Capacity Thinking

Emergence and organisational change

2010-12-13T14:45:00.005Z

Introduction

I occasionally write about emergence and change within systems, organisations and society - but almost always as an introduction to the subject. In writing an email earlier today I found myself getting deeper and deeper into what was intended as a short sharp summary of ideas (and yes, I realise that the 'deeper and deeper' bit was when it stopped being quite so short and sharp). I've decided to publish this more widely here - even though it's not 'right' yet - because comments from others might help me to clarify and contain the ideas a little better.

I think that ideas around systems and emergence are incredibly powerful when thinking about how to change organisations and society. I work with these ideas on a daily basis - but they aren't easy to capture in simple concise language. As with other subjects what tends to happen is that those who have thought through the ideas and who have connected with others end up inventing jargon or using other language short-cuts. Of course this then excludes those not already connected - and I want to avoid doing this - but this post is not an introduction to ideas about emergence and change. What I'm writing is really directed at people who are already familiar with the concepts and who have already thought about the effects of emergence on human systems (particularly in relation to change). For introductions to these ideas try this previous post (a simple starting point):
What is The System
or an article published in the journal 'Emergence: Complexity and Organisation' here (an article directed most at people normally working with 'complexity' and 'emergence'):
Emergence is not always 'good'
or simply as is particularly appropriate for an article on emergence:
the Wikipedia article on emergence.

A summary of some key ideas on emergence and change

If we work in a service/organisation and we want to do things very differently to 'how things are done around here' then we need to know:

that the organisation is only one of the systems involved (and this, and parts of it, will be part of other systems, and will have systems within it);
that the systems involved will have their own motivations (which will be different from official aims, or the motivations of the managers, staff or other individuals, organisations or departments);
that these motivations will be about what benefits the system in question, and that this can even be the exact opposite of what we'd like to see (and may be in opposition to official aims, mission statements, or the ideas of the Chief Executive);
that because of being made up of many individual people (including ourselves) it means that the systems can be 'all seeing' and powerful and clever, but that they are slow to take notice and slow to act.

The result of all of this is that if we want to establish a new way of working which is 'not how things are done around here' - IF it is in conflict with these system motivations - then we must:

try to get the new way of working established under the radar of these systems, starting small and recruiting people to join in (eventually seeking weight of numbers);
(therefore) initially avoid actions which would otherwise seem sensible (such as seeking agreement from whole staff or management teams);
put very little trust in authority or policy as tools to make the change happen or as protectors of our new system (and not think of any one person or small group of people as being the block to change no matter what their authority);
create or connect into other existing systems which fit with the new way of working;
always expect that the opposing systems will eventually catch up with the new way of working, and that they will challenge it and that they will do so through any possible means;
(therefore) be nimble and imaginative, always changing strategy as and when old strategies are successfully countered.

NB: A less informed or less careful reader might interpret the above to imply that change is created by breaking rules, by ignoring authority, or that I'm implying that authority is what holds change back. That's absolutely not what I'm meaning (ignoring authority and breaking rules seems like a pretty good way to show up on the system radar after all!).

Please feel free to help me to clarify these ideas or to put them into clearer language (without adding any jargon).

'Adding Weight' in Independent Advocacy

2010-12-06T18:10:00.006Z

Introduction

During the recent 'Amazing Advocacy' day in Edinburgh we discussed the idea of 'adding weight' to a person's ideas, hopes, ambitions and opinions. We began to make a list of relevant points – and I thought this should be shared. Since the event I've added my own comments, and further additional points. I'd be happy to add further clarifications or details, or even to have people argue over the text in the expectation that this will bring learning to us all (refer to the end of the document for how to participate).

Please note that language in this article involves some struggles – for instance in trying to account for the word 'advocate' covering all sorts of arrangements. 'Advocacy' work may also involve all sorts of related but quite different practices, such as:

making an argument or stating a particular point of view;
supporting a person to do this for themselves;
trying to bring others on board to share a view of a desired future;
helping a person to work on having others support them towards achieving a desired outcome.

In trying to cover all these activities I use the words 'argument', 'position', and 'point of view'. I do this in order to try to make clear (despite the common misunderstanding) that advocacy work goes well beyond putting forward a point of view on specific options.

