These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a greater sense with-in the organization that they were doing much better off without Agile. And the whole blame starts shifting towards Agile. They start winding down Agile programs, reduce the coaches. The coaches themselves go through the churn of frustration and get a sense of not adding value to the organization. They either move to different companies or move into different roles. Some of the statements we often hear is \"Agile doesn't work here\" or \"Agile is too idealistic\".<\/p>\n\n\n\n The patterns mentioned above can be mapped to each of the systemic components mentioned in the model depicted. It goes from the order of what is given more attention in the change-efforts and to the ones that are given least attention. It also goes in the order of what can be easily changed to what becomes more difficult to change. For example it is easier to change practices compared to the Organizational Structure (and its functioning) or the Strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These anti-patterns emerge because organizations fail to comprehend or realize the inherent Systemic nature. Each of the components above are treated in isolation and they do not see the whole. They do not understand the inter-relationships between each of these. Each of the component sitting on top is related to more than one component that is below them and should be aligned with all of them. Hence these components should never really be thought off an implemented in Isolation. For example if you decide to onboard the tools, that should be accompanied by the understanding of the language associated with it. And the change in Language should be associated with change in behaviours and practices. They need to be aligned to each other. The Structures should clearly define the how the roles interact in carrying out the practices. All the components mentioned so far should be aligned with the Value and Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However one component of the system that often gets missed by the coaches and leaders alike is how these change initiatives impact people on the ground. How do they see these programs? Why is there a lot of resistance? How does this play on the collective and individual belief system of the individuals and the group? This component can be referred to Mental Model, Collective Mindset or simply Belief System. This works as an overall context where these change efforts play out. It is about how people in the organization would generally think of such initiatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are the stories that people tell themselves and their peers. And these stories have huge influence on the way the change is perceived and hence also on the success of such initiatives. Even though the Leaders and Coaches have the right intent in bringing this change, it may not not be received well by the target audience. If these are not addressed, people lose motivation and would knowingly or unknowingly sabotage the initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying these systemic components and how each of those affect the transformation would determine the success or failure of the transformation. It is important to understand the dependencies between each of them and also in a given situation which component has higher impact over the other. Most of today's organization problems are complex and are the result of reductionist thinking. While we solve one problem, we see other problems arise. This sort of problem solving only provides symptomatic relief without addressing the root issues. Systems thinking helps bring the nuanced understanding of the problems without jumping into solutions. Hence it attempts to bring long-term and sustainable solutions to a complex problem.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Systems Thinking for Organizational Change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"systems-thinking-for-organizational-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:34:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18565","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"3","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":false,"total_page":1},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_3o3","class":"epic_block_11"};
These ideologies have become part of the organizational culture and would usually be transmitted to the new members through the socialization process. These ideological differences clearly present 2 opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence it provides a guideline on the amount of work that is required to make the shift happen. Understanding these ideological differences and where does an organization stand in this spectrum would be the first step in Leadership Coaching. Once this awareness sets in, then it is about creating new experiences that reinforces these new ideologies as depicted in the Results Pyramid. It requires safe environment to practice new skills and ongoing coaching to ensure that the new habits are sustained.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Understanding Organizational Ideology - Key step to cultural change","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","post_password":"","post_name":"understanding-organizational-ideology-key-step-to-cultural-change","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_modified_gmt":"2024-01-23 08:33:39","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/pm-powerconsulting.com\/?p=18960","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"1","filter":"raw"},{"ID":18565,"post_author":"13","post_date":"2021-04-14 19:38:59","post_date_gmt":"2021-04-14 14:08:59","post_content":"\n When Toyota succeeded in their change efforts and started doing roaring business during the early part of 2000s, the secret of their success pointed to be their adoption of Lean Management. Post Toyota\u2019s success, many companies tried replicating this approach without much success but could not go a long way. The main reason for this was the companies tried to copy the Lean tools but was not able to recreate a culture the way Toyota was able to do. Only way to transform the culture is