- Information
- AI Chat
Sys archetypes
accounting 1 (acctg 1)
Recommended for you
Preview text
The System Archetypes
By William Braun
Abstract 1
The Systems Archetypes describe common patterns of behavior in organizations. As diagnostic tools they provide insight into the underlying structures from which behavior over time and discreet events emerge. As prospective tools, they alert managers to future unintended consequences. Collectively they challenge managers to consider the merits of fundamental solutions by making time an explicit variable in decision making.
T
he System Archetypes are highly effective tools for gaining insight into patterns of behavior, themselves reflective of the underlying structure of the system being studied. The archetypes can be applied in two ways - diagnostically and prospectively.
Diagnostically, archetypes help managers recognize patterns of behavior that are already present in their organizations. They serve as the means for gaining insight into the underlying systems structures from which the archetypal behavior emerges. This is the most common use of the archetype.
Archetypes are effective tools for beginning to answer the question, “Why do we keep seeing the same problems recur over time?”
Archetypes are also useful prospectively for planning. As managers formulate the means by which they expect to accomplish their organizational ends, the archetypes can be applied to test whether policies and structures under consideration may be altering the organizational structure in such manner as to produce the archetypal behavior. If managers find this to be the case, they can take remedial action before the changes are adopted and embedded in the organization’s structure.
Archetypes and Modeling
Archetype are useful for gaining insight into the “nature” of the underlying problem and for offering a basic structure or foundation upon which a model can be further developed and constructed. The archetypes are rarely sufficient models in and of themselves. They are generic in nature and generally fail to reveal important variables that are part of the real system structure of a specific organization. Without an explicit awareness of these real variables, it is difficult for managers to pinpoint specific leverage points where changes in structure can achieve sustainable changes in system behavior.
( + )
( + ) ( - )
( + )
Efforts Results SlowingAction
Limiting Condition
R1 B
Generic Archetype
Behavior Over Time
THE ARCHETYPES
Ten archetypes are generally acknowledged as forming the set of tools that reveal patterns of behavior in systems. Limits to Growth (aka Limits to Success) Shifting the Burden Eroding Goals Escalation Success to the Successful Tragedy of the Commons Fixes that Fail Growth and Underinvestment Accidental Adversaries Attractiveness Principle
Each of the archetypes will be illustrated and discussed, along with general guidelines, prescriptive action(s) and a set of seven steps that are useful for applying the archetypes for successful managerial interventions.
Limits to Growth
Limits to Growth was introduced by Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William Behrens in 1972 in their book of the same name 2. The book has spawned a generation of “World” models that critically examine the policies that deplete natural resources over long periods of time, arguing that we are sowing the seeds of our own future destruction.
The theory is not without is challengers and detractors. Nevertheless, it does put forth the premise that growth cannot continue unabated in an unrestricted reinforcing dynamic.
In simple terms, the lesson from Limits to Growth is that something always pushes back. There is no such thing as unrestricted positive reinforcing behavior. There are always limits that eventually make themselves known and felt.
Dynamic Theory 3
This archetype states that a reinforcing process of accelerating growth (or expansion) will encounter a balancing process as the limit of that system is approached. It hypothesizes that continuing efforts will produce diminishing returns as one approaches the limits.
Behavior Over Time
Efforts to grow an effect are successful in initial stages, perhaps exponentially so. However, as the limits to growth are approached, the growth engine begins to lose its effectiveness and the rate of growth begins to flatten. In the end, despite continued pressure from the growth engine, the rate of growth stops and then reverses.
( - )
( + )
( - )
( + )
Symptomatic Solution
Problem Symptom
Fundamental Solution
Side Effect
( + )
( - )
B
B
R
Generic Archetype
Behavior Over Time
By focusing their attention on these limits, managers may find opportunities to either continue the improvement curve they were on, or identify the elements in the system that represent the counter-force and devise new improvement initiatives that would reduce or remove the limits.
Shifting the Burden
Shifting the Burden is the first of several archetypes that illustrate the tension between 1) the attraction (and relative ease and low cost) of devising symptomatic solutions to visible problems and 2) the long-term impact of fundamental solutions aimed at underlying structures that are producing the pattern of behavior in the first place.
