Learning to Think and Act with Systems: Improving OD with Soft Systems Methodology

Gillian Felton, National Institute for Health Research, UK
Lisa Banton, a City Council, UK
Angela Earnshaw, an NHS Foundation Trust, UK

International Journal of HRD Practice, Policy and Research 2017, Vol 2 No 1: 51-66
doi: 10.22324/ijhrdppr.2.105

Given a context of tough change, Organisational Development practitioners need to be able to innovate as well as develop and implement strategy quickly and efficiently. The key to this is agility — a set of capabilities that can help organisations to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances.
This paper reports on an initiative undertaken by three OD practitioners in three different UK organisations to respond to such pressures and challenge. Critically, the initiative involved them exploring and utilising soft systems methodology (SSM) as an intervention. The paper reports on their initial exposure to SSM and their progress so far. First, the paper presents a brief contextual background regarding OD. This is followed by an explanation of the approach adopted as the learning and application of SSM began. The next stage was to draw rich pictures in relation to the impact upon each of the three OD practitioners, in the context of their chosen organisational problems. The paper concludes with their assessment of the value of this particular pathway of professional development together with some consideration of implications for OD practice more generally.

Key Words: organization development, soft systems, managing change, professional development

Introduction

The field and discipline of Organization Development (OD), for more than 50 years has been concerned with planned and systematic change based on rigorous diagnosis and understanding of problems in order to develop a more effective organization (Cheung-Judge & Holbeche, 2015). However, it is argued that there is a need to ‘reinvigorate OD’ at a time when the requirements for change are unprecedented, problems are more difficult and OD practitioners need to show how they can add value (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Given this context of tough change, OD practitioners need to be able to innovate as well as develop and implement strategy quickly and efficiently. The key to this is agility — a set of capabilities that can help organizations to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances.

Research by the CIPD (2014) suggests that investment in change capability and capacity is essential for organisations that wish to have an ability to effect transformational change. OD, Learning and Development (L&D) and Human Resource (HR) professionals are critical to this. The CIPD findings advocate that organizations should be able to rely on their OD, L&D and HR professionals to foresee the need for, and provide expert advice on, change, just as they would expect the finance function in their organization to be able to provide and execute expert advice on complex matters of corporate finance and financial strategy.

This paper reports on an initiative undertaken by three OD practitioners in three different UK organisations to respond to such pressures and challenge. It seeks to reflect on a professional development pathway with the aim of enhancing their ability to operate in their ever changing environments. Critically, the initiative involved them exploring and utilising soft systems methodology (SSM) as an intervention. The paper reports on their initial exposure to SSM and their progress to date. It reflects on its fitness for purpose in relation to their personal and professional development in the context of OD practice. First, the paper presents a brief contextual background regarding OD. This is followed by an explanation of the approach adopted as the learning and application of SSM began. The next stage was to draw rich pictures in relation to the impact upon each of the three OD practitioners, in the context of their chosen organizational problems. The paper concludes with their assessment of the value of this particular pathway of professional development together with some consideration of implications for OD practice more generally.

OD and SSM

In a recent review of OD, Burnes and Cooke (2012) have argued that while there has been a large expansion in terms of its theory, practice and reach, OD is not “fundamentally different from the past” (p.1414). Instead there has been a continuous evolution of theory and practice but with a degree of to-ing, fro-ing and even competition between academics and practitioners, exemplifying the dilemma of relevance and/or rigour. The period of the 1940s and 1950s were characterized by relevance and rigour, under the influence of the father figure of action research, Kurt Lewin, whose unfreeze-change-refreeze model of change continues to endure (Bartunek & Woodman, 2015). This was followed by a period of competition for influence between academe and practitioners but resulting in a degree of supremacy for practitioners during the 1970s and 1980s, particularly the rise of relevant tools and techniques, perfected by consultants and others who could focus on and commercialize their processes of delivery. OD practitioners could gain influence if they could align their work with bigger projects such as Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering and Transformational Change and Leadership (McLean, 2007). The work of Schein (1988) and others also gained influence with its concern for the diagnosis of problems in organizations which were “fundamentally problems involving human interactions and processes” (p.12) which would require a consultant establishing a relationship with their clients within organizations (Schein, 1999). During the 1990s and into the 2000s, contributions from academe, especially those that presenting a more pluralist, multi-voiced, languaged and storied version of organization life (See Cummings and Worley, 2009) and change management (Ford & Ford, 2010) sought to emphasize a more rigorous approach to OD, based on theoretical support. Were such voices heard or considered as some organizations pursued a unipolar path toward profit at any means during the late 2000s leading to the Global Financial Crisis? This suggests that OD needs to add critique and reflexivity to its formative values of humanism and democracy if it is to influence future efforts for progress in organizations. As Burnes and Jackson (2011) have found, if the values of those providing change interventions are not aligned with others who need to subscribe to the change, the result can be failure and resistance.

Introduction

OD and SSM

Volume 2, Number 1