¿Cuáles son algunas de las trampas comunes y conceptos erróneos del pensamiento sistémico en el desarrollo organizacional?

Feedback loops are critical but often overlooked because many interventions and programs are only planned through launch. Organizations are often in such a hurry, they fail to plan for the work and effort that goes into the sustainability and continued adoption required for impact. We have to bring a completely different mindset to the game if we want adoption and impact. Getting to launch is just the starting line. Once you shift your mindset, then you can ensure you build feedback loops into the system since you’ll have points where you can implement that feedback. If you only care about getting something launched, feedback loops are useless since you’ll never do anything meaningful with it.

Why do leaders sometimes overlook feedback loops? I found that some times they want specific feedback -- like one leader wants data like the context, what exactly happened and what was response etc. They have difficulty with narratives and don't want to trust the feedback that does not mention specific instances or names. Sometimes, they downplay feedback saying that "some people are always negative and we should not pay attention" and other times, they ask the system to wait for some more time before acting on feedback. Finally, different leaders depend on who is giving the feedback rather than feedback itself.

Underestimating dependencies, ripple effects - feedback loops lead to action and actions affect the system not just one operating part

Often, a lot of work goes into an OD change and that work includes many presuppositions. Then confirmation bias creeps in and turns all feedback into supporting evidence, regardless of how robustly any feedback loop performs. Having a neutral party review and summarize feedback ensure that negative and positive feedback gets back into the system appropriately.

Feedback loops remind me of the "review -reflect - revise" process I used long ago when the mantra of continuous improvement was a part of the work cycle and there is value yet over time these loops become internally focused on the singular process. To bring value to the system it is key to observe the changes the new system brings so having an external viewpoint brings new insights and opportunities to improve. Think more about creating a journey of continuous exploration!

This goes back to Covey's second habit, "Begin with the end in mind." Make a plan that lays out timing for the design and implementation of the intervention, then add the expected timing to measure expected outcomes (could include multiple measurement milestones). A delay isn't a delay if it's pre-planned and communicated to stakeholders.

Time management has become a necessity now more than ever as we're shuffling through multiple priorities in our day-to-day OD activities. Before committing to a project or initiative, we must understand the current workload and whether we can follow up all the way through the project's success. I can't think of a worse experience that can seriously damage OD's credibility than starting initiatives (especially ones known to others) without completing them successfully. So, regular communication is key to communicate any possible or current delays because of circumstances or increase awareness of the employees that some sustainable initiatives cannot be expected to yield results in the short-term.

Communication is vital thru process and identifying time constraints is a part of the process. Rushing to meet an arbitrary deadline may cause delays further downstream and impact the workflow so taking time to gather people, information, and discuss impacts isn't a delay, it is a key component of the strategic success of the project.

Maybe the OD person has to start with three different actions explaining which kind of actions produce immediate result and which one will take time. When I facilitated a planning meeting recently the CEO chose a factory manager to become regional head, I got them to work out their approach in addressing the systemic issues with the team. When team had chance to face them and ask questions, they were excited about the changes. Then within a month, they were impatient to see the results and I had to work with them to identify what are steps that the leaders took that are different and identify what processes are new and changed. When they were able to see changes, they became comfortable with delay in waiting for the results.

It's important to identify performance metrics that can show you the short, medium and long-term impacts of change, particularly when it comes to behaviour. For example, someone who has attended a training program may begin to talk more about the key ideas raised in the training with others, engage in more discussions and ask more informed questions. In the medium term, they will use this new knowledge to challenge ways of thinking, identify gaps in processes or new ways of doing things that will improve an outcome. Long-term, it will become an embedded way of working that characterises their own and/or their team's culture. If you expect that the culture will change in the short-term, then you will always feel unsuccessful.

In my experience, confusing correlation with causation is a common problem. Unless, we address belief system underneath, we continue to point at the data as evidence of their hypothesis without actually verifying what actually happened.

Describe what success will look like (aka, "begin with the end in mind") and then define how this will be measured. When you can make changes and measure using the defined metrics then you increase the opportunity to focus on root cause issues. I like to prompt discussions with "why" too (and 5 times is good model IMHO!).

This pitfall precisely highlights the point where knowledge and experience diverge. Organizations achieve success through analytics efforts when they have teams with a profound understanding of their respective fields. To prevent the confusion of correlation with causation, my recommendation is to establish close collaboration between OD professionals and HR Analytics experts. This way, HR analytics can extract clear and comparable datasets, and OD experts can interpret the data to make accurate decisions.

Being an expert of the systems you lead is how you avoid falling into the trap of confusing correlation with causation. There are often many elements that contribute to an issue and more than one root cause. When you have a deep understanding of the systems that you work in and lead, then you are better able to diagnose the root cause of issues and know where the change is needed to create the intended outcome.

Just because two variables change simultaneously doesn't mean one directly influences the other. For example, an increase in employee satisfaction might correlate with higher productivity, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that improved satisfaction causes the productivity boost. Instead, it's crucial to dive deeper into the underlying mechanisms and interactions within the system to identify true causal relationships. Relying on superficial correlations can lead to misguided strategies and ineffective solutions, undermining your efforts to drive meaningful change.