The tension between the two is understandable. Long-term solutions tend to demand deep understanding and learning about the underlying problem, take a long time to formulate, require a relatively large, up-front commitment of funds, and test managers’ patience. All this in the face of pressures from many angles that demand that managers fix problems promptly and move on.
The essence of Shifting the Burden is that once the symptomatic solution (which by contrast requires less understanding, is easier to formulate, is relatively less expense - in the short run - and produces instant gratification) has had its effect, there is little perceived need to pay any more attention to the fundamental, underlying systemic problem.
Dynamic Theory
This archetype states that a problem symptom can be resolved either by using a symptomatic solution or applying a fundamental solution. It hypothesizes that once a symptomatic solution is used, it alleviates the problem symptom and reduces pressure to implement a fundamental solution, a side effect that undermines fundamental solutions.
Behavior Over Time
Shifting the Burden is one example of how management intervention works. Each time an intervention is aimed at problem symptoms, some temporary improvement in performance is experienced (this assumes a well planned intervention).
The underlying problem persists however and the reappearance of problem symptoms invariably happens.
Application - Break Organizational Gridlock
Organizational gridlock can be caused by interlocking “Shifting the Burden” structures, as one function’s “solution” creates problems in an other area. The archetype provides a starting point for breaking gridlock by identifying chains of problem symptoms and solutions that form walls between functions, departments, or divisions.
( - ) ( + )
( - )
( + )
Reliance on R&D Staff
Pressure to Deliver Product
Local Capability
Attrition of Talented Local Staff
( + )
( - )
Local Capability
( + )
B
B
R
Example: Manufacturing Facility
Example
A manufacturing facility experiences periodic problems reaching production targets as a result of difficulties making adjustments to changing production requirements. Each time the R&D people, who know the product very well, are called upon to fix the problem. When the problem symptoms disappear, the incentive to fix the underlying problem likewise disappear. Additionally, since the production staff has received no training to improve their ability to respond to the problems, they feel disaffected and leave.
Prescriptive Action
Focus on the fundamental solution. If necessary, use the symptomatic solution only to gain time while working on the fundamental solution. Elicit multiple viewpoints to differentiate between fundamental and symptomatic solutions and to gain consensus around an action plan. Use the archetype to explore potential side-effects of any proposed solution.
Seven Action Steps
Identify the original problem symptom. Map all “quick fixes” that appear to be keeping the problem under control. Identify the impact of the symptomatic solutions on other parts of the system. Identify fundamental solutions. Develop multiple perspectives. Map side-effects of quick fixes that may be undermining the usability of the fundamental solution. Find interconnections to fundamental loops. Find links between the interaction effects and the fundamental solution that may be causing gridlock. Identify high-leverage actions from both perspectives.
What Does This Really Mean?
Shifting the Burden is an example of creative tension 7 at work. The archetype draws attention to the gap between the pressures to perform in the short-term with the insights and long-term sustaining decisions to which systems managers seek to respond.
It also points to the critical importance of developing patience as one of the skills that systems managers include in their Personal Mastery of competencies. It illustrates the challenge and difficulty of demonstrating forward-thinking leadership in the face of mounting pressure to “fix it” and “get on to the next problem”.
Without a clear and convincing picture in the manager’s mind’s eye (Personal Vision) as well as in the collective mind’s eye of everyone (Shared Vision), the pressure to go for the quick fix may overwhelm the manager, condemning her/him to a recurring pattern of interventions that aim to solve the same set of problem symptoms.
( - ) ( + )
( + )
( + )
Pressures to Lower Quality
Gap
TQI Program
( - )
Quality Goal
Actual Quality
( + )
Competitor's Quality
Customers' Expectations of Quality
( + )
( + )
( + )
( + )
B
B
Example: Internal Quality Standards
Example
Quality standards are common in organizations. If a gap occurs between what the organization targeted and its actual performance, a tension develops between pressure to live up to standards and the pressure to roll the standards back to something achievable.
