Systems

17/7/2016

It’s tempting to think the world has gone crazy. A crisis in one place followed in quick succession by a crisis somewhere else. Yet situations and events that appear completely unrelated can look mysteriously connected once we pause, step back from the dramatic media rhetoric and look more deeply. ‘What is really going on here?’, ‘What is influencing what?’, 'What patterns and links are forming?'

McDermott & O’Connor in ‘The Art of Systems Thinking’ distinguish between: simple complexity (e.g. a car engine that is complicated because it has numerous parts - yet it parts interact predictably and in fixed ways) and dynamic complexity (e.g. human systems such as families, teams, communities, nations etc. where different parties not only interact but change and influence each other).

Dynamic complexity at a global level is being accelerated and amplified by technology and social media that enable people to connect, interact and influence each other faster than ever before. As Wheatley explains in ‘Leadership & The New Science’, however, this does not necessarily create ever-increasing chaos. It’s as if even complex human systems find their own equilibrium and flow.

So what does this mean for leadership, OD and coaching? Firstly, look beyond the issue itself to inquire into ‘what else’ is creating and sustaining the conditions for it to arise. Secondly, view human systems in terms of relational influence rather than mechanics. Thirdly, be curious and responsive to what and where energy is emerging and shifting. Fourthly, be ready to let go - and dance!

59 Comments

Adrian Spurrell

18/7/2016 10:38:04 am

And remember that careful planning, which assumes a steady state situation - is not likely to help you a great deal!

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 10:48:27 am

Thanks Adrian. Yes, I think the planning question is a really interesting one. I think that's where VUCA principles and leadership can come to the fore. It's often now more about scenario planning grounded on core mission, goals and values than creating rigid, fixed, long-term plans.

It was fascinating to see how some businesses and institutions reacted to the recent UK referendum result in the UK: blaming an 'unexpected' result for turmoil in the markets rather than their own failure to anticipate and respond to that scenario effectively.

News headlines in the past month alone show how quickly and dramatically things can change. We need to be flexible and agile enough to handle it well...and that takes a shift in mindset, emotional resilience and greater capacity to live with and navigate through ambiguity and change.

All the best. Nick

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

18/7/2016 10:49:34 am

Nice as ever Nick. Indeed Adrian and refreshing to hear! Sensing into those systems from an appreciation of an organic flow, an openness to noticing the process of homeostasis, requires that we recognise, acknowledge and incorporate our own dynamism. What am I sensing? How am I moved physically, emotionally? What visuals am I getting? Holding space through relaxed open attention, letting ourselves be danced by the field...

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 10:51:21 am

Hi Cath and thanks for the note. I love those words: 'Holding space through relaxed open attention, letting ourselves be danced by the field...' I'm sure you are a Gestalt-ist at heart! :) All the best. Nick

Joshua Freedman

18/7/2016 01:04:21 pm

Love this. "It’s tempting to think the world has gone crazy" -- yes! But I agree w you, that's not a real answer -- we need to look more deeply at the emotional drivers of the "storm" and use our EQ leadership to change those drivers.

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 01:05:56 pm

Many thanks, Joshua. What's your sense of what 'using out EQ leadership to change those drivers' could look like in practice? All the best. Nick

Paola Pinto

18/7/2016 03:57:13 pm

Let's use technology and social media to positively influence and reverse the trend.... The change will come through exposing people to positive thinking, inclusion and respect...

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 04:04:13 pm

Hi Paola and thanks for the note. I'm curious: what is the trend you hope positively to influence and reverse? On the social media front, you may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/leadership All the best. Nick

Nick Skinner

18/7/2016 06:24:52 pm

Systems thinking influences my practice deeply and at many levels, including the workings of the client system, my own influence upon events and the influence and importance of the external landscape. It helps me work with metaphors of organisation that resonate with me and - so far at least - with clients. You can't unplug these connections, but you can plan to work resiliently within them. I like to use a term "friction" that is stolen from military thinking that originated 200 years ago from Carl von Clausewitz, whom I misquote thus: "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult....In war more than anywhere else things do not turn out as we expect and nearby they do not appear as they did from a distance". Works for me.

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 06:34:31 pm

Hi Nick and thanks for sharing such great insights. I like your recognition of your presence in the system and your influence on events within it.