Recently I helped a CEO to identify a factory head to become a regional head. Even after the regional head came on board, the CEO continued to attend all the regional head meetings and offer his criticism as before. His concern was that regional head needs to learn and learning takes time. But while he was ignoring changes he himself made, nobody was challenging him and the morale became low. CEO took that as a signal that his decision was wrong and promotion was inappropriate. But when he stepped away for a month due to personal reasons, regional head took over and the morale and results went up. Only after I pointed out that his behavior had to change first and he has to honor boundaries, he became more open and aware.

If we think of systems as individual cogs in one giant machine, some smaller, some larger, some turning in different directions, it's easier to understand that all systems are interdependent in some way. Once we understand, acting as an independent cog is the same as demonstrating denial of reality. We're all in it together.

When you're dealing with complex challenges you need to spend time at the start getting on the same page. Bring your stakeholders together and have them share their perspectives. What are their wants and needs (and the things that they don't want), and what is their understanding of the challenge. As they do so, the group will gain a better understanding of the circumstances and they can work together to develop a shared understanding of the system with which to begin working together. Doing so is table stakes. Tools exist to help with this and facilitators who understand the need won't let you out of the starting gate without doing so. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up to yell "Go!" and see everyone run off in different directions.

Ignoring boundaries and perspectives within the system is another pitfall. Systems Thinking urges a holistic view, encompassing various subsystems and perspectives. Disregarding boundaries—be they organizational, cultural, or individual—can limit the comprehensive understanding required for effective systemic interventions. Neglecting diverse perspectives might result in oversimplified or biased analyses of complex issues. The misconception that Systems Thinking provides a linear path to solving problems can hinder its efficacy. Complex systems rarely yield straightforward solutions.

Defining the unity of purpose and respecting boundaries are key elements that propels systems thinking . When roles and responsibilities are delineated, stakeholders will clearly understand the input required from them . Incorporating responsibilities and dependencies in a development plan as well as conducting one on one meetings will promote inclusion and setting boundaries.

An organization is a complex adaptive system, which isn't the same as the simple systems that are often studied/showed in systems thinking (e.g. a bath tub). The system is always evolving, always frothing with novelty, and cause/effect are not always clear nor even linear. Systems thinkers often fall into a trap of thinking they can "map" an organization and then perfectly understand it; and they waste too much time in analysis. I recommend creating experiments within the organization, that are bounded, in order to learn more about how the organization actually behaves in a dynamic way. Think of the org like an ant hill that you have to poke vs a watch you can disassemble.

Systems thinking, in my opinion, is about bringing holistic perspective. It is not a one step process and it is recursive and non-linear. If OD practitioners explore processes like Open Space, World Cafe and Large Scale Change Processes to bring multiple perspectives in multiple rounds of conversations, then changes become more transformative and sustainable.

Using the same cog in the machine anology as before, any change in any related system will change the machine, sometimes slightly, sometimes greatly. Systems should be continuously evaluated for two key characteristics: Is the system performing as designed? Is the system performing as expected? If either of those two answers are no, adjust immediately.

In reality, organizations are complex, interdependent systems where problems and solutions often intertwine in non-linear ways. Believing that a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship will suffice overlooks the dynamic nature of organizational interactions and the multiple feedback loops that can influence outcomes. To effectively apply Systems Thinking, we must embrace the complexity and recognize that solutions require a nuanced understanding of how various elements within the system interact and influence each other.

Finally, after working with Systems thinking perspectives from Society for Org. Learning and MIT, I started integrating perspectives from China and India that are not just cognitive but experiential. For example, bringing in Yoga (Yoga sutras not just yoga poses as we normally think about) perspective of mind and working with the system at experiential, emotional levels before bringing in cognitive perspectives allowed people in the system to create heart space for each other, increase their emotional intelligence and tolerance to ambiguity and diversity. With workforce become very diverse, bringing in DEI perspectives is critical for the organizational systems to be successful and culture to be innovative today.

Organisations are complex systems, in that there are processes, policies, teams, divisions, departments, projects, communication channels, etc. all operating at the same time and interacting with each other. It's important to understand their complexity, understand how each system works and how effectively it is working so that you know what needs to change, when and how. If you try and simplify these systems, you are unlikely to be successful in the changes you want to make because you are not looking at the problem with all the information you need to make an informed decision.

In exploring Systems Thinking within Organizational Development, it's crucial to address common pitfalls and misconceptions. Often, organizations mistakenly view Systems Thinking as a rigid framework rather than a flexible, dynamic approach. This can lead to superficial implementations that miss the deeper, interconnected nature of systems. Additionally, there’s a tendency to underestimate the complexity involved in understanding and influencing organizational behavior, which can result in oversimplified solutions. To truly harness the power of Systems Thinking, leaders must embrace it as an evolving, iterative process that integrates diverse perspectives and continually adapts to changing conditions.