If the quality standard is anchored to an internal perception of customer expectations rather than an industry standard (what the competition is doing) there is the risk that the pressure to scale back the standard will prevail.
Prescriptive Action
Anchor goals to an external frame of reference to keep them from sliding (i., a benchmark or the voice of the customer). Determine whether the drift in performance is the result of conflicts between the stated goal and the implicit goals of the system (such as current performance measures). Establish a clear transition plan from current reality to the goal, including a realistic time frame for achieving the goal.
Seven Action Steps
Identify drifting performance measure. Look for goals that conflict with the stated goal. Identify standard procedures for closing the gap. Examine the past history of the goal. Has the goal itself been lowered over time. Anchor the goal to an external reference. Clarify a compelling vision that will involve everyone. Create a clear transition plan.
What Does This Really Mean?
Eroding Goals has two important ramifications for systems managers. First, the immediate short-term effect is the failure to critically examine the underlying causes that explain why 1) performance is lacking and 2) managers feel pressure to revise goals to match what the organization is currently capable of achieving.
Second, repeatedly falling into the trap of Eroding Goals eventually becomes embedded in the organization’s culture as a justifiable and even reasonable thing to do. Over time, the organization falls farther and farther behind the expectations of its customers and eventually fails altogether.
On the other hand, how do managers assess whether the original goals were attainable? What about managers who repeatedly set goals that everyone knows are unattainable and uses them as catalysts to prod people into higher and higher levels of performance?
What about events in the external environment that could not have been predicted and that may be legitimate grounds for revising goals downward? What about goals that turn out to be mistakes in judgement or weaknesses in the forecasting process?
( + ) ( - )
( - )
Activity by A
Results of A Relative to B
Activity by B
A's Result Threat to A
B's Results Threat to B
S
( + )
( + )
( + )
( + )
B
B
Generic Archetype
Behavior Over Time
Since there are (potentially) legitimate reasons to adjust goals downward, systems managers must take extreme caution when considering an adjustment to goals. The two most important considerations are 1) an honest and rigorous examination of the organization itself and 2) an equally candid look at competitors and their performance, and at customers and their expectations.
Escalation
A commonly held belief of competition is mounting an appropriate response to the actions of competitors (a) to sustain one’s own competitive advantage, (b) to maintain momentum toward gaining competitive advantage, or (c) because that’s what managers are supposed to do.
The Escalation archetype presents an irony of management - in the name of protecting and/or furthering the best interests of their organization, managers engage in escalating behavior to the point where they harm their organizations and reduce the value to customers, stakeholders and shareholders.
The archetype also presents an opportunity to think expansionistically, the behavior described by the archetype itself being the [at least partial] result of reductionistic thinking. By expanding their view, managers may find the means through which an encompassing, unifying or overarching goal may be established whereby they discover and option to the perceived need to resort to escalation as a primary competitive response.
Dynamic Theory
The Escalation archetype occurs when one party’s actions are perceived by another party to be a threat, and the second party responds in a similar manner, further increasing the threat. It hypothesizes that the two balancing loops will create a reinforcing figure-8 effect, resulting in threatening actions by both parties that grow exponentially over time.
Behavior Over Time
The behavior of escalation is relatively simple and predictable. The actions (and reactions) of each party are similar in nature, though they become increasingly competitive as time goes by.
What the Behavior Over Time graph does not illustrate is the potential for collapse if the escalation goes on for too long.
Application - Competition
One of the reasons we get caught in escalation dynamics may stem from our view of competition. This archetype suggests that cutthroat competition serves no one well in the long run. The archetype provides a way to identify escalation structures at work and shows how to break out of them or avoid them altogether.
( - ) ( - )
( + )
( + )
Resources to A
Allocation to A Instead of B
Resources to B
( + )
Success of A
Sucess of B
( + )
R
R
Generic Archetype
Success to the Successful
A common piece of wisdom is not to throw good money after bad. In managerial terms this archetype is often the basis for citing the “80/20” rule.
The Success to the Successful archetype describes the common practice of rewarding good performance with more resources in the expectation that performance will continue to improve. There is a belief that the successful [people, departments, products, etc.] have “earned” their increasing share of resources through past performance.
The potential downside to this assumption is the continued under-performance of people, departments or products that perform at their current level through no intrinsic lack of skill or capability. In other words, current performance may be a better reflection of the initial or starting conditions than they are of true ability for commitment to top performance.
In practice, one cannot conclude one way or another that a performance gap between two people, departments or products is or is not attributable to a bona fide performance gap simply from taking this archetype into account. The true value of the archetype is to raise the question. With the question on the table, carefully tracing the history of the gap will frequently provide valuable insights into the origin of the gap in the first place.
If the gap can be explained as one person, department or product truly performing better, through his/her/its own intrinsic merits, then managers can make operational or strategic decisions with the full knowledge that the long-term interests of the firm are well served.
On the other hand, managers may discover that current performance is more a matter of initial conditions and, with sound planning, careful resource allocation and good execution, under- performing people, departments or products can be transformed into winners, likewise for the long-term best interests of the firm.
Dynamic Theory
The Success to the Successful archetype states that if one person or group (A) is given more resources than another equally capable group (B), A has a higher likelihood of succeeding. It hypothesizes that A’s initial success justifies devoting more resources to A, further widening the performance gap between the two groups over time.
Success to the Successful rewards the winner of competition with the means to win again; it may also penalize the losers.
Behavior Over Time
( - ) ( - )
( + )
( + )
Resources to Call Center A
Growth Funding to A Instead of B
Resources to Call Center B
( + )
Success of Call Center A
Sucess of Call Center B
( + )
R
R
Example: Call Centers
Behavior Over Time
A dynamic of success to the successful can be identified from trended data by looking for diverging patterns when individuals, departments or products are examined. As resources are diverted to the successful party, their success improves even more. Correspondingly, the other party’s performance, as resources are diverted from it, continues to erode.
Application - Avoid Competency Traps
This archetype suggests that success or failure may be due more to initial conditions than intrinsic merits. It can help organizations challenge their success loops by “unlearning” what they are already good at in order to explore new approaches and alternatives.
Example
Two call centers are established in different parts of the country. Some rationale for resource allocation results in one of them experiencing better performance than the other. Not only is the lesser performer looked down upon, but its lack luster performance is cited as a sound rationale not to put any more resources into it.
Prescriptive Action
Evaluate the current measurement systems to determine if they are set up to favor established practices over other alternatives. Identify goals or objectives that will refocus the definition of success to a broader system. Calibrate internal views of market success against external indicators to identify potential competency traps.
Seven Action Steps
Investigate historical origins of competencies; identify potential competency traps. Investigate initial conditions and the origin of the rules. Evaluate current measurement systems; are they set up to favor current systems over other alternatives? Map internal views of market success. What are the operating assumptions around success in the market? Obtain external views of market success. Ask “outsiders” for alternative strategies. Assess effects on the innovative spirit. Is the current system excluding or limiting the spirit of experimentation that will lead to a new alternative. Continually scan for gaps and areas for improvement.
( + )
( + )
( + )
( + )
Net Gains for Admin
Total Demands
Net Gains for Medicine
Gain per Individual Demand
( + )
( + )
B
B
R
Medicine's Demands
Admin's Demands IT FTEs, Resurces & Skills ( + )
( + )
( - ) ( + )
R
Example: IT Project Requests
Behavior Over Time
Three, organizational goals themselves begin to erode and to reflect the diminished ability of the commons to support the goals and objectives of the individuals and teams that depend on the commons. This can have far reaching consequences in terms of the firm’s competitive advantage in the markets in which it competes.
Four, the commons itself deteriorates as a valued and valuable resource to the point where it is regarded as a cause of failure rather than success. When these perceptions become embedded in people’s collective assumptions, they can lead to deep beliefs about the organization and its ability (and willingness) to be successful in the long-term.
Dynamic Theory
This archetype identifies the causal connections between individual actions and the collective results (in a closed system). It hypothesizes that if the total usage of a common resource becomes too great for the system to support, the commons will become overloaded or depleted and everyone will experience diminished benefits.
Behavior Over Time
Any time a declining trend is seen in the overall performance of each part of the system even as it increases its demand on common resources, there is a good possibility that a Tragedy of the Commons is taking place. This is often accompanied by puzzlement, as each party placing demands on the system cannot understand why their demands are not being met, which typically results in the party increasing its demands yet further. This may continue until the commons collapses.
Application - Resource Allocation
In this archetype situation, the complex interaction of individual actions produces an undesirable effect, such as the depletion of a common resource. The archetype can be used to help connect the long-term effects of individual actions to the collective outcome, and develop measures for managing the common resource more effectively.
Example
IT resources are typically organized into a “commons” department, with each part of the organization seeking their support on an as-needed basis. Since separate parts of the organization typically do not keep track of the IT problems in other parts of the organization, it is fairy common for each part of the organization to see the IT department as “its own”. When the IT department is crushed under the weight of all the demands placed upon it, its performance for every department begins to erode or fail.
( + )
( + )
( - )
Fix
Unintended Consequences
( + )
Problem Symptom
R
B
Generic Archetype
Prescriptive Action
Establish methods for making the cumulative effects of using the common resource more real and immediate to the individual players. Re-evaluate the nature of the commons to determine if there are ways to replace or renew (or substitute) the resource before it becomes depleted. Create a final arbiter who manages the use of the common resource from a whole-system level.
Seven Action Steps
Identify the “commons”. What is the common resource that is being shared? Determine incentives. What are the reinforcing processes that are driving individual use of the resource? Determine the time frame for reaping benefits. Determine the time frame for experiencing cumulative effects of the collective action. Make the long-term effects more present. How can the long-term loss or degradation of the commons be more real and present to the individual users? Reevaluate the nature of the commons. Are there other resources or alternatives that can be used to remove the constraint upon the commons? Limit access to resources. Determine a central focal point - a shared vision, measurement system, or final arbiter - that allocates resources based on the needs of the whole system.
What Does This Really Mean?
In many respects the Tragedy of the Commons is a classic example of reductionistic thinking. By remaining unaware of the effect of the parts on the whole, people continue to think and behave as though there are no connections within the organization that affect their ability to meet goals and objectives. Focused on their own part, behaving as though it depended on no other, demands on the commons are issued with only the present in mind.
Sustainability is increasingly put forward as a guiding principle for the planet we inhabit. Sustainability has applications within organizations, with respect to their structure and practices, with an eye on the long-term future. Structures that create commons and policies and practices that govern them (leading to depletion or replenishment) are critical success factors.
Ultimately, firms may conclude that structures that include a commons are ineffective means of distributing and allocating resources. Alternately, they may gain insight into how commons have to be governed, and recognize that structures and policies, other than the commons itself, all interact and have a pronounced effect upon the utility the commons bring to organizations.
Fixes that Fail
When managers find themselves saying, “I thought we fixed this - why is it worse than it was before?”, the Fixes that Fail archetype may be at work in the organization. This archetype is also a good reflection of the perils of reductionistic thinking - despite their best efforts (good try’s that miss the mark) managers find themselves dealing with the same problem symptoms, albeit in a variety of different colors and flavors, over and over again.
When problem symptoms are assumed to be a unique set of circumstances that exist in their own (relatively) small, isolated subsystem, unconnected to other problem symptoms
( + ) ( - )
( - )
Performance Current Performance Standard
Perceived Need to Invest
( + )
Current Demand
Capacity
( + )
( + ) ( + )
Growing Action
Investment in Capacity
( + )
( + )
R1 B
B
Prescriptive Action
Focus on identifying and removing the fundamental cause of the problem symptom. If a temporary, short-term solution is needed, develop a two-tier approach of simultaneously applying the fix and planning out the fundamental solution. Use the archetype to map out potential side-effects of any proposed intervention.
Seven Action Steps
Identify problem symptom(s). Map current interventions and how they were expected to rectify the problem. Map unintended consequences of the interventions. Identify fundamental causes of the problem symptoms. Find connections between both sets of loops. Are the fixes and the fundamental causes linked? Identify high-leverage interventions. Add or break links in the diagram to create structural interventions. Map potential side-effects for each intervention in order to be prepared for them (or to avoid them altogether).
What Does This Really Mean?
The key to appreciating the Fixes that Fail archetype is the delay in the balancing loop. The time that elapses between the fix and the worsening problem symptoms frequently makes the connection between the fix and the deteriorating problem symptoms hard to identify. Managers tend to attribute the worsening problem symptom to something other than the prior decision(s) they made in their efforts to fix the problem symptom(s).
Despite its apparent simplicity, Fixes that Fail can be devilishly hard to unravel. It requires a deep commitment to setting aside mental models that may strongly influence managers not to see, or even consider, that there may be a connection between the problem symptoms that are visible and the fix(es) they are applying in an effort to alleviate the problem symptoms.
Growth and Underinvestment
The Growth and Underinvestment archetype builds upon Limits to Growth by explicitly addressing a firm’s need to invest in its own resources, capabilities and core competencies. A growing action seeks to stimulate and reinforce demand while the firm’s current performance level may behave as the limit to its growth. Similar to Limits to Growth, if current performance is adversely affecting demand, no amount of growing action will overcome customers’ reluctance to reward the organization with sales.
Behavior Over Time
Unique to Growth and Underinvestment is the long-term requirement to continue to keep its capabilities and core competencies at a level that ensures its competitive advantage. There are several characteristics of the investment balancing loop that are critical from a managerial decision making point of view.
First, although performance standards are presented as a constant (no causal influences are working on it), they themselves may be subject to the Eroding Goals archetype. This may be situational or it may be a trend that has developed over long periods of time, as the organization loses confidence in its own ability to perform at the level of customer needs and expectations.
Second, when coupled with the firm’s current performance, performance standards combine to exert a corrosive influence on the perceived need for investment. At any given performance standard (regardless of any declining trend it may be exhibiting over time), if current performance is falling short, the adage, “why throw good money after bad” can gain a hearing within the organization.
Third, as confidence declines, so too may investment itself. Additionally, declining performance leads to declining revenue which in turn reduces cash available for investment.
Fourth, even if the organization makes an investment, if it has not anticipated the delay in bringing the increased capacity and capability on line, it may turn out to be a long run for a short slide.
Dynamic Theory
This archetype applies when growth approaches a limit that can be overcome if capacity investments are made. If a system is stretched beyond its limit, it will compensate by lowering performance standards, which reduces the perceived need for investment. It also leads to lower performance, which further justifies underinvestment over time.
Behavior Over Time
Data that shows declining performance and growth at the same time that the rate of investment is slowing or falling may signal that this archetype is at work.
Correspondingly, it is not uncommon for performance standards to erode as the degree of difficulty in reaching performance standards increases.
Application - Capital Planning
If demand outstrips capacity, performance can suffer and hurt demand. If this dynamic is not recognized, the decrease in demand can then be used as a reason not to invest in the needed capacity. This archetype can be used to ensure that investment decisions are viewed from a fresh perspective, rather than relying on past decisions.
A's Fixes to Improve A's Results
A's Success
B's Success
B's Fixes to Improve B's Results
A's Unintended Obstruction of B's Unintended B's Success Obstruction of A's Success
A's Activity with B (in B's Favor)
B's Activity with A (in A's FAvor)
( - )
( + )
( - )
( + )
( - ) ( + )
( - )
( + )
( + ) ( + )
( + )
( + )
B
B
R
R
Generic Archetype
Behavior Over Time
Accidental Adversaries
Accidental Adversaries is similar to the Escalation archetype in terms of the pattern of behavior that develops over time. It is different from it insofar as the intent of the parties is concerned. Accidental Adversaries begin their relationship with win-win goals and objectives in mind, generally taking advantage of their respective strengths, minimizing their respective weaknesses, with the objective of accomplishing together what cannot be achieved separately.