Sometimes OD practitioners imagine themselves as standing outside of the system (which, to some reason, can be true) without being aware that, as soon as they engage with the system, they become part of the system.

The Gestalt notion of field dynamics captures and explains this well. Are you familiar with Malcolm Parlett's work in this area? http://www.elementsuk.com/libraryofarticles/fieldtheory.pdf

I can relate to your paraphrase of Clausewitz. I once worked as part of a disaster response team during the Kosova conflict and observed first hand the chaos of an emergency situation-response and the flexibility, proactivity, resilience and innovative spirit of team members. Long-term planning made little sense in the immediacy of the moment. Contingency planning and response was everything.

All the best. Nick

Janice Taylor

18/7/2016 06:35:31 pm

A great way to think about coaching, opens up all sorts of possibilites.

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 06:36:07 pm

Thanks Janice - and for kindly tweeting the blog! All the best. Nick

Ian Llewellyn-Nash PhD

18/7/2016 06:37:53 pm

Hello Nick, thank you for your post above and the stimulus to think around some ways in which the theory behind EI might be applied, or at the east connect with wider issues such as societal upheaval. Your piece has some interesting metaphors- are they yours or Wheatley's? When I was in the final stages of my doctorate looking at EI ( or EW as I prefer i.e. wisdom) I came across the Decade of EI report produced by JCA in the UK. tHe study was based on 10 years of EI across employment sectors e.g. IT, sales, Healthcare. An interesting piece of the data seemed to suggest that in 'good times' aggregate EI was high, in bad times, it was low. There is for me, something of an oxymoron in this finding as it may be postulated that if EI is actually present then would not bad times draw out that emotional support for others in challenging times.

My point, as I know you will ask for it, is that often (and certainly Joshua and the team at SixSeconds are addressing this) EI can be proffered as a panacea for all ills of a relational matter without valuing that the further upstream we offer such equipping the better. EI cannot exist in isolation as it relates to who we are, not what we are and we are only that which we are in relationship to others. Perhaps , EI can shift us from erstwhile questions of blame attribution to questions of (re) building alliances and future oriented perspectives rather than the rhetoric of accusation. In short, EI, whether as a leader, follower or observer should be framed as a mode of being, not an ends to doing. what that looks like for a start is that we flow towards each other embracing difference as in the dance. To resist the dance is to disturb the flow that I think you allude to. To that end, I welcome thoughts.

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 06:52:55 pm

Hi Ian and thanks for sharing such deep reflections on this topic. Sounds like you have done interesting research in this area! I particularly like your statement: 'EI cannot exist in isolation as it relates to who we are, not what we are and we are only that which we are in relationship to others.' If we are to engage with systems with openeness, awareness and resilience - with real ability to dance and with all the creative energy that implies - we can do this more powerfully if we are able to do it in the context of healthy, supportive and challenging relationships with ourselves, each other, others-beyond us and (in my worldview) God. I'm curious - which metaphors caught your attention? The car engine metaphor is McDermott & O'Connor's. The others are mine. All the best. Nick

Susan Scholtz

18/7/2016 10:58:46 pm

True, human systems start with the self. We first need to understand (not that it can ever be possible), ourselves as a complex, unique system.

Nick Wright

18/7/2016 11:09:20 pm

Thanks Susan. Yes, I think there are very interesting parallels and resonances between our intra-psychological complexity, our physical-biological systems and what we experience in the 'external' world. There's some interesting recent work by e.g. Geoff Pelham (Novum) that proposes the boundaries between our internal and external worlds are more permeable than we tend to imagine. This suggests that what I experience (e.g. mood) is me but not just me. I think this raises really interesting possibilities vis a vis 'use of self' when working with cultures and systems. All the best. Nick

Shanti

19/7/2016 01:16:57 am

Nick, several questions in my mind after reading your post - what am I refusing to look at and accept with awareness within myself? as a team member? as an organisation? as a collective entity ? My understanding of what is happening around us is because of our shadow self and also our collective intent. It pains me deeply to see the conflict and turmoil outside but am I looking into and addressing the turmoil within myself? Thanks for your post

Nick Wright

19/7/2016 10:13:36 am

Hi Shanti and thanks for the note. You pose some interesting and important questions. Another way of framing it could be along the lines of psychological projection, e.g. 'What am I aware of/owning in the system that I am not aware of/owning in myself?' or 'What am I projecting onto the system as a means to avoid dealing with it in myself?' We could flip this the other way too, e.g.'What am I experiencing intra-personally that could give me insight into what's happening in the system?' or 'What am I noticing in the system that could give me insight into what's happening within me?' Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Shanti

19/7/2016 10:53:55 am

Thanks, Nick. It resonates.

