• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
bout a year ago,I participated in aclimate change event in Johan-nesburg, South Africa.In the roomwere one of the lead negotiators for theSouth African government on climatechange,key activists,a representativefrom a major energy company,a fewscientists,and about 40 others.The facil-itator opened the event by remindingthe group of Albert Einstein’s famousstatement,“No problem can be solvedfrom the same level of consciousnessthat created it.”The session then contin-ued with a series of PowerPoint presen-tations from the different constituencies,with no time for questions or dialogue.Several of the presentations were excel-lent, but my overriding feeling as Ilistened to speaker after speaker was“these people don’t speak each other’slanguage.”At the end of the session, I com-mented with some emotion that “wecan’t solve this problem with the samelevel of 
communication
that created it.”By that I meant not only the confer-ence setup. I meant the scientific lan-guage, the graphs, the acronyms, thedetached analysis, the corporate image-orientation, as well as the dismissiveactivist style and the very localized anddisconnected community perspective.I felt that what I had witnessed duringthe session was not the solution, butrather the climate change problem
coming into being 
. I left feeling discour-aged about our ability to address thismonumental challenge.
Why We Must Change
From climate change to AIDS, fromculture clashes to poverty, we are facedwith complex, global problems.Theseproblems have many causes and manymanifestations, and multiple differentplayers have different kinds of influenceover them. Cause and effect are distantin time and space and not easily dis-cernible.The causes themselves havemany causes of their own and are ofteninterlinked and reinforce each other:
Poverty causes AIDS,AIDS causes poverty,and both poverty and AIDS are causes of  the rise in the number of vulnerable chil-dren.
Because of this complexity, solu-tions directed at one part of the system,without a view of the whole, cancompound problems in another part:
The prospect of climate change increases use of biofuels which leads to food shortageswhich lead to increased deforestation whichin turn compounds carbon emissions and increases climate change 
(see “InterlinkedProblems” on p. 3).This is the reality of the messes weare coping with in the globalizedworld of the 21st century.There is noone button or leverage point that wecan press to make these problems goaway.They require us to work out cre-ative and systemic solutions by notonly communicating but also learningand collaborating across sectors, levels,and cultures.We just can’t get out of these situations separately.
A
F E A T U R E
WE CAN’T KEEP MEETING LIKETHIS:DEVELOPINGTHE CAPACITY FOR CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION
B Y M I L L E B O J E R
For the past couple of years, I havehad the privilege to work intensivelyon a cross-sector collaboration projectcalled LINC (Leadership and Innova-tion Network for Collaboration in theChildren’s Sector, www.linc.org.za),which addresses the difficult situationcurrently faced by South Africa’s chil-dren. Primarily as a result of theHIV/AIDS pandemic and com-pounded by other factors, over onemillion orphans under the age of 18currently live in the country. Manymore children subsist in difficult cir-cumstances.This unprecedented, heart-breaking situation is straining people,communities, and institutions.TheLINC project brings together senior officials from four government depart-ments, CEOs of NGOs and faith-based organizations, leaders of major business foundations and other businessrepresentatives, as well as communitymembers, academics, and internationaldonors.These people participate in aseries of “Innovation Labs,” combinedwith leadership coaching, projectcoaching, and networking support inorder to develop collaborative leader-ship and innovative, systemic responsesto the crisis.Through this work and manyother recent experiences, I have beenpaying attention to what I can learnabout cross-sector collaboration aimedat addressing complex problems andcreating systemic solutions.What arethe qualities of the types of solutionswe need?What mindsets and capacitiesdo we need in order to be effective?How do we overcome the blockageswe face?What processes and resourcescan support this work? My intentionwith this article is to share some of these ideas to contribute to strengthen-
2
TEAM TIP
Discuss the following statement as itapplies to your organizational context:“We can’t solve this problem withthe same level of 
communication
thatcreated it.” How might you changethe ways in which you communicatein order to tackle problems in aprofoundly new way?
Copyright © 2008 Pegasus Communications, Inc.(www.pegasuscom.com).All rights reserved. For permission to distribute copies of this article in any form, please contact us atpermissions@pegasuscom.com.
SYSTEMSTHINKER
 ®
B U I L D I N G S H A R E D U N D E R S T A N D I N G
     T     H     E
VOL. 19 NO. 9 NOVEMBER 2008
 
© 2008 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS 781.398.9700 THE SYSTEMS THINKER
®
NOVEMBER 2008
3
ing a wider dialogue and practice, andto build our capacity to cope in thesetimes.
Systemic Solutions
There are many different understand-ings of what it means to think or act“systemically.” For years, I used theword “systemic” because it soundedright, without having a clear picture inmy mind of what it meant. I knew thatit had to do with seeing connectionsand relationships, addressing rootcauses, and shifting our way of think-ing. I didn’t really know how torecognize a “systemic solution” when Isaw one.As my colleagues and I in SouthAfrica started to work on high-stakesprojects with multistakeholder groups,challenging them to come up with“sys-temic solutions,we had to get specificabout what that meant.On that journey,we encountered Elisabeth Dostal,co-author of 
Biomatrix:A Systems Approachto Organisational and Societal Change 
(African Sun Press,2003),whose life hasbeen about applying systems thinking tocomplex social problems like povertyand unemployment.As we engagedwith Elisabeth and with each other around the deeper meaning of our work,we started to see the following:
Systemic Solutions Shift Logic.
Theychange some of the underlying think-ing that is producing the problem situ-ation, thus going to the source of theproblem.As a result, systemic solutionsaim at problem-
dissolving 
, as opposed toproblem-
solving 
(which tries to “fix” aproblem within a current logic).This is,I suppose, what Einstein was also try-ing to communicate: that the logic of the solution is not the same as thelogic of the problem.
Systemic SolutionsWork on MultipleDimensions and Levels.
Because com-plex problems are produced by manycauses, systemic solutions have to workon multiple dimensions (for example,technological, economic, and cultural)and levels (for example, global, societal,organizational, individual, and internal).These approaches embrace paradoxesand look for 
both/and 
instead of 
either/or.
As an example, it is futile todiscuss whether AIDS is ahealth problem or a povertyproblem; it is both andrequires solutions workingon both these dimensions(and many others).
Systemic Solutions HarnessSynergies.
One of the coreideas of systems thinking isthat “the whole is morethan the sum of the parts.”Systems display
emergent 
properties that are unpre-dictable outcomes of theinterplay between their parts, the relationshipsbetween their parts, their context, and what couldbe called their identity.Emergent properties can beeither 
synergistic 
(more than the sum of the parts, with the parts reinforcingeach other positively) or 
dissynergistic 
(less than the sum of the parts, withthe parts undermining each other,leading to a dysfunctional whole). Ide-ally, a systemic solution shifts some of the “vicious” cycles among causal fac-tors to “virtuous” cycles.
Systemic Solutions Are Iterative.
Because cause and effect are so com-plex in these big messy problem situa-tions, we can’t predict all the outcomesof an intervention with certainty (Rus-sell Ackoff coined the term “mess” as itrelates to major complex societal prob-lems).This means that we can’t com-pletely separate planning fromimplementation. Rather, there has tobe a constant communication and iter-ation between our 
conceptual reality
and
 physical reality.
We need to work on re-perceiving and rethinking the situationat the level of the whole (shifting con-ceptual reality), and then act on thisbasis in physical reality at the locallevel.Then we need to attentivelyobserve what is happening, or emerg-ing, in the physical reality and consider whether it has implications for chang-ing our thinking.
Talking Across Sectors
To act more on the level of “whole”problems and “whole” systems, wemust get together with people who arebased in a different part of that whole.We need to get better at talking toeach other across sectors and at work-ing in partnership where necessary.How we do so effectively is a vasttopic. For the purposes of this article,I’ve chosen to focus on four importantprinciples that stand out in reflectingon our recent practice in South Africa:
Becoming self-aware as sectors,
Understanding complementarities,
Iterating within microcosms, and
Seeing the system in the room.
Becoming Self-Aware as Sectors.
Oneof the biggest reasons cross-sector col-laboration is difficult is because sectorshave different logics, values, priorities,and comfort zones, in short, differentcultures. People seldom invest inunderstanding these different identities,even though it is an integral part of cross-sector partnership efforts.Theyfail to give attention to the need for the cross-sector system to self-reflectand create a healthy foundation for itswork together.My favorite university course wasan interdisciplinary one on interna-tional development. For a year, Iworked in a team composed of a biol-ogist, a geographer, an engineer, ahumanities student, and myself—apolitical science student. Our joint taskwas to study development and to writea paper about shrimp-farming inBangladesh.The real genius of the
ClimateChangeFoodShortagesss
R
Useof BiofuelsCarbonEmissionsDeforestationsss
INTERLINKED PROBLEMS
The prospect of climate change increases use of biofuels whichleads to food shortages which lead to increased deforestationwhich in turn compounds carbon emissions and increases climatechange.
 
course was that
half the assignment 
 —half the time, half the paper, and half of our shared mark in the end—was based onour ability to become aware of the dif-ferences in logic across our disciplinesand to create a
cross-disciplinary, shared scientific methodology
as a team.Though Ididn’t have the language for it at thetime, I think we were creating a sys-temic way of looking at the problemand its solutions because we had tofind a place for each of our disciplines,and in doing so, we had to look at theissue from the multiple dimensions rep-resented by our disciplines.Until I participated in this course, Inever realized how disciplines are likecultures. Our team started out by try-ing to describe the assumptions andnorms of each of our disciplines, whichmost of us had never thought about.We drew on cross-cultural literature indesigning our group process and phi-losophy of science.The course offeredus a unique opportunity to self-reflecton our differences as a team, while stillhaving a clear collective goal of some-thing we all had a stake in producing.How often are we given a chance togive equal attention to our collectiveprocess and culture as to our product?As with disciplines, professions andsectors are also like cultures. But whilea lot of attention goes into cross-cul-tural education, little seems to go intointerdisciplinary or cross-sectoralunderstanding.As part of our educa-tion, we generally don’t learn how tobecome aware of the assumptions of our disciplines and how they differ from those of other fields.At the first “Innovation Lab” of theLINC project, we had nearly 50 leadersfrom across sectors in the room. One of the tasks on the opening day was for them to spend time with people fromtheir own sector in a dialogue aroundthe things that they were proud of andthe things that they were sorry aboutin relation to their sector’s response tothe situation of the country’s children.Each sector presented back to thelarger group while the others listenedand reflected.This session proved to be one of the most powerful moments of theevent.Why? Because participants bene-fited from time for self-reflection toacknowledge the differences betweenthe sectors and to notice the variedways the sectors tackled the task andshared their stories.Also, the processdisarmed some of the negative dynam-ics across sectors, because each sector had a chance to name for itself its ownweaknesses and challenges.
Understanding Complementarities.
Surfacing the differences across sectoralcultures is only a first step.The path tocreating synergy lies in understandingthat there are
complementarities
acrossthese differences, seeing what thesecomplementarities are, and then findingways of harnessing them.One of the major challenges indeveloping true cross-sector collabora-tion is that the sectors have perceptionsand judgments of each other.At therisk of being simplistic, I would evendare to venture that sometimes peoplein a sector just want the others to “goaway.” Government and corporations attimes want civil society to go away sothey can get on with their jobs. NGOswant corporations and government togo away, and corporations want NGOsand government to go away. Or, theywish that the other sectors could bemore like themselves, think like theydo, and operate from the same logic.I experienced a powerful momentof shifting such perceptions and discov-ering complementarity in the LINCproject. In the first phase of the initia-tive, we interviewed 40 stakeholders,and we were struck that many of themwere struggling with the same burningquestion:
Given that millions of children inSouth Africa are in need of care, should we be going for a “Woolworths” solution or a“Checkers” solution?
In South Africa,Woolworths is a high-end supermarketthat provides expensive but healthy,high-quality products to a small por-tion of the population, while Checkersis a low-end supermarket that providescheap products to the masses. So thequestion was:
Do we provide a basic pack-age of services to the largest number of chil-dren possible, or do we focus on a smaller number of children that we can give personal attention to and provide with everything they need?
One of the interviewees toldus,“I always think of the five kids wefed today, I don’t think about the 5,000we couldn’t feed. Otherwise I wouldn’tbe able to handle it.”At the time of doing and analyzingthe interviews,I didn’t even notice thatthis question of quantity versus quality,which seemed valid,was coming onlyfrom the NGOs and business stakehold-ers.When I raised it at the workshopwith an academic participant whoworks with government,she becamefrustrated and said she was tired of hear-ing this question because“It’s a falsechoice.It’s a basic rights issue.From her perspective,you can’t take a few kids,give them everything,and provide noth-ing to the rest.It’s simply unjust.In that moment, I realized that theproblem the South African governmentfaces every day is in some ways com-pletely different from the problem theNGOs deal with.The governmentstruggles with how to provide for mil-lions of children equally, to deliver ontheir rights, and to deliver on justice.They don’t have the luxury to choosenot to think of the 5,000, or 50,000,that weren’t fed that day.The NGOsand community workers, on the other hand, look into the eyes of specificchildren, children who need muchmore than the level of care and supportthat is possible if you spread your resources evenly and thinly.In his book,
Shaping Globalization:Civil Society, Cultural Power andThree-  folding 
(New Society Publishers, 2003),Nicanor Perlas posits that
in a healthysociety,
The three key institutions [govern-ment, business, and civil society] areaware that they have consciouslyentered into a social process thatmobilizes the unique perspectives,strengths, resources, and capacitiesof the cultural, political, and
THE SYSTEMS THINKER
®
VOL. 19, NO. 9www.pegasuscom.com© 2008 PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS
4
To act more on the level of “whole” problems and“whole”systems,we must get together with people who are based in adifferent part of that whole.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...