In an attempt to add clarity I'm also going to be forced to invent some terms to distinguish between the various people involved:
'Focus person' is used to mean the person with whose life we're concerned – the person who the advocacy work is focused on supporting.
'Advocate' is used to mean a person supporting another person (or indeed a group) within the framework set by the Advocacy 2000 Principles and Standards document. This covers a range of activity – and not all 'advocates' will use the word as a title.
'Challenged person/people' is perhaps the clumsiest phrase, but is necessary to describe simply those whose listening, cooperation, or support is sought by the actions of the advocate or focus person.

Background
'Adding Weight' is one of the four outcomes of Independent Advocacy work discussed in the Advocacy 2000 Principles and Standards document.

The document reads…
"Independent Advocacy organisations aim to add weight to a person's (or group's) ideas, hopes, ambitions and opinions to increase the amount of control they have over their life, and so that poor practice is challenged. If an advocate is supporting a group rather than an individual, this applies to the opinions of the group as a whole."

The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance principles and standards also say:
"Independent Advocacy helps people to have control over their lives and to be fully involved in decisions which affect them."

'Empowerment' is an associated outcome for Independent Advocacy work which is also listed in the Advocacy 2000 Principles and Standards:
"Independent Advocacy organisations aim to empower people. They hope that people will be able to expand their hopes and ambitions where there is a risk that these will be, or have been, heavily influenced by those with conflicting interests. They hope that people will become more confident and able to make others take note of their opinions, hopes and ambitions, and less easily influenced by those with conflicting interests. They try to create a situation where people are more able to access the information they need to make informed judgements, and are more able to think through their options. They hope people will develop a greater feeling of self-worth, and receive support from their involvement with the organisation or advocate. Those supporting groups aim for the empowerment of the group and its individual members, and they hope the effectiveness of the group's internal organisation will develop."

The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance principles and standards say:
"Independent Advocacy helps people to have control over their lives and to be fully involved in decisions which affect them."

Specific actions which add weight

Repeating things.
It may sometimes be appropriate to repeat what a focus person has said if it hasn't been listened to:
"Can I highlight that nobody has taken notice that John said…"
It may be appropriate to repeat yourself as an advocate:
"I'm going to repeat myself because nobody has actually answered the question which John had asked me to discuss with you, which was…"
Of course it may also be appropriate to support a focus person to repeat themselves rather than speaking for them.

Asking "what could be done to make this happen?"
It may be helpful to take a positive approach – working from the assumption that something is possible until someone states it isn't.

Asking "why not?"
It may be helpful to push a challenged person into justifying exactly what reasons lead them to conclude that something isn't possible. Perhaps ask people to be precise about this (recording the details).

Ask for specific meeting details to be minuted.
Sometimes an unofficial policy seems to exist, or a challenged person's own attitude or practice may be different from official policy. In these circumstances asking for the point the challenged person is making to be clearly minuted may make them change their position. It may also provide evidence to be referred to later. Even if this can't happen it may be useful to publicly record in writing a clear note of a challenged person's points (perhaps in their exact words). It may also be powerful to ask for details of the argument that we, as advocate and focus person, are making to be recorded clearly.

Have 'firey' eyes.
Some people have a nature or even features which inherently make them harder to ignore. People without these characteristics might consider that the general way they dress or behave or speak also has effects in adding weight (or taking weight away).

Supporting different behaviour.
Sometimes there are situations where it is possible to appropriately support a focus person to behave in a way that breaks the expectations of others. The subsequent shifting of expectations may be helpful.

Working beyond formal situations.
We all see situations on television where legal advocates continue to work tenaciously in putting forward a point of view outside of a formal situation – for instance in speaking to television reporters on the steps of a courthouse. Advocates can (and should) do the same.

Being passionate but clear at the same time.
Often when a person puts forward a point of view passionately their use of language becomes less clear. An argument with both passion and clarity can be harder to ignore.

Supporting a person to speak for themselves.
It can sometimes be much more powerful for a focus person to speak for themselves than to have an advocate speak for them. This can be the case even if the focus person puts forward an argument less cleverly or fluently. Strong consideration should always be given to the long term effects of advocacy work – perhaps 'losing' one argument while working in an empowering way may lead to a more important argument being 'won' later, and indeed the 'empowerment' may sometimes be much more significant to the person than 'losing' the argument anyway.

Treating the person seriously.
If we are supporting a focus person who hasn't been used to being listened to then treating what they say seriously can help them to be more confident about their point of view. We might achieve this by listening intently, asking for much more information, writing down what they say in their words (and making sure they know we've done so), and by avoiding offering any judgement on what they say. This can be difficult because judgement is easily sensed.

Avoiding "this isn't my opinion."
An advocate stating that the opinion they are putting forward is that of the focus person and not their own takes weight away from their argument. Challenged people may infer that the advocate disagrees with the focus person's point of view. It often adds weight to an argument if an advocate is assumed to agree with the argument or position they are standing up for (even if it's known logically that they might not).

Maintaining distance
In some situations it may add weight to an advocated position if the advocate refuses to become drawn into an atmosphere of professional cosiness with the challenged people. As a defensive tactic those challenged by the advocacy may seek to create personal bonds with an advocate, decreasing the likelihood that the advocate will act in a way which increases the personal discomfort of the challenged people. An advocate may also be 'awarded' with professional status and respect from challenged people for behaving in a 'professional' manner – thus discouraging them from certain more effective (less 'professional') behaviours.

Closing distance
There may be situations when drawing challenged people into a more personal relationship with the focus person or advocate may be useful. On the whole this will work best when 'distance' is closed by an increase in respect from the challenged person for the focus person and advocate.

Basing a position on solid foundations
There are some situations where those advocating may be able to build their case on solid ground – where policy or law makes it clear that challenged people have no alternative but to comply with a course of action. Where such solid ground does not exist there may still be useful precedent – examples of a course of action taking place for others or in the past.

Basing a position on what's right
Sometimes, in contrast to the point above, it may be better to avoid being drawn into argument over policy, law or procedures. There are plenty of situations where what's fair or right or reasonable isn't supported by these. It may be that those who are challenged seek to draw discussion toward law or procedures – because they are on more favourable territory here. The most effective advocacy work might resist this.

Having the right associations.

The list above contains points about the actions of an advocate, however the associations of the 'advocate' are also significant. Look at the list of advocates below. Identical arguments or behaviours by them (or actions by the focus person with the support of the advocate) will all be received very differently. Very broadly action by later advocates in this list will have more weight:

a relative or long-term close associate of the person seen to be on their side for this and no other reason;
a volunteer who is understood to be doing this "because of personal experience of similar injustice";
a person whose job is to be an advocate;
a volunteer who is understood to be doing this "because it's right for people to be heard";
someone known to be employed by (or volunteering on behalf of) an ordinary group of concerned citizens (i.e. people with no other associations with the situation and no reason to be involved other than seeing unfairness);
a individual ordinary member of the public who is seen to be doing this "because what's happening to Fred simply isn't right";
one of a group of ordinary citizens who are standing together on this specific situation "because what is happening to Fred simply isn't right";
an ordinary citizen in either of the last two situations but who also has an unusual source of high social status (e.g. as a well known footballer, politician, union leader, or police officer).

Of course one of the reasons why involvement of the 'advocates' later in this list may add more weight is because they are increasingly less likely to be involved spontaneously – and because to engineer such a situation is increasingly difficult. An important further consideration is that the behaviours of these different 'advocates' aren't normally identical – for instance with a typical paid advocate having more practice at 'advocating' effectively than a typical 'ordinary community member'.

More...

Amazing Advocacy was the first in what is intended to be a series of events bringing Independent Advocacy organisations/people together to celebrate the power of their work, and to think as hard as possible about how to do it really well.

Look out for Amazing Advocacy 2.

The Advocacy 2000 principles and standards document is available on the internet here: www.isja.org.uk/articles_18_A2KPS.html
The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance document is available on their website www.siaa.org.uk

Please comment freely about this text...

Being a regular

2009-07-31T16:44:00.004Z

Think of a stereotypical village pub, or American bar or coffee shop, just as we see on television in many popular programmes - Cheers, Friends, East Enders and so on. Brought to mind are places 'where everybody knows your name' (to quote the Cheers theme song). We're thinking of a place to which we can turn up uninvited, where it's comfortable for us to sit alone, where we'd normally expect to bump into someone who knows us – somewhere where we are 'a regular'.

But when we put our minds to it we can also think of being a regular in many other situations, such as collecting our children every day from the school gate, being one of the local dog-walkers, or always being among the group train spotting at the end of platform 12 on a Monday afternoon.

This is particularly interesting because by being a regular in this way we may have links to a great many acquaintances, making this a common way to meet new friends. In knowing so many people as a regular, the chances of meeting someone with whom we 'click' is much higher.

If our work is about the support of people who are excluded then we need to take notice. We need firstly to recognise that this happens, but then we also need to think more about how people move from being acquaintances to being friends.

This move might commonly start with an obvious and safe topic of conversation. At the school gate we can safely comment on the behaviour of our children. In the park we can ask about each other's dogs. On the train platform we can ask what trains the other person has seen. We expect that most often the person we approach will reciprocate, commenting on their own children, our dog, or our own train spotting.

We've dipped a toe in the relationship water. Sometimes we haven't found the exchange particularly encouraging, and we return to being complete strangers. Often we've established something friendly, but which is unlikely to grow any stronger. We might not even ask this person their name – but we expect that next time we see them we might exchange a wave, a nod, or a "hello".

Even if this is all we've established this can be enough to make us feel like we belong in a group or situation. And perhaps it also announces to other people that we belong, or that we're worth noticing - a change that makes it easier to make similar moves towards other people, allowing us to gradually develop a network of connections.

But then for some of these relationships either we or the other person might make an additional effort. We might exchange names, and perhaps speak about something slightly more personal. Or one of us might ask for an update on what was learned last time. Or perhaps we just exchange a bigger smile.

Obviously this process has further stages, with the potential each time that a proportion of those we know become closer - until some become friends in the true sense of the word.

The final steps towards establishing a solid friendship might simply require that this process continues over time - maybe even over years. Or it might rely on one of us taking a bigger step - asking for a phone number, suggesting we go for coffee, lending something, or asking for a favour.

In any case, the roots of these relationships – whether shallow and brief, or deep and long lasting – are in being a regular.

In the context of supporting a person who is excluded it seems worth noting the following:

Making connections may depend on us turning up at the same place and time, or joining in with the same people on many occasions over an extended period (months or years).

Making connections in this way relies on us being a regular in situations where there are other regulars.

Not all places and activities have the same potential. We might be a regular at the supermarket, but that's less likely to be of value than our involvement in a club or society.

We may be particularly likely to connect with people who share a passion, enthusiasm or hobby with us (in a situation where this is obvious).

The process through which relationships develop is often an active one, requiring action from both parties. It can be helpful to have a good understanding of these processes.

One particularly interesting way to strengthen a connection is to contribute something, even if this is something small like a photograph, the loan of a pen, or a lift home.

People will be particularly welcome in situations where through their presence or activity they contribute something of particular use to the group.

Support people can have profound effects on these social processes simply because of their presence.

"Planning" - not "the plan"

2007-11-21T15:16:00.000Z

It's common to hear that people are struggling to implement the use of person-centred planning across their organisations. It's also common to hear claims that someone has found an easier way forwards – perhaps by introducing a style of planning that is easier to work with, or by adapting their existing systems.

This article discusses why such claims should be treated with care, and particularly warns against a search for paperwork based solutions.

The problem

The problem is that person-centred planning will never fit easily into a service-centred way of working. The task we face in encouraging its use in such a system will be difficult by definition. It doesn't matter how long we spend looking for a better strategy, it will remain difficult.

When faced with a very difficult path it is human nature to be tempted by alternatives that initially seem more attractive – and then later to avoid too many questions about our wisdom. With person-centred planning the situation is no different.

Often a false path starts with a simple shift in language. Instead of speaking about "person-centred planning" (which brings to mind a group of people working together) we speak about "a person-centred plan" (which suggests a written document).

Then there are the many attempts by people – who haven't fully understood why person-centred planning uses big sheets of paper – to come up with something that is easier to distribute, file or copy. These usually stem from the misunderstanding that producing the big sheet of paper is the purpose of the whole exercise.

The next step is to dispense with large sheets of paper entirely -– which in turn seems to lead inevitably to the loss of the challenging (powerful) meetings that sit at the heart of person-centred planning.

After taking these steps we can concentrate on producing 'the plan'.

The allure of 'The Plan'

There is something very attractive about the idea that the power of person-centred planning can be captured in 'a person-centred plan' – a bundle of paperwork, a booklet, a folder, or a file about a person.

It is comparatively easy to produce a written document, allowing us to feel as though we are doing something constructive and material – and we can do it faster and more cheaply, reaching more people in a shorter time.
The task is difficult enough to make us feel like we must be achieving something worthwhile.
This work can be made to fit with our systems so the risks of upsetting people – particularly our colleagues – are lower.
The new paperwork (and how it is used) may well represent a real improvement – so we receive good feedback.
When lives don't change, we can blame someone else, or simply cite 'funding' as an issue.
After a while we can convince people (and perhaps even ourselves) that person-centred planning doesn't work and that we weren't doing so badly working in the old way after all.

Real person-centred planning

Real person-centred planning will always be challenging (particularly when focused on people who don't currently have a good life). But this shouldn't be a surprise. Our task may be to help someone to build networks of friends, to become 'valued' (rather than 'devalued'), and to get 'unstuck' from seemingly unsolvable situations. This will never be easy.

The key element is usually at least one meeting bringing the focus person together with people who are important to them – and during which they are challenged to think imaginatively and listen intently. The point of this meeting, and of the process as a whole, is not to gather information. It's a facilitative process, designed for its effects on the participants (although a good deal of information may also be learned).

We recognise real person-centred planning by features such as the following:

The result of the process is that people become motivated.
After the process a focus person feels better about who they are.
For the focus person the process has the potential to be life changing (in a good way).
For someone who is socially excluded, the process leads towards their real inclusion.
For someone who is devalued, the process genuinely changes how they are seen by others.

The value of some paperwork

None of this should be taken as an argument against the redesign of paperwork. Organisations that support people clearly do need paperwork – and it is good when this responds to person-centred planning.

Nor is this about being 'purist' – an accusation often levelled at those who argue for real change. If a way could be found to make real person-centred planning (or an equally effective alternative) fit easily into existing systems then few would argue with it.

As a final point it is important to say that there are actually some very useful and powerful pieces of paperwork associated with person-centred planning. These can:

present a powerful capacity view of someone who has been known in terms of deficiency;
lay out clearly what is important to a person in their daily life (this information may be best conveyed in writing);
help people who are involved with a person to coordinate their actions (in line with the focus person's wishes).

However in really effective person-centred planning processes the creation of this paperwork is rarely the main focus of the work.

Conclusion

Person-centred planning isn't about creating better paperwork. But better paperwork can be useful alongside effective person-centred planning

Telling Stories

2007-11-21T15:01:00.000Z

Perhaps you find yourself in the situation where stating the facts doesn't seem to work. Somehow the message doesn't get through. You can tell that people aren't 'getting it' even though they insist they are - they can relate words back to you, but you suspect they haven't quite grasped the sense in which you used them.

One simple but effective strategy can be to tell a story. This might sound obvious – and many people do use stories as examples when they write. But their value is often underestimated. With the right story we might:

bypass common misunderstandings;
connect with a person's emotions;
get our idea lodged in the listener's mind;
provide people with something to remember and refer back to for guidance in the future;
help people to believe what we are saying;
send our idea out to spread on its own (something like a virus).

An example may help to illustrate this. We'll start with some facts:

Facts
Person-centred planning can have really positive effects in terms of how the focus person is viewed by those around them – including their family members. It can help people to re-frame their understanding. It can help people see that those things that have been perceived as negative may also have a positive side.

The problem is that we can relate to these facts at a surface level – never really being confronted by their depth, or bending our interpretation to fit an existing belief. People do this unintentionally – not through malice (usually). They can completely miss the point, while being sure they haven't.

Now… if we can use a story:

Alastair's story
Alastair is an energetic boy in his last year at primary school. From his dad and teachers one thing I learned was that he is very forward in approaching people. His dad spoke about it being embarrassing when Alastair talked to complete strangers as if they were already the best of friends. His teachers spoke about other children being scared of his approach and withdrawing from him. They said this frustrated him and that his subsequent behaviour was very difficult. Most of the teachers clearly believed that Alastair didn't belong in a mainstream school.

We brought people who really cared about Alastair together around him to carry out a 'person-centred planning' session. A key feature of this was its positive focus, and we took the group through a conversation in which only a positive viewpoint was discussed. This was a moving experience for everyone, and one that left Alastair feeling much more positive about himself. Instead of speaking about Alastair's 'lack of social skills' the group instead discussed his 'directness' and 'no nonsense approach' as assets.

The process helped Alastair and the group to think of some pictures of a positive long-term future built around these assets – and to plan how to work towards them. This has already paid off. With a little help Alastair organised a sponsored walk raising funds for new school play equipment. He took to the role with enthusiasm, approaching other children, businesses, parents, and the council without embarrassment. So much money was raised that the school put a small plaque on the new equipment to say thank you.

Alastair still has some difficulties in his relationships at school, but some of his new friends there have become good mediators. There is a strong sense that he belongs there.

His dad tells me that both he and the rest of the family see Alastair in a new light, and that they are feeling much more positive about the future.

Being more long winded, stories aren't necessarily an efficient way of conveying information. But in many situations it isn't a lack of information or clarity that is the problem. When we are promoting a new way of thinking or working we face much more challenging issues.

For instance, a new idea may be implicitly critical of existing ways of working or thinking (indeed this may be explicit). We are asking people to take the difficult step of accepting that their current understanding or work isn't up to scratch.

Linked to this is the problem of peer pressure. For people to accept our idea, to believe in an alternative, or to adopt new practice, they must be prepared to upset their peers (who also see it as critical). And people who adopt the idea become vulnerable, because those who are challenged by it will be on the lookout for proof of its foolishness. When we remember that the new idea or practice probably involves a good deal of uncertainty, then an initial reluctance to listen to us becomes very understandable.

The right stories are useful because they can help people to see themselves as joining with other visionaries in a proven new practice – when in reality they are stepping out of line and walking in new territory.

What is The System?

2007-03-29T12:44:00.000Z

Those involved in trying to support change in an organisation or society may find it useful to think about 'the system'. This short article explores why.

We can start somewhere simple – with what 'the system' isn't. It isn't the people in charge, men in grey suits, the government, capitalism, the director of the organisation, or the senior managers.

A better way to understand 'the system' is that it is 'the way things are done around here'.

An unrelated (hypothetical) example might be helpful: In the UK almost every parent tells their children about Father Christmas / Santa Claus. Imagine that you are the parent of a young child who is just being introduced to the concept of Father Christmas. Imagine you have come across research proving that children are psychologically damaged when they realise that their parents have lied to them (by the way if you don't know the truth about Father Christmas please look away now). Or perhaps you are rooted in a culture in which Father Christmas doesn't feature. You decide that Father Christmas will play no part in your life – and in fact that you will tell your child that he doesn't exist.

Surely this should be a simple matter? After all, as the parent you have a huge power over your children. No problem then?

There again, in most communities your friends and family are likely to see your action as cruel. Or they may decide you are "a politically correct fascist more interested in imposing your own ideas on your child than in their wellbeing." Teachers at your child's school will find it awkward to know how to handle them at Christmas. Other parents may not invite him/her to their house in case their own child gets upset. Other children may come to dislike your child when he/she marches around the school saying "only little babies believe in Santa".

Of course you may be part of a community of people who share your beliefs, and then the action of telling our child the truth won't be so difficult. You may have support from your friends and immediate contacts. However the whole thing will certainly emphasise a 'them and us' division between different parts of the community.

What does this tell us about what 'the system' is? (By the way before we go on let me assure you that my children very much look forward to Father Christmas's visits.)

The system is 'the way things are done around here', and telling the Father Christmas story to our children is 'the way things are done around here'. Not telling this story (or telling the truth) would be to step out of line. Stepping out of line has consequences – negative ones.

To understand this further it is helpful to ask who is in charge of the Father Christmas idea. Who should a concerned citizen write to? Could the government do something - or would that bring them down? What about the Queen or the President? What about a dictator? Surely even a dictator wouldn't hold the power required – 'Father Christmas' would simply go underground.

That's the nature of 'the system'. Most of what goes on in any network of human beings – for example an organisation, a company, or a country as a whole – isn't determined by rules and policy. Nobody is in charge – we just do things the way we do them because that's 'how things are done around here.'

This example provides an initial indication of why certain changes are difficult to implement, but the key to understanding more is to take note of one of the most surprising behaviours of any human system. Sometimes it seems that 'the system' is actively opposing our efforts. We can almost imagine that there is a conspiracy against us even though we know there isn't.

At first encounter we might put this thought aside as paranoia. However the study of human systems actually supports our conclusion. The idea of 'emergence' refers to the behaviours of a system that seem to make more sense at a system level than when looking at individual system elements. These are the behaviours that the system as a whole exhibits as a result of the huge number of interactions between individual parts of the system.

To give a real example: an ant colony when migrating may choose the best from a set of available nest sites. This doesn't sound like a particularly odd idea until we realise that it is a behaviour of the system of ants that we wouldn't necessarily expect to see if we study individual ants. The choice of site can take place despite no one ant knowing about the existence of more than one site, without any ant or ant committee taking a decision on behalf of the colony, and without any kind of 'conversation' between ants about there being more than one option. Of course this effect is nothing more than the result of the behaviours of many individual ants, and it is reasonably easy to explain how it takes place. Emergence isn't a mysterious effect – but its effects can be surprising.

Human systems work the same way. The system has behaviours that can more usefully be understood at the system level than by looking at the behaviour of individual people. An active opposition to certain types of change is one such behaviour.

Understanding 'the system' in this way isn't just an academic exercise. It helps us to think about more effective strategies for generating change, and to anticipate the nature of the difficulties we will encounter.

Why is this so difficult?

2007-03-29T12:21:00.002Z

This article looks at why it is so hard for an organisation/agency either to maintain or to develop person-centred ways of working. Understanding the nature of the problem can lead to more effective strategies.

It is worth pointing out that one particular mistake is made repeatedly; the introduction of a person-centred approach is taken to be a 'technical' problem. The result is an unsuccessful attempt to implement change through simple training programmes, changes in policy, and alterations in procedures.

Of course, training can be a very powerful tool, good policies can have a real influence, and technical issues can certainly be worth solving. But why is it that an extensive training programme on its own seems to have such a limited effect? Why do changes in policy or structure seem not to make much real difference? And why is it that when one technical problem is solved another replaces it?

To properly understand this problem it can be helpful to start with the following statement:

Society thinks of many of the people we support as in some way:

deficient,
less valuable,
fundamentally different from 'us', and
like others who share the same label.

This is a set of assumptions that is very deeply rooted - so much so that our organisations or services cannot escape their influence (irrespective of the values of individual staff and managers, and however carefully policies are written). Indeed, when we look carefully we find that these assumptions are often more than just an influence – they may be the foundations on which our organisations and services are built (even when those working in them don't think this way).

The powerful and all pervasive nature of this set of assumptions has a profound effect, which is that the way we want to work is at odds with the culture of our organisations and society. Working in a person-centred way isn't what is expected. We are stepping out of line. We will be doing things in a way that isn't 'the way things are done around here'. We won't be fitting in, but standing out.

To behave in a way that isn't 'the way things are done around here' is difficult. Most of us prefer to fit in with friends and colleagues, not to stand out. This is a powerful factor working against the development of person-centred approaches.

Behaving in a way that isn't 'the way things are done around here' also generates opposition. The new way might lead to some people losing out, or it might be taken as a criticism of people using the old way. Working in a new way may well lead to us being disliked or criticised. This is a second powerful factor working against the development of person-centred approaches.

Of course these factors also work just as much at an organisational level as an individual one. Organisations working differently will stand out, and will be subject to opposition. And the pressure to go back to 'traditional' ways of working will be powerful.

The study of human systems provides us with an even deeper insight. We find that when we are working on certain types of change (such as is required here) opposition can be surprisingly subtle and effective because it is a behaviour of the system as a whole, not just the individuals within it.

Unfortunately further traps await the unwary. The first arises because we know that we should expect opposition to the changes we seek. It is easy to forget that the presence of opposition doesn't mean we are being successful. Irrelevant or unhelpful changes can be just as hard to implement.

On the other hand, an absence of opposition does probably indicate a problem. There are two main possibilities. Either our efforts are ineffective and therefore not worth opposing, or we just aren't wise enough to notice the danger. The most dangerous time can be when things seem to be going really well.

Watch out!