David Kiely

19/7/2016 10:14:13 am

I have used a systemic approach to coaching quite a few times and found it a useful approach when the coachee was not quite sure what the specific problem was, other than knowing that something(s) are not quite right. It is useful to examine the various systems that the coachee interacts with, how they interact with them, and the results of this engagement. I found this approach particularly useful at developing the blind spots of the Johari Window.

Nick Wright

19/7/2016 10:19:04 am

Hi David and thanks for sharing such interesting and useful insights. Yes, when a coachee feels confused or is struggling to put their finger on something, it's sometimes an indicator of something they are picking up from the wider system, yet often without realising it. 'I feel confused because this is confusing' can feel very different to 'I feel confused because of some inadequacy in me.' You may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/what-is-really-going-on-here.html Let me know what you think? All the best. Nick

David Kiely

19/7/2016 11:52:41 pm

Some really interesting ideas mentioned in that piece Nick. The importance of examining personal constructs cannot be highlighted enough and i think, as coaches, it is tantamount to our development and success that the subjectivity of the coachee is at the forefront of our minds, and we must avoid imposition of any judgement bias we may have. Thank you for sharing.

Nick Wright

19/7/2016 11:55:24 pm

Hi David and thanks for the note. Yes, I believe that 'How is the client construing this situation?' is such a great question. It can be extended to 'How is the client system construing this situation?' too. All the best. Nick

Katherine Long

19/7/2016 02:16:29 pm

You've just dynamically influenced me ☺. Great post.

Nick Wright

19/7/2016 02:17:21 pm

Thanks Katherine. Exciting. I don't know if I've ever dynamically influenced anyone before! ;) All the best. Nick

Alan Wingrove

19/7/2016 05:15:07 pm

Nick, the first sentence in your third paragraph is quite true, "Dynamic complexity at a global level is being accelerated and amplified by technology and social media that enable people to connect, interact and influence each other faster than ever before." It is also where a coach or mentor can add value - by challenging how much of that influence is based on fact or truth.
Take, for example, the recent referendum in the UK. On 24th June 17.2 million people were being castigated for casting the 'wrong' vote. Within hours it was over all forms of media that these voters were elderly, uneducated, xenophobic racists. This wider system did allow people to connect, interact and influence each other.
I feel that our role as coaches and mentors is to provide that safe space for reflection, so that our clients can make up their own mind whether such information is fact or the 'dramatic media rhetoric' you refer to.

Nick Wright

19/7/2016 05:28:52 pm

Many thanks, Alan. Yes, on the castigation question, you may be interested in this short related short piece: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/delusion

Interestingly, media bias around the UK referendum result has continued since, e.g. the assertion that there is a correlation between people who have degrees and people who voted to remain, with the implication that people who voted leave were less educated and somehow didn't understand what they were voting for.

Apart from being patronising: Firstly, it starts from the hidden premise that to vote remain was the 'right' vote. Secondly, it assumes information about voters' academic qualifications and voting patterns that can't be known. Thirdly, even if the asserted correlation were true and capable of being substantiated, the argument could be reversed to say, 'How is that so many people with degrees somehow didn't understand what they were voting for?'

I think it points, in a coaching context, to enabling the client to reflect critically on their own beliefs and assumptions as well as those held by the wider systems in which they are influenced and engaged. All the best. Nick

Terrence H. Seamon

20/7/2016 12:21:02 am

One of the first "buzzwords" of OD that I learned early in my career was the term system, as in the organization is a human system. Dynamic complexity indeed!

Nick Wright

20/7/2016 12:26:29 am

Hi Terrence. Yes, me too. I find the idea of dynamic complexity very useful and real. You comment about your early OD career reminded me of an article I had published back in 2003: http://www.nick-wright.com/when-rubber-hits.html Let me know if it rings any bells?! All the best. Nick

Terrence H. Seamon

20/7/2016 03:49:23 am

Excellent article! Love this line: "We can’t change organisations in the way we might change a gearbox."

Nick Wright

20/7/2016 12:55:46 pm

Thanks Terry. I couldn't change a gearbox either! ;) All the best. Nick

Enahoro Okhae

20/7/2016 12:45:56 pm

Great....At the end of it all about "Choose Your Self" from the simplicity of petty situations to the complexities of organizational and national issues....

Nick Wright

20/7/2016 12:56:45 pm

Thanks for your note, Enahoro. I'm intrigued - could you say a bit more about what 'choose your self' entails for you? All the best. Nick

Catherine Howley

21/7/2016 10:58:46 am

"Healthy, supportive and challenging relationship with ourselves" is where it begins.

Nick Wright

21/7/2016 11:03:37 am

Hi Catherine and thanks for the note. Yes, I've sometimes heard it said that dis-ease within ourselves sooner or later results in dis-ease in society. The converse may well be true too. I guess it begs interesting questions about strategies for change. Is it purely a one-by-one venture of challenging and supporting personal change, or a wider systemic venture of changing politics, systems, structures etc. which provides the context for sustainable personal change. Or both. Or something else. What do you think? All the best. Nick

Bachu Mubarak

21/7/2016 11:05:10 am

Thanks, it is quite interesting to learn how each of you look at the systems.

Nick Wright

21/7/2016 11:07:09 am

Thanks Bachu. You may find this related short article interesting too: http://www.nick-wright.com/what-is-really-going-on-here.html I would be interested to hear if that resonates with your ideas and experiences too? All the best. Nick

Michael Will

27/7/2016 10:15:31 pm

I get some quizzical comments from friends about my fascination for Asimovian psychohistory ("Foundation"). I'm glad that other Systems Thinkers are now beginning to see it too. It makes me feel a bit less 'out there'.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/24/systems-fiction-a-novel-way-to-think-about-the-present

Nick Wright

27/7/2016 10:17:05 pm

Thanks Michael and thanks for sharing the link. That's an interesting and unusual approach to exploring systems, with some similarities to working with narrative. All the best. Nick

Steven W. Page, Ph.D.

1/8/2016 08:19:29 am

Systems thinking, as you point out, is not simply thinking about systems, but thinking in a systemic manner that is able to look for and find dynamic patterns of interrelations and influences that are not always (not even usually) obvious. One point that I think must always be brought to bear on a consideration of systems thinking and how vitally important it is if we are to deal with the complexity of the world today, is that it is not something one can simply learn. Systems thinking in this sense emerges only after one develops through a series of developmental milestones that become its groundwork (one necessary component being the capacity to see and use the operation of circular causality or mutual influence). Without moving through the development that occurs before the emergence of systems thinking and which allows it to emerge, a person does not realize the advantages systemic thinking confers.

Nick Wright

1/8/2016 08:27:44 am

Hi Steve and thanks for the wise insights. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, 'systems thinking...is not simply thinking about systems, but thinking in a systemic manner that is able to look for and find dynamic patterns of interrelations and influences'. It's one reason why avoiding the temptation to think of and work with human systems in the same way that we may think about and work with mechanical systems is so important.

I like your insights too into how systems thinking can be developed. Whilst we can learn some of the theories and apply them, particularly within relatively stable systems, it often feels more intuitive and fluid when working with real people, teams and organisations. This kind of intuition may be developed over a number of years and experiences and not necessarily consciously and reflectively - although reflective practice certainly helps!

I think, overall, this is where an emergent view and approach to systems can be particularly useful, both in terms of our own development and in working with human systems. All the best. Nick

Robin N. Cook

3/8/2016 11:05:43 am

IMHO, systems thinking is an absolutely necessity for a successful OD practitioner. Being able to have a "systems view" & take a "systems approach" is critical to OD. I see no way to have real, lasting impact (let alone design an effective intervention) without being capable of that perspective.

