The power of collective intelligence for systems leadership and transformation. Strategy #2: acknowledging the burden

How can we harness the power of collective intelligence for systems change? This is the exploratory question that triggered a series of articles where I’m sharing three strategies we can implement right away.

These strategies are action oriented, grounded on my experience facilitating systems leadership workshops and retreats with senior leaders, either from the public and the private sector.

If you work with teams in facilitating and leading processes of organizational sustainable development, regenerative business design and development or systems change, for example, this might be of your interest.

In the first article I explored the first strategy: fostering connection.

(Tip: please read the first article before reading this one :-)

In this second article I explore the second strategy: acknowledging the burden of the system we are trying to change.

The reason why we try to change the system is not because changing systems is something cool or trendy. The real reason for working on systems change is because we feel uncomfortable, unease and even outraged on how the nested systems in which we live work in practice.

This means that, before trying to changing a system, we go through a thorough process of critical assessment on the systems’ dynamics and its structural behaviors. Our first engagement with the system is not nice. We identify the dysfunctionalities of our systems, as we become aware of their own flaws, and how we relate with these flaws. In a way, the systemic flaws are our own flaws. And this process of acknowledgement can be painful.

Take for example the current economic system. One of its structural behavioral patterns is that it extracts natural and human resources in exchange of a profit to maximize shareholders’ financial value. This structure incentivizes capital owners to allocate financial resources that provide a faster return on their investment, externalizing the environmental and social costs of such behavior.

We engage with this system as producers, consumers and/or investors. And we may realize that our engaged behavior might have contributed to perpetuate some of its dysfunctional system dynamics.

Think also of a bureaucratic organization as a system, such as a UN agency, a multinational corporation or a university. Rigid hierarchies with top-down decision-making; processes, procedures and protocols that are hard to adapt given changing environments, such as long-lasting recruitment policies that make difficult to retain and engage staff; incentive schemes that do not enable learning and adaptation; and cultural norms that prevail over people’s power to enact change in real time.

We may get outraged with some of these behaviors and yet we still keep working in and for such systems.

For a facilitator, the real challenge is when these dysfunctionalities start emerging over and over again during a systems leadership workshop or intervention (most often as complaints or frustrations).

These types of systems-change workshops are mostly focused on co-creating solutions to systemic challenges, and the energy the facilitator is trying to infuse is the energy of creativity. But when the flaws dominate the stage and complaining and frustration set the tone of the ongoing conversation, ‘Houston we have a problem’.

The facilitator may feel compelled to change the tone, trying to instill a mood of optimism and positivism to drive the creative efforts of the team work. But when the burden is so heavy and pervasive, this is not the way to go. People do not respond when there is so much structural suffering.

So, at this point, how do we tap into this? Well, in order to acknowledge the burden of the system, the facilitator can:

· Help express the emotional response to the burdens of the system. We need to hold a space where the team, as a whole, can acknowledge the burden of the system by itself, without any external bypass. We just need to guide them through the process, without forcing things, sensing the group mood and channeling its voice. It is in the critical examination of our systems where we leverage our energy to change the dysfunctionalities we identify.

At this stage it is useful to invite participants to express their feelings. We can start by identifying the cause of frustration. This can be any structural dysfunctionality of the system that is preventing or hampering the development of the system and the achievement of expected results. Once identified, we can link them to the emotional responses that underlie them. Making emotional reactions explicit is part of the transformational process.

It is challenging for the facilitator to frame the right amount of time and space for the expression of the burdens to arise. Emotional responses are not easy to articulate, they require enough introspection and retrospection. But at the same time too much time dedicated to this could put the team in a difficult position to later move to the next phase of co-creation. Managing time accordingly is of the essence.

· Favor insight and self-awareness. We might find compelled to tell participants about not complaining. But this would be a mistake. Hold the space until the recurrent pattern of highlighting the burdens of the system leads to the insightful realization by the same participants that, despite the constraints, they have actual leeway.

If you keep your Socratic inquiry focus between the boundaries and the participants’ circle of influence, at some point they will acknowledge that their agency -their ability to act- should concentrate on exploring the margin of maneuver they have in influencing the system to change.

You may think of this as an obvious realization. It is not. What makes the difference here is when the participants themselves realize about their own power despite the constraining systemic circumstances. It is the collective intelligence in the room that facilitates the emergence of this insight through an organic process of shared reflection.

· Balance the right mix of critical thinking and creative thinking. When the burdens of the system are so pervasive and constraining, participants have a natural tendency to use loops of critical thinking in understanding the burdens. Burdens can be structural problems or challenges, tensions, systemic boundaries and so on.

A certain amount of critical thinking is necessary for exploring the boundaries, but an excessive focus on critical thinking is detrimental to finding creative pathways to the systemic challenges. The facilitator knows the group is using critical thinking in excess when the group’s thought process resembles a vicious circle that keeps referring to the same systemic burdens over and over again.

When this is the case, the facilitator needs to gently cut this through and move to creative thinking. Critical and creative thinking are complementary in the quest to address systemic challenges, but they operate in different energetic fields. Critical thinking often generates tension, fear, and anger, whereas creative thinking seeks resolution, unleashing an energy of possibility associated with joy, optimism and hope.

There are different methods and tools available for using critical and creative thinking in symbiosis. Two of my favorites are the Six Thinking Hats and the Three Horizons Framework. They allow the facilitator to structure the thought process in a spiral type of sequence that can be tailored to the collective intelligence emerging out of the team work.

Once the group finds the right balance between critical and creative thinking, it is ready to navigate the realm of possibilities. This will actually be the focus of the third strategy to harnessing the power of collective intelligence for systems leadership and transformation. Stay tuned :-)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

For more updates on systems leadership and the like, follow me on Medium and Linkedin. Thanks :-)