by thinking in Systems and thereby optimizing the Whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let us see this in a little more detail. Right from the early age, what we are taught as a scientific way of problem solving is to divide and conquer. Break the problem into smaller number of manageable pieces, analyse and address those small pieces which would in-turn solve the bigger problem. This is called as reductionist way of thinking. What happens in most of the cases is that those smaller problems become departmentalized or Silos and create their own version of mini and micro-problems. And any problems that gets solved at this level would at best achieve local optimization. And the local optimizations many times would also have negative side effects to the overall system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Systems Thinking is a powerful approach towards problem solving. It is a discipline for seeing whole. It is a Framework for seeing inter-relationships and for seeing patterns of change rather than parts<\/em>. The approach was popularized by Peter Senge through one of his works called \"The Fifth Discipline\" though Edwards Deming is known to be one of the original thinkers of Systems Thinking school. It provides an alternative thinking about problems as a \"Whole\" instead of breaking it into pieces. Systems thinking as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balances between holistic thinking and reductionist thinking. It deals with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is a very simple example of Systems thinking and Reductionist thinking. If we think of managing the software development process as one of the problems, it is easy to see how traditional way of development is more of reductionist thinking: Analysis-> Design -> Development->Testing->Deployment. That is to break software development into 5 phases and manage them as separate problems. With this model, fastest feedback loop is after the verification process which can be quite late to make any correction. Also, in most of the IT Organizations, these phases are treated as separate departments or entities. They have their own set of problems and mostly work in silos. Systemic way of thinking is to think of Feature teams that are cross-functional. The very idea of which is to eliminate the Silos and hence to bring down the time for systemic feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, how can Systems Thinking be applied to Organizational change. And why many of Lean-Agile Transformations fail? Why is it that the organizations do not realize the complete benefits of Agility? Organizations decide to go Agile, make lots of investments in terms of hiring Agile Coaches, redefining the roles and structures and selecting the teams that need to be focused on. However 2-3 years down the line, these are some of the patterns that can be sensed:<\/p>\n\n\n\nTraditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 5. Ideology about Customers:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Teams just need to listen to me since I am the Authority<\/td> Teams can think. I should not mask the same by using authority<\/td><\/tr> We are like the internal customers for the team members<\/td> I am only supporting the team so that they do their best<\/td><\/tr> I rate the team members and hence they better listen to me<\/td> Team members rate me as well. It is a 2-way feedback<\/td><\/tr> Team members are resources<\/td> Team members are people with emotions, aspirations and energy<\/td><\/tr> They need to be managed<\/td> They may need coaching<\/td><\/tr> Process and Rules are important. Any deviations would be punished<\/td> Individuals and interactions are more important. That is what leads to problem solving and innovation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 5. Ideology about Customers:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 4. Ideology about Team:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Teams just need to listen to me since I am the Authority<\/td> Teams can think. I should not mask the same by using authority<\/td><\/tr> We are like the internal customers for the team members<\/td> I am only supporting the team so that they do their best<\/td><\/tr> I rate the team members and hence they better listen to me<\/td> Team members rate me as well. It is a 2-way feedback<\/td><\/tr> Team members are resources<\/td> Team members are people with emotions, aspirations and energy<\/td><\/tr> They need to be managed<\/td> They may need coaching<\/td><\/tr> Process and Rules are important. Any deviations would be punished<\/td> Individuals and interactions are more important. That is what leads to problem solving and innovation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 5. Ideology about Customers:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> I grow and develop only if I do more<\/td> I can grow if I help my team grow and develop<\/td><\/tr> It is more about PPTs, I need to be more visible<\/td> When the working software gets showcased, that is best visible work one can produce<\/td><\/tr> My growth is indicated by the number of people reporting to me<\/td> My growth depends on how I help my organization maximize the business value<\/td><\/tr> I would only be recognized if I make my team-work harder<\/td> I would be recognized if I can create an environment where my team thrives and if I empower them<\/td><\/tr> What matters is the amount of time that the team member puts in office<\/td> What matters is how the team utilizes its time to maximize value for the organizations<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 4. Ideology about Team:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Teams just need to listen to me since I am the Authority<\/td> Teams can think. I should not mask the same by using authority<\/td><\/tr> We are like the internal customers for the team members<\/td> I am only supporting the team so that they do their best<\/td><\/tr> I rate the team members and hence they better listen to me<\/td> Team members rate me as well. It is a 2-way feedback<\/td><\/tr> Team members are resources<\/td> Team members are people with emotions, aspirations and