Unwittingly and unintentionally, one party (“the party of the first part”) takes an action that the other party (“the party of the second part”) interprets as outside the spirit, if not the letter, of their understanding. The “offended” party perceives that the action gives the “offending” party unfair advantage in the partnership (at best) or harms the “offended” party (at worst). The spirit of partnership turns to one of contentious adversaries,` typically as a function of the mental model(s) each party holds. Rather than communicate and engage in dialogue, the offended party assumes (a) it knows everything there is to know about the action (including the foreknowledge that it was willful and hostile), (b) there is no point in discussing it, and (c) their only option is to right the wrong through retaliatory action.
In reality, the first party may not be aware of its action’s “harmful” of “hurtful” nature. When the second party retaliates, the first party is as surprised and wounded as the second party, and proceeds to make the same assumptions that the second party did. The first party’s recourse? Retaliate.
Once the adversarial (partnership turned sour) relationship takes hold, the behavior is very similar to the Escalation archetype. However, the outer reinforcing loop is still available to the parties should they suspend their mental models and engage in dialogue. The root of misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations, performance problems or mistakes can be revealed, giving the parties a fresh start on their partnership.
Dynamic Theory 8
This archetype states that when teams or parties in a working relationship misinterpret the actions of each other because of misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations or performance problems, suspicion and mistrust erode the relationship. If mental models fueling the deteriorating relationship are not challenged, all parties may lose the benefits of their synergy.
Behavior Over Time
The trend of each of the adversaries follows a similar direction and rate of change, with one of the adversaries trailing the other (the delay as information travels through the systems and is interpreted). The pattern will
PPMC's Fixes to Improve PPMC's Results
PPMC's Success
GP's Success
GP's Fixes to Improve GP's Results
PPMC's Unintended Obstruction of GP's Unintended GP's Success Obstruction of PPMC's Success
PPMC's Activity with GP (in GP's Favor)
GP's Activity with PPMC (in PPMC's Favor)
( - )
( + )
( - )
( + )
( - ) ( + )
( - )
( + )
( + ) ( + )
( + )
( + )
B
B
R
R
PPMC and Group Practice
show periodic leveling periods, though overall the trend will be in a direction that adversely impacts both parties.
Application 9 - Collaboration
Many cooperative efforts begin on a good note only to deteriorate over time, often as the need for collaboration deepens. This archetype helps the parties to a collaborative effort gain insight into how the actions of one party are filtered through mental models to produce unintended interpretations.
Example
In the early 1990's the Physician Practice Management Corporation industry emerged. PPMCs purchased the hard assets of a practice in return for a percent of revenue for operational services rendered. Initially the relationships fared well. Eventually however, when performance and growth lagged, physicians became uneasy with the relationships and began to interpret every move by the PPMC as potentially (or actually) injurious to theirs interests. The result was the downward spiral of both parties’ interests.
Prescriptive Action 10
Revisit the original opportunity that brought the parties together into a collaborative relationship. Use the archetype to identify the origins of adversarial attitudes. Renew the Shared Vision of the collaborative effort and commit to Team Learning.
Seven Action Steps 11
Reconstruct the conditions that were the catalyst for collaboration. Review the original understandings and expected mutual benefits. Identify conflicting incentives that may be driving adversarial behavior. Map the unintended side effects of each party’s actions. Develop overarching goals that align the efforts of the parties. Establish metrics to monitor collaborative behavior. Establish routine communication.
What Does This Really Mean?
The lesson of Accidental Adversaries lies in the power of mental models to supply all too ready explanations of situations. Unless judgement is suspended these mental models can drive one, both or all parties to conclusions that bear remote resemblance to the underlying reason the “breach” in the relationship occurred in the first place, if indeed any breach actually took place.
There is also a lesson on Shared Vision in this archetype. The degree to which the parties hold a vision in common and have articulated their deep needs and expectations is a significant contributor to tempering reactions of the parties when breaches are perceived.
Sys archetypes
Course: accounting 1 (acctg 1)
University: University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
- Discover more from:
