Collaborating for Systemic Change
Resource Info Edit
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Network [Add] · [List] · [Visualize]
Areas of Focus [Edit]
About [Edit]
This is a terrific article for anyone who is thinking about sustainability in the context of communities, change management and collaboration.
From the Publisher's Site at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2007/winter/11/
SUSTAINABILITY
Collaborating for Systemic Change
Today, as consumer choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for people on the other side and complex supply chains span the globe, businesses are facing a host of “sustainability” problems — social and ecological imbalances created by this globalization.
Beginning in the late 1990s, organizational members of the Society for Organizational Learning (including Shell, Harley-Davidson, HP, Xerox and Nike, among others) began a variety of initiatives focusing on collaborative solutions to a variety of sustainability issues. The group’s goals have included the application of systems thinking, working with mental models, and fostering personal and shared vision to face these complex sustainability issues.
Through its work, SoL (of which two of the authors are founding members) has learned that successful collaborative efforts embrace three interconnected types of work — conceptual, relational and action-driven — which together build a healthy “learning ecology” for systemic change. In this article, the authors offer examples from particular projects in which this learning ecology provided an important foundation for substantive progress, and they draw lessons for companies and managers regarding each of the three types of work.
Ultimately, the authors conclude that conceptual, relational and action-driven work must be systemically interwoven and that there is little real precedent for that. They offer several guidelines for how it can be accomplished, emphasizing leadership and transactional networks. Finally, they pose three questions that must be answered if systemic solutions are to be successful: (1) How can we get beyond benchmarking to building learning communities? (2) What is the right balance between specifying goals and creating space for reflection and innovation? (3) What is the right balance between private interest and public knowledge?
Peter M. Senge is the founding chairperson of the Society for Organizational Learning and a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Benyamin B. Lichtenstein is assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at the College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Katrin Kaeufer is research director of the Presencing Institute and founding research member of SoL. Hilary Bradbury is the director of Sustainable Business Programs at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. John S. Carroll is a professor of behavioral and policy sciences, MIT Sloan School of Management.



If anyone has trouble finding this article please let me know.
The title is very exciting since the world's toughest problems are systemic and collaboration is needed to change systems. However the article didn't really get stuck in to how to change global paradigms and their systems. It reads like a buzz-wordy presentation of opportunities for big businesses to join their 'learning networks' and gain commercial advantages by operating differently within existing global systems. The role of governments (our hope for democratic change) is played down and the role of corporations is played up, as if voluntary profit-led initiatives can somehow clean up behind those who don't volunteer.
Peter Senge is a brilliant thinker but this work seems to fall into the same trap as many of the 'frameworks' mentioned in the article. Since everyone needs funds, the 'systems' that get studied are those within fee-paying businesses, rather than the wider-world paradigms that determine whether sustainability ever happens in any meaningful way. Ten years of research with a well-funded network of world-class minds could have done so much more. The leverage points for paradigm change with entwined global issues are not beyond analysis and it would be cool to have these people getting stuck in.