Managing Change with Systems Thinking in Practice (TB872) Part 01 Week 01

My first week of study with the TB872 Managing Change with Systems Thinking in Practice module at The Open University involved quite a lot of self-reflection as we considered our roles in systems practice. Having introduced myself to other students on the module forum, it seemed like many of them were much more qualified to speak as professional systems practitioners, some of them being literal systems engineers, scientists, people who work in infrastructure or the National Health Service (NHS). I had to challenge my insecurities stemming from the limits imposed on my career development by chronic health issues. Other people that study on the module must be dealing with similar things, and we all have something to contribute. Working in well-recognised, visible systems that have clear boundaries is not the only way to have experienced systems. I think I had the idea that systems work mostly happens in corporate or governmental settings, but I am discovering that a lot of it happens in our heads…

I found some of the module activities and forum discussions useful in recognising the various ways we exist in systems, the different way we perceive them, and participate in them. For example, in Activity 1.1 Reflections of systems thinking practitioners, I watched a series of videos showing people discussing their work and education relating to systems thinking. It was somewhat reassuring to see a variety of experiences, especially those working in non-profit organisations, as I felt that it was one way I would be happy to utilise what I learnt if given the opportunity.

In Activity 1.5 Domains of practice of the current cohort, we filled a short form with up to three descriptors of our domains, or domains of practice. I chose my domains of practice based on my professional experience, and where I would likely be able to apply my skills in future:

1. Design
2. Education
3. Community Volunteering

In the word cloud for other students’ listed domains, prominent terms include:

• NHS (5 entries)
• Project Management (4 entries)
• Higher Education (3 entries)

It has since occurred to me that as an active post-graduate student, Higher Education is now a legitimate domain of mine that would be interesting to explore as part of my STiP learning process. We further explored our purpose in Activity 1.6 and on the module forum in a post:

Nice to meet you! 👋

I’m Alex, and my background is in Graphic Design. I’ve also worked in Education and have always had an interest in Humanities, Sociology and Psychology. I love that we are all from different backgrounds. It will be interesting to exchange ideas.

Currently I am self-employed as a designer and have a small online business. Unfortunately it’s difficult for me to do other work due to disability related to mental health (TMI? 😛). It’s also difficult for me not to keep my mind busy, and short courses weren’t cutting it so I’m also going for the F47 MSc. TB872 is my first module as well.

As with Graphic Design, my decision to study it was kind of a spur of the moment thing. I did stick with design for over 10 years so I’m mostly hoping that I will similarly find inspiration in this new direction and see where it takes me. I’m excited to find new ways of looking at things, learn from other people’s perspectives, and maybe apply my knowledge to work in my community. I would also love to explore how Systems Thinking can be applied to design and creative work.

On an individual level, I am fascinated in how our understanding of our position in systems might have spiritual or religious connotations, and how our relationships with systems change as our level of understanding changes. Lots of interesting things to look into… I think committing to this course will give me the motivation to go deeper into some of these areas.

At the moment my knowledge of Systems as a field is pretty basic so I will be documenting my study on my blog at www.alexmakes.co (website still a work in progress) to see how my perspectives change. Do any of you have a blog, or planning to use the blog feature on OU?

(The (TMI? 😛) was sarcastic because others had discussed their own health issues and were not sure if it was Too Much Information, but I wanted to emphasise that it shouldn’t be considered ‘too much’ to mention your personal situation that is relevant to the topic).

I enjoyed creating a trajectory diagram as part of Activity 1.10 to explore my personal history and how it led to TB872. It helped me to identify my relationship to different types of systems throughout my life, and how a desire to define and change systems led me to wanting to study the topic. I tried to show a progression through time with my diagram, but did not label anything after the arrow depicting the future after TB872 as I want to let that unfold naturally depending on how my thinking changes. I shared this trajectory diagram in the online ‘OpenStudio’ feature on the Open University website, which I have found helpful for getting inspiration from diagrams shared by other students.

It was fascinating to read about other students, to see their thoughts in forum posts, and diagrams they made to show their thinking. It was relieving to see that we all had our strengths and differences, and that some people were as unsure as I felt. In Activity 1.4 Generating some understanding of your cohort, a poll of TB872 students showed that out of the people that responded:

• Half of people on the course are not sure if they are systems thinkers; I selected same as these people.
• Half of people agree that they are intuitive systems thinkers; I was neutral on this point, neither agreeing or disagreeing — I am not sure if understanding of systems can be intuitive or is taught and developed.
• Half of people have studied or read Systems material in the past; I only somewhat disagree as I may have read materials that contribute to my understanding of systems, but probably didn’t do so specifically with that purpose.
• 44% of people say they are not experienced systems thinkers; I was part of the 24% that were neutral on that point, because if I do have an instinct to think systemically then I am experienced, but I do not have formal education or professional experience specifically in systems thinking.
• I was part of the majority 40% of people that neither agree or disagree that they can put systems thinking into practice. 30% agreed that they could, and 21% disagreed with that statement.
• 38% of people are definitely studying TB872_Managing change with systems thinking in practice as part of a Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) award, including me (MSc Systems Thinking in Practice). Around 20% of people are studying for a non-STiP award.
• 48% of people claimed that they were not studying purely out of interest, including myself (I would like the qualification too!). Around 60% were definitely clear on why they were studying, and it wasn’t because someone suggested it to them.

From discussions on the forums, it seems that although several people expressed excitement about the topic and eagerness to learn something new, many people were hoping to develop their work and career with the qualification and skills gained during the course. It will be interesting to see how perspectives may evolve during the course, and how people apply their understanding in practice.

As well as getting to know each other a little bit, we had some activities to help us acclimatise to the structure of the course and what to expect. This included a tutorial going over some of the main features of the course where we could ask any questions. Online activities also encouraged us to explore module resources that would help to keep us on track. We are encouraged to use analytical thinking as part of our learning, and the criteria for successful completion of the course are high for strategic and creative thinking, appreciating complex and diverse perspectives, challenging boundaries and exploring wider contexts. That is why I was surprised and frustrated that during the tutorial I was denied support finding resources on systems thinking in other cultures. I know that this will be covered briefly later in the module, so there must be some resources but I struggled to find much when searching on my own. I feel like it would provide a richness to the course content and inspiration to students that are not of similar cultures, lineages and traditions as those that typically participate and contribute to Western academia, philosophies, and understandings in fields such as systems thinking. This is something I will discuss more in my reviews of the course materials.

The TB872 module map is explored in Activity 1.2 for which I noted my thoughts on a short video that described the proposed learning process in TB872. From the explanation in the video, I understood the following:

Every student comes from different background with a unique tradition of understanding. This influences your unique trajectory. Your choices determine your path along the course of study. As you travel, you will gain a more holistic view of the field and your own place within it. The learning outcomes are achieved through a combination of students’ own trajectories partly directed by responses to prompts provided by the designers of the course. These prompts include tools such as the Practitioner-Framework-Method-Situation (PFMS) heuristic that highlights the role of the practitioner in the evaluation of situations, and thinking about systems.

We will be encouraged to think about the applications of systemic and systematic thinking in our practice, and the utility of implementing systemic inquiry in our ways of looking at the world. By conducting concurrent systemic inquiries into our own systems thinking in practice using the ‘juggler’ isophor, and managing change in a situation of interest, we can reinforce our learning about how we influence the direction of change through our participation in systems. We will also by able to apply our developing understanding to our work with others, cooperating and finding ways to effect change that is systemically desirable and culturally feasible.

The epistemological approach has the potential to provide a transformational learning experience that gives students an opportunity to look deeper into their own ways of thinking and doing, their beliefs, traditions, and reasoning. Building self-awareness by digging deeper into our constructs of reality, will undoubtedly change not only how we do STiP, but how we exist in the world.

I really enjoyed making my own system map of TB872 in Activity 1.9 because it allowed me to work on the design of a graphic layout which is a comfort activity to me. Instead of the usual design software that I might usually use, I practiced using Apple Keynote which I had never used before but seemed like an easier way to create quick (but imperfect) graphics. The shape creation and snapping features made it simple to create graphics that are good enough for the purpose. It will also interesting to reflect on the types of diagrams I am instinctively drawn to create based on the task at hand, compared to how I might design diagrams after doing more research and experimenting with diagramming in future.

We explored definitions in Activity 1.7 Understanding systematic and systemic distinctions, for which I described that ‘systemic’ refers to a way of thinking that is holistic, aware of the potential different elements of a system and their interconnections — how the parts of a system function together as a whole. ‘Systematic’ refers to management of processes in a linear, organised way. The process can be referred to as a system, that each step of the process is a part of. Our tutor also asked us a question to get us thinking about ‘change’ as it is obviously a major theme of TB872 Managing Change with STiP:

Hi everyone,

As you start to engage with the module, I thought I would pose an early question for us to consider as we move along the TB872 journey:

What is the difference between change management and managing change with STiP? Is there a difference? What are your thoughts?

Don’t Google it. Just give your thoughts. Your own thoughts and interpretations and how they change over time are as important as any ‘right’ answers. I expect that your thoughts and ideas about this question will change over the course of TB872 and it will be useful to you to see that unfold. Let’s share some thoughts now and then continue to add to them as we progress through the module.

My initial thoughts were that ‘change management’ sounds like an approach or a specific area of study that may work towards having specific solutions and frameworks for dealing with change. This suggests that change is a thing that can be predicted or directed. They may have archetypes/set ideas about types of change, and how those situations should be dealt with.

‘Managing change’ feels more accepting of the difficulties of dealing with change, that it can be unpredictable and outcomes can be dependent the specific situation and the different individuals involved. Those who ‘manage change’ likely are more accepting of situations as they appear, and have fewer preconceptions about what the process of change will look like.

Although I personally feel like the former feels more ‘healthy’ as a psychological process, if it is genuinely how someone approaches change in their life, I also see the benefits of having schemas for dealing with unknown or difficult situations — it is a normal part of being human, and the emotions that come with dealing with change.

For Activity 1.11, we utilised the universities online library resources to find appropriate definitions of change and practice our citing skills in the Harvard Cite Them Right format. I shared my findings to a forum thread, along with fellow students:

I like the concise references many of you have used — applicable to many situations of change. “To make or become different” is just perfect!

Whilst browsing the library, I filtered quotes from books on psychology, social sciences and sociology, and was drawn to the same quote that James found:

Scott, J. (2015) ‘change’, in A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199683581.001.0001/acref-9780199683581-e-242 (Accessed: 8 November 2024).

I am interested in how human psychology and behaviour is linked to change on all sorts of scales. Human behaviour is well described in a bunch of psychological, sociological, and political theories, so I think it’s useful to reference theories from these different perspectives when we are thinking about social change or even personal development. I love that the definition references a variety of perspectives but is ultimately open-ended ❤️

Change (Social Change)

Social change theories now encompass a very broad range of phenomena, including short-term and long-term, large-scale and small-scale changes, and variations from the level of global society to that of the family. Dramatic structural and economic changes such as occurred in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990s are only one part of the field. Sociologists are also interested in changes that affect norms, values, behaviour, cultural meanings, and social relationships.

One predominant theory of social change is functionalism, associated with the names of Talcott Parsons and Wilbert E. Moore. If society is viewed as a complex and interconnected pattern of functions, change can be explained as an epiphenomenon of its constant search for equilibrium. For example, mass unemployment may generate a welfare system, or racial conflict may generate legislative action. The ramifications of any particular social change are endless and unpredictable, but all can be understood as social adjustments to some imbalance or maladjustment within the social organism.
[…]
Marxist and conflict theory traditions have developed along different lines, although they share important underlying assumptions with functionalism. They place more emphasis on the ability of human beings to actively influence their own fates through political action and relate group conflict to structural contradictions. Conflict theories in general explain social change as the outcome of a struggle for advantage between classes, races, or other groups, rather than a search for consensus. Daniel Bell’s Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976) gives an interesting example of the conflict perspective by suggesting that change in the modern world arises out of the tension between three ‘realms’ of social reality which operate on different principles and move towards different goals: the techno-economic structure (science, industry, and the economy); the political system; and culture. Bell showed that change is often uneven and partial. An example is so-called cultural lag, where the development of culture falls out of step with developments in technology, politics, or economics.
[…]
The 19th-century equation of change with moral progress is no longer widely accepted. Change may be regressive, or destructive, or confused by cultural lag. It remains an open question to what extent sociologists can explain or predict social change, and therefore to what extent societies can ever reliably initiate or control change in directions deemed socially desirable, or in any direction at all.

I also described my own recent experience of change in Activity 1.12:

A recent situation of change for me was having to move to a new town, away from my family and where I had grown up. Although I made the choice to move, it was in difficult circumstances and the process was a massive challenge. I had to do a lot of internal psychological work to cope with the huge change and the feeling of isolation. It felt necessary to somehow take control and ‘turn the situation around’. I was looking for ways to continue improving my situation by creating opportunities for myself. Inspired by my siblings that were working hard at school and university, I remembered that I had previously been successful in academic studies and it could be a way to regain control and self-confidence.

I was able to make changes to improve my living situation by evaluating the situation I was in, making realistic plans based on evaluation of predicted potential futures, and taking action. The situation was changed by actions that were based on my beliefs, but the process was somewhat chaotic and I then had to deal with a new set of circumstances (the changed situation). Having learnt from my experiences, I was also changed in terms of my feelings and goals. I thought that having loosely structured studies could be useful for creating a sense of balance or control by providing a point of focus and direction in a situation that felt otherwise quite uncertain.

The situations that we are in, are part of systems of continuous change with feedback from the changing situation or the elements within, causing change within ourselves that informs the next action in the sequence. Every experience we have originates from a series of physical reactions that we interpret and add to our history of experiences. All of these inform our future decisions, the actions we make, and the situations we experience. We exist in a system of our own making, trying to make sense of informational inputs through our biological senses — a continuous process of experiencing, learning and adapting through the knowledge we have built upon in every moment of our lives.

From my experience in this first week studying the Managing Change with STiP module (as well as having recently finished reading the books Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice by Chris Blackmore, Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate Change World by Ray Ison, Systems Thinkers by Magnus Ramage and Karen Shipp, and Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows), I have learnt that there are many ways of experiencing, understanding, and managing systemic change. I am keen to continue developing my own STiP capabilities as defined in this course, but also to explore how we construct systems and methods of systemic thinking in our unique contexts.

The course itself is a meta exploration of how our being, thinking and doing is reflected in the situations we engage with. This suggests that the way that Systems Thinking is taught is also a reflection of specific individuals’ traditions, specific lineages of philosophy and practice, and specific cultural contexts. Perhaps, as suggested in the tutorial, thinking too much about too much could become overwhelming, but somehow my personal history and tradition of understanding make it difficult to ignore! I will, however, try to focus on learning the basics before getting too ahead of myself. I have already learnt a lot about challenging my own perspectives, so I am sure in the coming weeks I will have more insights to inform my opinions. Since registering for the course, my main question has been “why is this the way we think about systems thinking?” Learning about the history of Systems in British and American lineages in the course textbooks explains why some people think in a certain way and describes how they hope to generalise theories that were created in relatively small academic circles, but I am interested in learning more.