Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute – past, present and future
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•2,689 views
Systems Thinking has been an important feature in the Tavistock Institute’s research and consultancy work from the beginning in 1947. Central to our action research work with major industries in the 1950-70’s, it formed the core of theory and practice related to ‘sociotechnical systems’ work. This tradition continued within our evaluation activities from the 1980’s onward, and features in several of our current projects. These have received added impetus from the growing interest in complexity theory and its application to evaluation practice, encouraged by our involvement in activities such as the Centre for Complexity in Evaluation across the Nexus (CECAN) and the writing of an annex to the revised Magenta book (Cross-Government Evaluation Group) published on 27 March this year. This talk on Systems Thinking offers the opportunity for you to reflect with us on what we have learnt from the past, how we are currently applying this – and where systems thinking will be taking us next.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute – past, present and future
Similar to Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute – past, present and future (20)
More from The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
More from The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute – past, present and future
- 1. Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute: past, present and future Dione Hills With contributions from Richard Allen, David Drabble and Camilla Child
- 2. Overview • Introduction - Why is systems perspective (or lens) important today? (5 mins) • Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute past and present (20 mins) • Discussion – what place does systems thinking have in your work/field (15 mins) • Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute in the future – potential areas for development (10 mins) • Break out group discussion – what might a ‘Tavistock’ approach to systems look like going forward, and how might this be helpful for you? (15 mins) • Feedback (10 mins)
- 3. Why is systems thinking important today? Upsurge in interest in systems and complexity A systems perspective (or lens) helps to • Highlight interconnections and interdependencies • Understand the impact of external factors (context) on groups, organisations and communities • Explore boundaries - and the role of leadership in managing boundaries • Examine relationships: between parts of a system (subsystems) or different kinds of system (natural, technical, social, political, economic) • Understand dynamic relationships e.g. between stability (homeostasis) and change • Communicate complexity (complex adaptive systems)
- 5. Systems thinking when the Institute was set up In the social sciences In the natural sciences In cybernetics (in engineering, biology and management research)
- 7. Situating TIHR in the bigger picture Social action theory Operational research
- 8. TIHR was set up to……. • Apply social science to contemporary issues and problems …to advance the study of the psycho-sociology of relations (in the widest possible sense of the word) between human beings and groups or classes or categories of human beings, and of the influence of environment in all its aspects on the formation or development of human character or capacity, to conduct research and experiment for this purpose, and to publish the results of such study research and experiment for this purpose, and to train students in or for any branches of the said study. (from Articles of Association for the Tavistock Institute) • Practitioners, • Social science theory and methods • Contemporary issues and problems • Consultancy, • Coaching • Research • Professional training • Publications
- 9. Systems theory combined with other theories and practices in applied settings • Applied systems thinking in action research projects (1947 through to early 1980’s) • Open systems and turbulent environments (Trist, Emery, Miller) • Socio-ecological and Socio technical action research • Social systems as a defence against anxiety (Menzies Lyth) • System psychodynamics and group relations
- 11. Socio Technical Systems and coal mining 1951 Small semi autonomous teams replaced by separated single workers operating long wall mechanization
- 12. Fillers • Most common and most isolated role whilst being most vital to complete on time • Free for all allocation of spots, competed for best spots and no cooperation in difficult conditions • Defences against anxiety were: withdrawal, informal organisation, reactive individualism and scapegoating
- 13. STS model developed • Developed intervention model to ensure social situation for fillers was improved • STS principles were: 1. good work 2. minimal critical specification 3. mutual adjustment 4. multi-functionality 5. permeable boundaries 6. incompletion
- 14. Social systems as a defence against anxiety Isobel Menzies Lyth (1960) 14 Organisational structures and cultures are not only created for the performance of a task but also used to provide their members with defences against anxiety the task may evoke Menzies Lyth was concerned with the containment of anxiety and suggested that this was an organisational design issue. The task is to design structures that contain this anxiety Bion: work groups and basic assumption groups
- 16. Systems thinking underpins all current work Activities System psychodynamic models Action research Systems theory Research and evaluation Group relations events Leicester conference Short and international GR events Publications Human Relations Evaluation Papers and monographs Professional development courses PC3 Executive coaching Board dynamics Evaluation training Consultancy and coaching
- 17. Systems thinking in TIHR evaluation activities Systems theory Lewin: Field theory Action research Part of wider evaluation community System based, Socio- technical, System psychoanalytic thinking Contributing to innovative evaluation theory and practice Formative and participative evaluation approaches Theory based evaluation: theory of change mapping
- 18. Evaluations strategies for a systemic intervention Individuals experiencing multiple and severe disadvantage: • Homelessness, addiction, criminality, mental ill health • Each challenge treated in isolation, services not ‘joined up Interventions: • Flexible and bespoke (personalised) responses • Seeking to address systemic causes of disadvantage (economic, political, social, institutional and organisational barriers, including lack of co-ordination between agencies) Evaluation models in use • Seek evidence of outcomes from one service rather than multiple factors leading to change • Focused on individual rather than system level outcomes
- 19. An STS perspective for Community Resilience and Risk Perception (RESILOC) • New strategies for improving preparedness of local communities against any kind of hazards, • Knowledge and experiences of local communities combines with technical knowledge of hazard professionals to enhance community resilience • STS perspective - bringing communities, professionals and agencies together to optimise resilience.
- 20. What dominates? Technical System rational calculation of risk, vulnerability, preparation and mitigation Social system Lifeworld experience - relationships, history, sense of place culture, emotional, economic.
- 21. Two French towns – same region, different systems Lattes - System for living with flooding Sommieres – System for defending against flooding From: Quinn, T., Bousquet, F., Guerbois, C., Heider, L. and Brown, K., 2019. How local water and waterbody meanings shape flood risk perception and risk management preferences. Sustainability Science, 14(3), pp.565-578.
- 22. The risk perception journey Arguing about indicators RP - Emotional not rational Lifeworld analysis Recognition of systems • Socio-hydrological • Spatial • Technical Pulling it together – co-producing a socio-technical system of risk perception and preparedness Stakeholders and Partners • Lifeworld • Spatiality • Inter subjective • Embodiment • Temporal
- 23. Discussion 1 • Has a systems perspective helped you with your work/field/professional activities? • Have you used a specifically ‘Tavistock’ approach – e.g. socio technical systems, system psychodynamic? • Does a systems perspective inform how you think about – Boundaries (e.g. the role of leadership in managing boundaries) or – Context: e.g. how policies, economics, or social change affects your organization or project or – Relationships – between different parts of your organization (subgroups, subsystems)?
- 25. Systems thinking and complexity sciences Complexity sciences emphasise: • Emergence • Unpredictability and uncertainty • Path dependency • Domains of stability • Tipping points • Diversity of perspectives • Matt Egan From Gates (2016)
- 26. Growing appreciation of complexity in many fields A policy or programme is increasingly complex/complicated: • The more organisations and individuals involved • The more layers or levels or types of intervention involved • The more dynamic or crowded the environment (e.g. other polices and programmes taking place) • The more cross sectoral and interprofessional (greater diversity of opinion and views)
- 27. Growing interest in complexity in evaluation • MRC Evaluating Complex Interventions guidance published 2000, revised 2006 • 2009 DECIPHer, the Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex interventions for Public Health Improvement • 2015 Centre for Evaluation of Complexity across the Nexus (CECAN) • 2017 Centre of Excellence for Development Impact (CEDIL)
- 28. We might…help organisations think about complexity
- 29. We might….help organisations map the system in which they operate Participative system mapping
- 30. We might……help organisations respond to complexity • Do not try to solve it! Steer, not control • Explore it with rigour • Think systems, think broad • Use adaptive management methods • Iterate through stages of research and design (action research) • Active engagement of stakeholders • Aim is to turn overwhelming complexity into actionable complexity
- 31. We might….help introduce ‘agile’ and ‘adaptive’ management systems Action research Developmental evaluation
- 32. We might……..situate ourselves in relation to current theory and practice
- 33. Discussion 2 • What might a ‘Tavistock’ approach to systems thinking – and complexity theory - look like going forward? • What external current developments (in theory and practice) should we be engaging with? • What would you find most helpful in your work/field/professional practice, going forward?
Editor's Notes
- At time of founding of Institute - systems thinking in the social sciences and biology growing in popularity and influence. E.g. Betralanfly general system theory published in 1951. Talcott Parsons systems approach to study of society often now criticised for an overly ‘static’ view – Kurt Lewin brought interest what it takes to bring about change in organisations and societies (force fields) – leading to ‘action research’ seeking to bring about change as a way of understanding systems and organisations.
- Kurt Lewin and systems thinking very influential in early work of Institute, and its action research project with coal board, Glacier project, shipping project and many others. Contributes new ideas to area: socio ecological (focus on systems in their environment) and socio techincal (social systems interacting with technical systems), and system psychodynamics (unconscious processes in groups and organisations).
- Tavistock tradition – Traditions of modern (modernist) management privileges the technical system over the social system which can lead to system failure or collapse when the organisation of work fails to take account exiting social structure, relationships, groups, traditions, reward systems and authority structures.
- In the early years of the Tavistock, Tryst and Bamforth illustrate this powerfully when first demonstrating the StS . Newly nationalised coal mines in the uk in the late 1940’s were keen on the introduction of longwall mechanization for getting coal out of the mines more quickly and in greater volume. But the new method was initially unsuccessful because it failed to take account of the way that the ‘hand got’ coal extraction work it was replacing was a deeply established and valuable social structure of system of semi autonomous small teams. Tryst and Bamforth demonstrated the importance of integrating the technical accomplishment of work with existing social systems for workforce motivation and job satisfaction Working with the STS is still evident in much of work: e.g. Health Care navigation, Medici project, Smart metering - others? Often our focus is on the social system within communities rather than the workplace.
- Fillers was the most common role, 20 on a shift, each had a 10 metre stretch of ore to move to their baskets, and 9 hour shifts to do this in. Allocation of spots was a free for all and some stretches were worse than others, depending on what had happened in the previous shift. This left fillers as the most isolated and dependent role in the system, and therefore the most absent. Beyond withdrawal, fillers employed various defences against anxiety: informal organisation, reactive individualism, and scapegoating.
- TIHR developed an intervention model (a first a list of suggestions, later a nine-step model) to ensure that the social situation of fillers was improved and designed for. This involved a mapping of the process and then of the system, followed by collaborative redesign with all staff, according to a set of principles. Principles were: 1/ minimal critical specification (don’t specify more than necessary in job roles) 2/ Mutual adjustment, 3/ multi-functionality, 4/ Permeable boundaries, and 5/ Incompletion, and 6/ Good work (jobs should have demanding content, learning, decision making, social support, and a future)
- This really was coming together of the social psychological and the social technical. IML’s seminal action research in hospitals was a magnifying glass on what happened when the sentient was not attended to and it’s consequences. Takes into account how the organisational task (in this case preventing people from dying) manifests in the behaviour. The social anxiety is death and the system prefers to shut or split this off (Klein).
- Current approach to evaluation fed by many strands both inside and outside the institute. Woven together – old meaning of word ‘complex’ – The institute has always provided a place of interdisciplinary interchange leading to the emergence of new ideas and new approaches….
- A current example is Resiloc. A pan European project that we are participating in along with partners from other European countries. . It stands for : Resilient Europe and Societies by Innovating Local Communities Resiloc’s goal is to identify new strategies for improving preparedness of local communities against any kind of hazards, either planned or unplanned. It brings together the knowledge and experiences of local communities, with the technical knowledge of hazard professionals, to have a tangible impact on community resilience and how it is understood. the way resilience is understood and increased in local communities. From an STS perspective this means bringing communities, professionals and agencies together to optimise resilience.
- Our task was to try to understand this by analysing the risk perception literature relevant to natural hazards and particularly flooding. Means investigating questions such as why do communities continue to live happily half way up an active volcano or on a frequently flooded plain. Rational sensible people would surely move to a safer place. But to do so could mean giving up a valuable generations old social system of relationships, economics and culture embedded in a shared history Exploring this we came right up against a tension between the technical system of risk perception with its rational calculation of risk, vulnerability, preparation and mitigation and the social system delivering risk perception based on relationships, history, sense of place, emotional reality and the local economy. Resiloc’s task will be to about strengthening the capacity of these two systems to collaborate in optimising resilience
- As an example a study of two towns in southern France evolved quite different socio technical systems in response to flooding. Much of this is to do with the meaning given to water locally. Fifty years ago both towns had similar flood defences. In Lattes, as the local industry and economy grew significant flood defences were put in place and in many places the river has disappeared from view. This also reflects a move from an agricultural to a more industrial economy. The town’s emotional relationship with its river has shifted from an emotional to technical one. In Sommieres, a poorer and smaller community, there is a lower level of flood defence and its citizens more willingly live with flood risk. People still have an inherited place attachment and a relationships with the natural cycle of the river along with a collective memory of the floods. These examples illustrate the complex relationship between context and systemic factors.
- Reviewing the risk perception literature made us think about using the STS perspective in making the journey towards a combined, or optimised, understanding of how risk perception works in communities. We applied the five factors of lifeworld analysis to help us get a rich systemic picture of how risk perception works. From this it looks as though framing the work around risk perception and resilience within a a socio technical system could enable a convergence of perspectives between hazard professionals and communities. Some of the literature describes socio hydrological systems which cover communities’ relationships with water. A simple example of how this can work is through visulisation where technical mapping of a potential flood, when combined with data about how communities perceive sense of place and spatiality can produce a shared picture of risk and how to respond to it .