Nick Wright

3/8/2016 11:10:40 am

Thanks Robin. I agree. In my experience, it's something about working with a fluid relational 'systems' perspective (the dynamic complexity idea) - including drawing on insights and ideas from social constructionism. In some OD literature, OD systems thinking sounds more mechanical - as if human relational systems are fixed, static, map-able, predictable and manageable. What do you think? All the best. Nick

Robin N. Cook

3/8/2016 04:37:25 pm

Nick, human systems (organizations) are, by definition, organic, dynamic, & complex. They are absolutely NOT mechanical, and attempting to view them as such is one of the major organizational problems today (at least in the U.S.).

The "mechanical" view is symptomatic of command-and-control and one (but only one) of the major reasons that c-and-c is a walking corpse that hasn't realized it's dead yet.

Nick Wright

3/8/2016 04:43:32 pm

Hi Robin. I definitely agree about definitely NOT mechanical! My sense is that the mechanical paradigm emerges and is reinforced by the desire to exert control, especially in fluid, unpredictable environments that may feel threatening and anxiety-provoking. Approaching systems in this way (implicitly, as if human systems are the same as, say, IT systems) can create an illusion of control, followed by all kind of fascinating rationalisations for why things don't go as planned or predicted. ;) In this sense, we could view the mechanistic approach in organisations psychodynamically as a social defense against anxiety. All the best. Nick

Michael Will

3/8/2016 11:47:41 am

It's interesting that social constructionism, a theory of knowledge, appears to be unrelated to Seymour Papert's 'Constructionism', a theory of learning. The (admittedly incomplete) wikipedia page for social constructionism doesn't even mention Papert, who died last Sunday BTW.

Nick Wright

3/8/2016 11:48:25 am

Thanks Michael. Yes, that sounds curious. I haven't heard of Papert's work. All the best. Nick

Michael Will

3/8/2016 12:29:19 pm

It's curious because Vygotsky, Piaget, and Papert are sometimes discussed as a group. I'm guessing that the first two are more familiar (I'm a relative newcomer to OD).

Nick Wright

3/8/2016 12:33:40 pm

Hi Michael. I think that's a really interesting reflection. In my experience, OD practitioners come from very diverse backgrounds, are often influenced by very different theories, approach their practice very differently to each other etc. My own background is in areas such as social psychology, social constructionism and systems thinking. This certainly influences my OD outlook and approach and the kind of ideas, research, approaches etc. that I feel drawn to, identify with or bemused by! How about you? All the best. Nick

Robin N. Cook

4/8/2016 09:09:16 am

Nick, the "mechanical" view of organizations has actually been the dominant perspective until fairly recently, at least since the invention of the assembly line. In fact, the "efficiency experts" who were probably the earliest practitioners of what led to OD, were rooted in that view. So I'm not sure whether it can be said to be said to be a social defense against anxiety.

Nick Wright

4/8/2016 09:21:21 am

Hi Robin and thanks for the stimulating challenge. I think that's a fair point about the background to OD, at least in its more mechanical forms. I think this is where Gareth Morgan's 'Images of Organisation' felt so radical - at least to me when I first encountered it! There are very different ways of thinking about organisation (e.g. in relation to the metaphor we are using, as a 'machine') which influence profoundly what we see and don't see, what sense we make of it and what kind of interventions we believe are desirable, necessary or effective.

I would challenge the idea that the conditions that led to a development of the mechanistic outlook and approach are necessarily the same conditions that explain, fuel or sustain it in a different/new environment. In other words, it's possible that a mechanical outlook and approach that first emerged out of an assembly line factory context may now be sustained by different dynamics - e.g. social defence against anxiety as an example.

In practice, I think what drives and informs OD outlooks and approaches is as fluid and dynamically complex as the dynamics that influence organisational mindset, culture, behaviour etc. In other words, my hypothesis about social defence against anxiety is one possible driver - among many other possibilities - in any given situation at any given time.

What do you think? All the best. Nick

Robin N. Cook

8/8/2016 10:00:31 am

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but it seems to me that what "fuels" the continuing mechanistic view of organizations is a combination of factors:

First of all, the decisions makers in organizations are still, for the most part, the generation that grew up with that perspective. So a big part of it is simply the old, "That's the way we've always done it" factor, combined with a certain mindset/worldview.

