – we’re just watching series two of The Crown on Netflix, which is all about ‘doing your duty and making the best of it’ in the 1950s.)
What’s wrong with the idea of ‘creating the future’ – at least from an emergent systems perspective – is that there are so many unknowables and uncertainties along the way. We can set off with hope in our hearts (very important) and then so many things can happen, out of our control or influence, that set us off track. Or perhaps they set us onto a different track? Henry Mintzberg wrote about the difference between ‘designed’ and emergent’ strategy decades ago, and it seems that this distinction is still an important learning point for the new leaders emerging today.
What’s even more interesting here is the use of the alternative verb ‘discover’ the future way of working. Discovery implies that we don’t know about it beforehand… that there will surprises and unexpectedness, that there may be novel delights and newly significant differences. This seems to me to be much more in the spirit of emergent change processes in general, and of solution-focused (SF) processes in particular. In fact, many of our SF conversations are about how might you notice that things are transformed, rather than what will you DO to transform them. The whole process is one of discovery and iteration – Lance Ramsay was very keen to stress the importance of iterating and keeping going.
Some uses of the word ‘discover’ imply that something was there all the time – we say that Alexander Fleming ‘discovered’ penicillin, which is to say that he was able to find it, notice its properties and make use of them. Presumably the penicillin mouldy fungus was already around – but not known, seen or identified for what it was. In the case of organisational transformation, I don’t think it works like this. The new ways of working we discover were always possibilities – albeit outside our mainstream awareness. In this case, the possibilities emerge into some kind of actuality over time and with iteration, rather like a sculpture emerges from a block of granite or a painting onto a canvas.
The kind of noticing in which I like to engage my clients is a very creative noticing. It’s hard to notice something before we are aware of the possibility of a distinction, and so having language around possible distinctions is a key part of helping this process along. French scientist Louis Pasteur said ‘In the field of observation, change favours only the prepared mind’, and the twin elements of preparation and observation seem to go hand in hand. So when we set out to discover the future, knowing which clues to look for is an important component.
It’s well worth thinking more about the possibilities inherent in the ‘discover the future’ paradigm. What might you discover at work tomorrow? And who might you invite to help you?
Mark McKergow PhD MBA is an international speaker, author, and consultant. He is director of SFWork, the Centre for Solutions Focus at Work, based in Edinburgh, Scotland. His latest book is Host: Six new rules roles of engagement for teams, organisations, communities and movements (Solutions Books, 2014).
I am very delighted to announce that there is a new leadership book on the scene! ‘Inspiring Leadership’ has been written by a group of the Ashridge faculty, taking in different aspects of contemporary leadership thinking and scholarship with particular connection to leading in a VUCA (volative, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) world. And it includes a chapter on Appreciative Leadership from Mike Brent and me!
This chapter brings together different aspects of appreciative traditions, and includes some very practical ideas about how to stay appreciative in tough times, as well as the benefits of doing so. The chapter draws on Appreciative Inquiry and Positive Psychology as well as Solutions Focus. As a taster here is one short extract, about using one single word – “Suppose”:
This is a very useful word in the leader’s vocabulary. “Suppose” is a word which invites people into a different world – one where things are a little different. Exploring this different world can illuminate all kinds of possibilities. It is a two-syllable gateway to creativity, an invitation to join in a discussion on a different basis to the usual everyday real-world need for facts and accuracy.
Another way to think about this is in terms of using the term, “What if….”
As in saying, for example, What if something was different – what would we do then? This is a useful thing to do when the way ahead is unclear, and new ideas are needed.
- “What if… we had double the budget, what would we spend it on?”
- “What if… we had no money at all next month, how might we keep going?”
- What if… we found a way to get instant customer feedback?”
These are all invitations to explore an alternative reality, to extend our thinking and to draw people together in a novel way.
Some people worry that by asking “Suppose” or “What if”, they are implying that the thing might (or even must) happen. This is of course not the case – as long as you make it clear why we are supposing something.
(The next section gives practical down-to-earth tips on how to do this!)
I hope you will want to check out the book, with this chapter as well as many other fascinting contributions. See the book on Google Books, or check it out on Amazon. There is a Kindle edition available which also saves money. Here is the complete contents list:
With Chris Iveson of BRIEF, I have published a paper which seeks to set out a new focus for the way solution-focused (SF) practice has developed and will continue to develop. Here is the abstract:
We present a potential new view of solution focused brief therapy (SFBT), based on the development of descriptions in therapy conversations. This version of SFBT leaves out many accepted aspects of the model, so far, including: tasks, end of session compliments, exceptions to the problem and compliments. We address the issue of theory in solution focused practice and make a distinction between theory as mechanism and explanation – a ‘scientific’ approach, and more philosophical theory which can act as a useful guide to attention for practitioners. We point to potential connections between this view of SF work and recent developments in the field of enactive cognition and post-Wittgensteinian philosophy of mind, including narrative philosophy.
The paper is published as
Iveson, C. and McKergow, M. (2016). Journal of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, Vol 2, No 1, 1-17
And what’s more, you can read it online at
Last week I took part in a fascinating online summit. Canadian colleague Martin Rutte had invited many transformational and inspirational leaders to discuss the topic of ‘Heaven On Earth’ with him. Those who know me well will know that this kind of overblown (to British ears at least) talk usually doesn’t excite me – but I’ve known Martin for many years and am keen to support his work.
Martin invited me to talk with him about the power of small steps. What emerged in our 40 minute conversation amazed us both: a clear, insightful and energizing look at exactly HOW a small step can be so powerful. We covered how small steps work, and I produced a new model of ‘5 Ways To Recognize A Great Small Step’ to help the listeners put together some impactful steps for themselves.
Great news – this recording is now available here for download. It’s free, and you don’t have to give any details – just download, listen, enjoy and learn. And if you like it, sign up here for more blogs on the subject of solution-focused (SF) coaching and practice.
Just to let you know, the recording is so great that Peter Szabo (author of Brief Coaching For Lasting Solutions with Insoo Kim Berg herself) emailed me four times WHILE he was listening to it! So join us now and make some great small steps in your own life.
Update 22 November 2016: You can also download a transcript of the conversation (which will take less time to read than listening to it!).
The small print: This interview is part of the Co-Creating Heaven On Earth Event a free online event featuring innovative luminaries offering insights and practices for creating a true Heaven On Earth. For more information, please visit http://heavenonearthsummit.com/. This recording is a copyright of The Shift Network. All rights
Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change
Gervase R. Bushe and Robert J. Marshak (editors)
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2015, 496 pages, ISBN 978-1626564046, £45.89 hardback (Kindle edition available)
Review by Mark McKergow
Even though solution-focused (SF) practice has its roots in therapy, it has for some years been increasingly used in the field of coaching, team coaching and organisational development (OD). The first two of these area have been the subject of a lot of attention and several books, many of them reviewed in this journal over the years. The area of OD has received less attention in the SF world.
Even though SF offers both a lens to look at OD (every case is different, focus on language, take small steps, do more of what work whatever that turns out to be) and a way to do OD (using familiar SF tools like scaling, future perfect etc), there have been relatively few reports of large-scale SF organisational change work. The Solutions Focus Working casebook from the SOLWorld community (McKergow and Clarke, 2007) and interviews with Susanne Burgstaller (McKergow, 2015) and John Pelton (Brooker, 2015) show this kind of work in action, and Susanne Burgstaller’s book Lösungsfokus in Organisationen: Zukunftsorientiert beraten und führen (Burgstaller, 2015, still only available in German) is an excellent introduction for those lucky enough to be able to read it.
So why am I telling you all this at the start of a review of another book – Gervase Bushe and Bob Marshak’s excellent and ground-breaking Dialogic OD? Because Bushe and Marshak are both aware of SF work as a dialogic (as opposed to diagnostic) practice, and have produced a remarkable collection of chapters which sets the move from diagnostic to dialogic work into a much bigger OD context. The opening chapter lists some 40 different strands of dialogic OD work, from the familiar (Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space, World Café) through historic (talking stick, Stafford Beer), to the emerging (Art of Hosting, Theory U). And, to my delight, they have included Solution-Focused Dialogue in their list. So many lists of these practices seem to miss our community, and it’s very refreshing to see SF up there with the others.
The 17 chapters in the book range through introductions to dialogic practice (with helpful tables showing distinctions from diagnostic practice), and both theoretical and practical elements. The theory comes from the likes of Frank Barrett (known to me for his work on improvisation and jazz along with Appreciative Inquiry) and Ralph Stacey (whose complex responsive process framework connects well with our idea of turn-taking and turn-making in conversations). All these chapters have a nice ‘starting from first principles’ feel to them. The authors have usually written much before on these topics, but here they start at the beginning without assuming familiarity – which makes the book an exceptional primer. To give an example, this is a juicy and relevant snippet from Frank Barrett’s chapter ‘Social Constructionist Challenge to Representational Knowledge’ about the link between knowledge and action:
Plato and the Enlightenment philosophers held that the highest form of knowledge is contemplation. In that view, we contemplate and then we act. But social constructionists propose that the arrow is reversed. We act into the world, we engage with things we care about, and then reflect or contemplate. Knowledge is an activity rather than an internal representation. (p.70)
What a pithy and relevant statement! The book is crammed with insights and pieces such as these which, while not new, make clear and helpful connections between the thinking behind dialogic work and the way it comes into practice.
The second and longer part of the book is concerned with practice. The chapter by Tova Averbuch on ‘Entering, Readiness and Contracting for Dialogic OD’ is outstandingly useful. Averbuch looks squarely at all the practical difficulties in engaging with clients who may be more accustomed to dialogic work, with greater alleged certainty of process and outcome. She shows different ways to engage with both the situation and the stakeholders, build connection and trust, make contracts and even how to bill when the work appears uncertain and emergent. This is not a cheap book, but for those engaged professionally in OD work this chapter alone provides great value.
I was particulary interested to read Chris Corrigan’s chapter on ‘Hosting and Holding Containers’ with its potential connections to my work on host leadership. Corrigan is a long-term expert on thinking about hosting conversation, but as in the theoretical chapters he too holds this expertise lightly and starts from the beginning. A container in this case is not, of course, a Tupperware box but is rather a combination of topic, group, facilitator/host and boundaries. Careful thinking about how these elements interact can make all the difference between effective work and a complete mess, and Corrigan brings the topic to life with stories connecting to initiating, building stability, supporting inquiry and finally ending a container. One simple tip – “If it’s about us, don’t do it without us” gives a flavour of the work here.
There is not space here to go into all 17 chapters. Each one has its own topic and flavour, and the whole work comes together as a unit with Bushe and Marshak’s careful curating and editing. There is also a website, http://www.dialogicod.net/, with resources, articles and details of the book. If you’re engaged in OD and want to think broadly about your work, this is the most important book to appear for many years – a very bold move in a field which has been emerging for decades and yet seems now to becoming more formed and confident.
Brooker, J. (2015). Achieve Tough Targets: John Pelton on using Solution Focus to achieve a tough target and resolve a difficult challenge at HS2. InterAction: The journal of Solution Focus in organisations Vol 7 No 2 pp 97-103
Burgstaller, S. (editor) (2015). Lösungsfokus in Organisationen: Zukunftsorientiert beraten und führen. Heidelberg: Carl Auer
McKergow, M. (2015). From diagnosis to dialogue in Organisational Development: Interview with Susanne Burgstaller. InterAction: The journal of Solution Focus in organisations Vol 7 No 2 pp 104-110
McKergow, M. and Clarke, J. (2007). Solutions Focus Working: 80 real-life lessons for successful organisational change. Cheltenham: Solutions Books
The RSA in London have just released another of their wonderful RSA Animate videos – short talks by key researchers set to customised animations drawn apparently in real time by the ‘hairy hand’. The latest features Carol Dweck speaking on ‘How to help every child fulfil their potential’.
Dweck is well-know for her work on the difference between treating intelligence with a ‘fixed mindset’ (intelligence is fixed at birth) or a ‘growth mindset’ (intelligence develops and changes). This video gives an excellent summary of her ideas and research.
Towards the end of the video, Dweck speaks about the power of the word ‘yet…’. One of the schools she mentioned doesn’t give ‘failing’ students a ‘Fail’ grade – instead they get a ‘Not Yet’ grade. I’ve been teaching this in my accelerated learning workshops since the 1990s, and there is a very solution-focused flavour to the idea.
I think it’s about presuppositions. ‘You’ve failed’ sounds like a statement of fact, once and for all. ‘You haven’t passed yet…’ is much more grounded in the now, and has the presupposition that you might and indeed will pass – in the future. The same phrase can then lead into a conversation about what will happen in between now and passing. It’s so simple to try, and can make such a difference.
Now enjoy the RSA Animate film of Carol Dweck:
I have just started the sixth running of my Solution Focused Business Professional course with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. In the first week, a very interesting question came up from a participant about root cause analysis and what would SF do instead. I thought you might be interested to read it.
I have a question about SF not focusing on root causes of problems (or please correct me if I am mistaken). In intervention research we often look at root causes of problems in order to develop interventions to alleviate social ills. So – if I look at organizations, sometimes there may be a root cause of a problem – such as a mentally unstable leader that leads to significant issues (I know of an organization where the unstable leader would sometimes be rude to major clients in meetings). With SF, I would imagine folks would think of ways to address how to win the clients back, rather than look at the root cause of the problem – i.e., the leader. Likewise, the staff would be creating a lot of extra work having to regain the relationships with clients on an ongoing basis as long as the leader was in his/her position.
Might you speak to how SF would approach the above situation? Thanks so much.
Excellent question! There are a number of points to be made.
1. We are sceptical of the whole idea of a ‘root cause’ in complex/social systems. While this idea works well in mechanical systems, the many inter-relating interactions and dependancies in a complex system mean that trying to find a single cause is a doomed effort – there is so much going on, and it changes all the time so what’s the case today may well be different tomorrow.
2. Even if you think you’ve found such a root cause, it brings with it an element of blame and accusation. In your example it’s all the rude leader’s fault. While this may certainly be a part of the situation, it leads us down a route to thinking that this is the sole cause and that therefore we have to focus on getting the leader to stop being rude. This then appears to be a ‘magic bullet’. Two practical problems – firstly, the rude leader may well not appreciate this attention (and will probably get ruder, especially towards staff members bringing them this news). Second and much worse, it takes our attention away from other possibilities, other people and other routes.
3. SF embraces the ideas of complex systems and emergence – so there are no magic bullets, things emerge a step at a time, and focus on what everyone WANTS as opposed to what is wrong. So, while there may be a rude leader, what do they and everyone else want? This takes the inquiry down a completely different line. So the first step of an SF inquiry on your example would be to gently ask the various people want they want from these client meetings. It would be very interesting to hear what everyone including the rude leader said! Then we can go from there.
4. As we will see in week 4, the idea of a Platform and a ‘customer for change’ is crucial here. Who wants something different? If the ‘rude leader’ wants something different we can work with them. If they don’t but others do (such as the staff who have to do extra work) then we work with them. If the latter, then we start to look at when they get the thing they want (even a little) and what helps to do that. So, it may be that someone notices that the rude leader is more polite in the afternoons (let’s say) – in which case a small step might be to start to hold more of these meetings in the afternoon and see what happens.