energy<\/td><\/tr> They need to be managed<\/td> They may need coaching<\/td><\/tr> Process and Rules are important. Any deviations would be punished<\/td> Individuals and interactions are more important. That is what leads to problem solving and innovation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 5. Ideology about Customers:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 3. Ideology about Growth:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> I grow and develop only if I do more<\/td> I can grow if I help my team grow and develop<\/td><\/tr> It is more about PPTs, I need to be more visible<\/td> When the working software gets showcased, that is best visible work one can produce<\/td><\/tr> My growth is indicated by the number of people reporting to me<\/td> My growth depends on how I help my organization maximize the business value<\/td><\/tr> I would only be recognized if I make my team-work harder<\/td> I would be recognized if I can create an environment where my team thrives and if I empower them<\/td><\/tr> What matters is the amount of time that the team member puts in office<\/td> What matters is how the team utilizes its time to maximize value for the organizations<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 4. Ideology about Team:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Teams just need to listen to me since I am the Authority<\/td> Teams can think. I should not mask the same by using authority<\/td><\/tr> We are like the internal customers for the team members<\/td> I am only supporting the team so that they do their best<\/td><\/tr> I rate the team members and hence they better listen to me<\/td> Team members rate me as well. It is a 2-way feedback<\/td><\/tr> Team members are resources<\/td> Team members are people with emotions, aspirations and energy<\/td><\/tr> They need to be managed<\/td> They may need coaching<\/td><\/tr> Process and Rules are important. Any deviations would be punished<\/td> Individuals and interactions are more important. That is what leads to problem solving and innovation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 5. Ideology about Customers:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Once we plan something, that need to be followed
to perfection<\/td>Conditions change all the time, hence the planning as a process should be continuous<\/td><\/tr> Design, development and testing is done once in a project, each of these are phases<\/td> All of these are continuous processes and would be done in
each Iteration for all features<\/td><\/tr>Deliver at the end of everything<\/td> Deliveries happen frequently at the end of every iteration<\/td><\/tr> Work hard during the release schedules<\/td> Work happens at a sustainable pace and no special attention is required during the release<\/td><\/tr> Need comprehensive documentation<\/td> Working software is a better documentation<\/td><\/tr> Postmortem at the end of release<\/td> Retrospectives happen at the end of every iteration so that there is a chance to implement what we learn<\/td><\/tr> Budget and scope are fixed. Time is variable.<\/td> Budget and Time are fixed. Scope is variable.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 3. Ideology about Growth:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> I grow and develop only if I do more<\/td> I can grow if I help my team grow and develop<\/td><\/tr> It is more about PPTs, I need to be more visible<\/td> When the working software gets showcased, that is best visible work one can produce<\/td><\/tr> My growth is indicated by the number of people reporting to me<\/td> My growth depends on how I help my organization maximize the business value<\/td><\/tr> I would only be recognized if I make my team-work harder<\/td> I would be recognized if I can create an environment where my team thrives and if I empower them<\/td><\/tr> What matters is the amount of time that the team member puts in office<\/td> What matters is how the team utilizes its time to maximize value for the organizations<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 4. Ideology about Team:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Teams just need to listen to me since I am the Authority<\/td> Teams can think. I should not mask the same by using authority<\/td><\/tr> We are like the internal customers for the team members<\/td> I am only supporting the team so that they do their best<\/td><\/tr> I rate the team members and hence they better listen to me<\/td> Team members rate me as well. It is a 2-way feedback<\/td><\/tr> Team members are resources<\/td> Team members are people with emotions, aspirations and energy<\/td><\/tr> They need to be managed<\/td> They may need coaching<\/td><\/tr> Process and Rules are important. Any deviations would be punished<\/td> Individuals and interactions are more important. That is what leads to problem solving and innovation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n 5. Ideology about Customers:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Traditional Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td> Agile Leadership Ideology<\/span><\/td><\/tr> Customer is the king and we just need to comply or listen to him<\/td> Customer can also be wrong. It is important to challenge his wants and understand his needs<\/td><\/tr> We need a sign off from the customer at every stage. He defines the problem and we provide a solution.<\/td> Customer is part of the solution and we (IT) are part of the problem definition as well. Our relationship is more about collaboration<\/td><\/tr> Any change needs to go through a lot of approvals and the customers may be charged extra<\/td> We need to be more welcoming of change. Iterative development allows for the same.<\/td><\/tr> They are very tough hence we need to be good negotiators<\/td> We need to apprise them of our challenges and software development is a co-creation of IT and Business<\/td><\/tr> My Business does not believe in Agile and hence there is no point in IT following the same<\/td> Agile is about reducing breaking communication barriers between Business and IT. We need to focus more on that and not on following a methodology<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