The other piece is a national culture in the U.S. that is focused on "immediate gratification" - the short view. Since that has become the dominant management philosophy/perspective ("shareholder value"/decision making based on tomorrow's stock price & next quarter's earnings statement), that means the decision makers are looking for quick fixes that are easy, cheap, and appear measurable. And the organic, dynamic view of human systems cannot support such "solutions".

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 10:04:58 am

Hi Robin. I don't hear that as simplistic. I think your astute observations reflect some of the influences in UK business cultures too. We could ask what drives the want/need for 'instant gratification' - e.g. what do business leader fear might happen if they were to do or achieve otherwise - which in some cases may take us back to an anxiety dynamic. ;) All the best. Nick

Dr. Edward M. Hanna

13/8/2016 10:03:05 am

I have long been a student of Systems Thinking where some of the seminal work was done by Peter Senge at MIT. Senge's "The Fifth Discipline (1990)" is a must-read for any OD practitioner. Senge (pg. 71) partitions systems complexity into "Detail Complexity" and "Dynamic Complexity".

"Following a complex set of instructions to assemble a machine" is one example he provides of Detail Complexity. He also provides some indicators that Dynamic Complexity is present in a system: (1) the same action has dramatically different effects in the short run and in the long; (2) an action has one set of consequences locally and a very different set of consequences in another part of the system; (3) when obvious interventions produce non-obvious consequences.

Just flipping through "The Fifth Discipline", it occurs to me that 1990 was a long while ago--but the book is still relevant and it's time for me to reread it.

Sometimes enlightenment comes to us from unexpected sources. Sometimes enlightenment comes to us from paying attention to fields other than our own. One of my most treasured books on Systems Thinking is a book on architecture. Yes--architecture! But when you think about it, it makes sense that OD can learn from architecture. The architects are dealing with large and complex systems (i.e. buildings) which need to be organized (i.e. designed) to meet the need of humans and human organizations.

This book (Design After Modernism, John Thackara, 1988) was a 50-cent impulse purchase at used book store--prompted by my interest in "design". One particular chapter (A City is Not a Tree) I found to be really refreshing--with new perspectives on systems--perspectives that can inform OD. Here is a link to that chapter: http://www.rudi.net/pages/8755

Nick Wright

13/8/2016 10:18:26 am

Hi Edward and thanks for the note and useful references. Yes, Senge's 'Fifth Discipline' was one of the core texts when I studied for my masters in OD some years ago now, along with another classic, Morgan's 'Images of Organisation'. Did you see Flood's 'Rethinking the Fifth Discipline' (1999)? It had some interesting insights and critiques but I didn't find it anywhere near as inspiring as Senge's work. :)

I will be interested to read the chapter you posted from 'Design after Modernism'. - thanks for the link. The fields that reflect and inspire my own approach to OD most are probably social constructionism (e.g. Gergen's 'Invitation to Social Construction' (2009), Burr's 'Social Constructionism' (2003)) and Gestalt (too many inspiring sources to list here!). Here's a short piece to show an example: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/invisible

All the best. Nick

Nuala Dent

13/8/2016 10:19:46 am

Socio-technical systems offers a useful frame for thinking about this, and how to sub-optimise both the social and technical systems for best results, especially in the current turbulent environment.

Nick Wright

13/8/2016 10:20:41 am

Thanks for the note, Nuala. I'm unfamilar with that area. Do you have an example you could share to show what it could look like in practice? All the best. Nick

Shiv Bhaskar

13/8/2016 10:21:30 am

Nick can you explain your comment on flow of Energy. Thank you

Nick Wright

13/8/2016 10:27:58 am

Hi Shiv and thanks for the question. Yes, what I meant was to notice the areas where people already have interests, passions, aspirations etc. and to facilitate, build on, amplify those etc. rather than trying to superimpose ideas or solutions onto people.

Here is an example. I worked with an organisation where its core values had been created by the executive team and 'sold' to the wider organisation. They achieved very little buy-in and, in fact, the way it was done had created quite a lot of resentment.

I met with staff and teams and invited them to share their own stories of the organisation at its best: what happened, what it felt like, what made the difference etc. We distilled the organisation's 'true' core values from this and achieved around 90% buy-in.

The approach I used here is known as Appreciative Inquiry. Are you familiar with it? All the best. Nick

Systems

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Systems

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives