Systems Intelligence

Systems Intelligence: Getting to Super-Productivity via not “Holding Back”

The MAPP program is a fulltime program – but combines onsite classes with long-distance learning periods. Part of the distance learning comprises a lot of reading (Who would have thought of that…) and writing essays about a wide array of positive psychology topics. I´ve decided to post some of those essays here on Mappalicious. Surely, they´re not the be-all and end-all of academic writing. But then again, it would also be a pity to bury them in the depths of my laptop…

Esa Saarinen´s work on individual and organizational well-being is based on a Systems Intelligence approach (Saarinen & Hämäläinen, 2004; Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007; Saarinen, 2013). Systems intelligence, in turn, is based on systems theory/systems thinking (Von Bertalanffy, 1968) which was introduced into organization and management sciences by researchers such as Russell Ackoff (1972; 2006). Systems Intelligence is defined as “intelligent behaviour in the context of complex systems involving interaction and feedback. A subject acting with Systems Intelligence engages successfully and productively with the holistic feedback mechanisms of her environment. She perceives herself as part of a whole, the influence of the whole upon herself as well as her own influence upon the whole” (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2004, p. 9). Pertaining to underlying idea of man, the approach is grounded in “a deep belief in the human potential. In its positive overtones and strive towards flourishment […] Systems Intelligence runs parallel to Positive Organizational Scholarship and to Positive Psychology” (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007, p. 4).

What fascinates me most about Saarinen´s work is the concept of “holding back”. On an abstract level, this describes a situation where people choose an “inferior non-cooperative equilibrium solution even if a jointly dominating solution would also be available by cooperation” (Saarinen & Hämäläinen, 2004, p. 35). For instance, a boy and a girl both hesitate to say “I love you” out of fear that the statement could remain unrequited. In this spirit, Hämäläinen and Saarinen (2008, p. 824) describe “‘Systems of Holding Back’, and of ‘Systems of Holding Back in Return and in Advance’. The subject holds back what would benefit the other because the other first holds back from me what would benefit me.”

While I can obviously relate to this concept by way of personal experience, I believe it also markedly extends my understanding of a psychological phenomenon I investigated a while ago (Rose, 2010; 2012). I administered a questionnaire to a German sample of more than thousand people and asked them (among other things) to rate themselves on the following items pertaining to their overarching life goals:

  • Sometimes I doubt that I am allowed to reach my goals.
  • Sometimes I believe that I do not deserve to reach my goals.
  • Sometimes I believe that somehow I am not permitted to reach my goals.

Participants that answered in the affirmative displayed a significantly lower level of satisfaction with life (r = -.48) as measured by the scale of Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985). Now the question arises: Why should somebody think (or feel) that she is not allowed to reach her goals? Where should this permission come from? Who could issue such a permission – or should have given it in the first place? At the present moment, my intuition is that this could be a structure of anticipatory (internalized) form of holding back: A person expects to be exposed to “holding back” via an external agency and therefore decides to evade the associated “pain” by “not trying” in the first place.

At the other end of the continuum, Hämäläinen and Saarinen (2007, p. 27) believe that “to the extent there are microbehaviours of holding back and a phenomenon of holding back giving rise to Systems of Holding Back, there is also the opposite possibility.” If there are (micro-)behaviours of holding back, there should also be occasions of uplift and elevation.

Bigger PictureSuper-Productivity

One important facet of Systems Intelligence is the investigation and description of a phenomenon characterized as “Super-Productivity” (Saarinen & Hämäläinen, 2004) – which is a result/by-product of systems’ propensity for synergy and emergence. This concept signifies an optimal state of system functioning which in everyday speech is oftentimes described by the saying “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts”. It could be likened to Csíkszentmihályi´s concept of Flow (1990) – but where Csíkszentmihályi´s notion is concerned with an intra-individual phenomenon, Saarinen and his co-author refer to an inter-individual manifestation, a flow between different elements of a system, for instance, the members of a management team or an orchestra.

I am very intrigued by this conception since I have experienced it numerous times in my career as a corporate manager. It rarely happens,* but when it does, the results can be spectacular. By way of example, upon my initiative, Bertelsmann has entered in a joint recruiting project by the name of “Gap Year” (www.gapyear-programm.de) with the German branch of McKinsey, the headquarters of German financial/insurance giant Allianz, and Germany´s leading FMCG producer, Henkel. In spite of being opponents in the so-called “War for Talent” (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hanklin, & Michaels, 1998), we all swallowed our (corporate) pride and created a cooperative program for recent bachelor graduates. Candidates have to apply only once, and if successful, they enter a 12-months schedule where they complete first-rate internships with three out of the four partner companies. The program has been immensely successful. Not only does it attract the best candidates the market has to offer, it was also awarded several times, and featured in more that 30 (mostly top-tier) articles in the German business press.

In the beginning, there were a lot of doubts about the feasibility and practicality of this project. All parties had to overcome the inherent “free-market egotism” and tune into the needs and requirements of the partner companies. Looking back, I believe that a high amount of interpersonal trust was the key ingredient that has led to successful execution. It would have been easy to “hold back”, to sabotage, or pull out of the project completely. But we decided to see it through – and we were richly rewarded.

* But in real life, the opposite seems to be true. At the lower end of the continuum, there has to be a kind of hypo-productivity: “Most corporations and business schools are less than the sum of their parts.” (Ackoff, 2007, p. 127).

References

Ackoff R. L., Emery F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago, Il: Aldine-Atherton.

Ackoff, R. L. (2006). Why few organizations adopt systems thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), 705-708.

Ackoff, R. L., Addison, H. J., & Bibb, S. (2007). Management F/Laws. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.

Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hanklin, S. M., & Michaels, E. G. (1998). The war for talent. McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 44-57.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Perennial.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

Hämäläinen R.P. & E. Saarinen (2007). System intelligent leadership, in R.P. Hämäläinen & E. Saarinen (Eds.), System intelligence in leadership and everyday life (pp. 3-38). Helsinki: Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.

Hämäläinen, R. P., & Saarinen, E. (2008). Systems intelligence – the way forward? A note on Ackoff’s ‘why few organizations adopt systems thinking’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(6), 821-825.

Rose, N. (2010). Lizenz zur Zufriedenheit [License for Satisfaction]. Kommunikation & Seminar, 5, 12-15.

Rose, N. (2012). Lizenz zur Zufriedenheit [License for Satisfaction]. Paderborn, Germany: Junfermann.

Saarinen, E. (2013). The Paphos seminar. Elevated reflections on life as good work. GoodWork Project Report Series, 80, Harvard University.

Saarinen E., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2004). Systems intelligence: Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity, in R. P. Hämäläinen & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems intelligence: Discovering a hidden competence in human action and organisational life (pp. 9-37). Helsinki: Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.

Goals: Why SMARTIES are smarter than SMART…

It is the same story each year, isn´t it?

  • I really want to lose weight…
  • I really want to quit smoking…
  • I really want to be physically fit…
  • I really want to have my own business…
  • I really want to meet the wo/man of my dreams…

I guess that´s what the top-5 list of New Year´s resolutions would look like. The problem is: most of these goals have about the same half-life period as that hangover that welcomes a lot of us on New Years´s morning. Yet, per se, goal-setting is not a bad thing – quite the opposite is true. The motivational and performance-enhancing effects of goal-setting are among the most thoroughly researched issues in academic psychology.  If you´d like to know more, please read this article that succinctly summarizes 30 years of goal-setting research.

Besides, there´s lots of help available on the net. When you type in “how to reach goals” on Google you´ll get more than one million hits. Most of these will display smart content. To be more precise: some information on the SMART framework. SMART is an acronym that originally stems from project management theory.* There are lots of slightly different versions on the internet. The most common probably is this one:

Specific: A goal should be stated in a markedly tangible way. The more precise, the easier it will be to take the necessary steps. An example: Instead of “I want to work out more often” it is better state something along the lines of “From now on, I will go jogging twice a week for 45 minutes (on Tuesdays and Thursdays right after work). Additionally, I will do weight training on Saturday afternoons for 45 minutes.” This could be refined even more. As a rule of thumb: the more precise you are able to describe to another person what you intend to do, the better.

Measurable: A goal (as well as the distance between the initial situation and the goal) should be quantifiable. Without measurement, there´s no progress check. Without progress, there´s no lasting motivation. An example: Instead of “I want to lose some weight” it is better to state something along the lines of “I want to weigh 140 pounds and keep that weight as a steady state. In order to achieve this, I will lose 4 pounds on average over the next 6 months – and then keep my weight right there.”

Attainable: A goal should be achievable – but definitely display a certain amount of difficulty. Goals that are completely unrealistic typically destroy our motivation. On the other hand, goals that are reached to easily usually do not yield the success stories we really yearn for. Yet, there´s another connotation to this criterion. We should put our efforts in something that personally attainable – a goal should be in our personal “sphere of influence”. For instance, “Finding the man of my dreams” goes against this criterion. It´s much more helpful to plan concrete actions that are conducive to that overarching goal, e.g., enrolling in a dancing course.

Relevant: A goal should be relevant, in other words: important and meaningful. This may sound self-evident – but it is not at all trivial. Rarely do we question the motivation behind our goals sufficiently. Why do I want what I want? Is this really my goal? And if not: For whom or what am I doing this? Should you realize that a goal is chiefly driven by extrinsic motivation please do exercise some caution. The most beneficial kind of goal is a self-concordant objective – in other words, a goal that is aligned with our deeper values and motives. Following a self-concordant goal is a satisfying process in itself – so no matter if you reach the goal or not: you will profit from trying to do so. From this it follows that one important prerequisite for “good goals” is a sufficient level of self-awareness. One way to attain this is getting to know your (character) strengths. You´ll find a free scientifically validated test here (create a profile, then choose the „VIA Signature Strengths Questionnaire“).

Time-bound: A goal should have a reasonably defined time frame. Without this, there is no rigorous progress review. Additionally, most people are motivated by deadlines – so why not use this extra kick? I guess an example is not needed here.

Ok. So this is the original SMART framework. I assume that most of my readers have been at least somewhat familiar with this. Now the question is: Why do so many personal changes endeavors fail? Is SMART useless? Probably not. But incomplete, most likely. Therefore, here´s my proposal for an extension – based on science and my personal experience as a coach:

SMARTIES

Implementation Intentions: Peter Gollwitzer, a German professor of motivational psychology, has developed a method that tries to bridge the ever-looming implementation gap:  so-called implementation intentions. Because of their structure, they are also called “If-Then-Plans” (Alternatively: “When-Then”).  They function by connecting planned behavior with triggering cues in the proximate environment. Two examples: 1) “Right after I have laid down my briefcase when coming home from work, I will put on my jogging clothes and go for a run. If the weather is really bad, I´ll use the exercise machine instead.” 2) “If I notice a strong urge to smoke, I will put a chewing gum in my mouth immediately.” Once again: the more concrete the plan, the higher the chance for following through.

Exceptions clarified: If you want to create a new habit, making no exceptions at all over the course of the first months is the fastest road to success.  At the same time, it is well-known that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Therefore, it is very helpful to give some thought to the potential occurrence of exceptions and setbacks. For instance: What does smoking one cigarette once in a while mean for somebody who tries to quit? From my experience with coaching clients I know that people tend to frame these exceptions to the new rule as a total failure of the change project – which in turn extinguishes all of their motivation.  In terms of sustainable change, it is therefore helpful to define which exceptions to the new rule will be acceptable – without calling into question the overall endeavor.

Systemic Perspective: Finally, I highly suggest giving some thought to the following issues (this is comparable to a Force-Field Analysis in organizational change management):

How does my goal fit in with the goals and aspirations of important people in my personal context (the external system)? E.g., if you would like to work out from now on for 5 hours per week: Is this time you usually spend with your significant other? And if yes: How do you intend to “compensate” for this?

How does my goal fit into the texture of those goals and intentions that are already in place (the internal system)? It is useful to ask which positive intentions (secondary benefits) are fulfilled by those behavior patterns that you would like to change/eliminate. Your chances of establishing a new behavior pattern are much higher if you manage to transfer these intensions/needs into your new mode of being: By way of example, most smokers do not smoke because they like the taste. Rather, smoking fulfills a calmative function. For some, it´s a means of weight control. Additionally, there is a social aspect to smoking that needs to be considered. So if you want to quit, it is highly advisable to give some thought to the question of how to integrate these requirements into your life as non-smoker.

By the way: it cannot hurt to get some external reference to keep yourself on track. The earlier you manage to turn the envisioned behavior into a habit, the better. In 2014, I use my smartphone, specifically the Good Habit Maker and the app Balanced.

 

* The original source of the SMART framework is this article (most likely): Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.

 

Picture source

2014: “Don´t hold back! Animate. Validate. Elevate.”

Esa SaarinenLudwig Wittgenstein said: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” From this it follows that adding new words to one´s vocabulary (or a new connotation for a known word) can broaden one´s mind. Therefore, giving a “proper name” to a phenomenon at hand can fundamentally change and deepen our understanding of that same “thing”.

This is exactly what happened to me on December 7th, 2013. It was the last onsite period of MAPP 13/14´s first semester – and we had the great pleasure of having Esa Saarinen as a guest lecturer. Esa is one of Finland´s most widely acclaimed philosophers. With this post, (among other things) I´d like to give him massive kudos:

  • First, for being a really cordial person.
  • Second, for gracefully sporting a style that makes Lapo Elkann look like an old spinster.
  • Third, and foremost, I´d like to thank him for giving me a new word: “Holding Back”.

Systems Intelligence

But first things first. Together with a colleague, Esa has developed and endorses what he calls Systems Intelligence – an extension of systems thinking. In his own words, Systems Intelligence is…

[…] “intelligent behaviour in the context of complex systems involving interaction and feedback. A subject acting with Systems Intelligence engages successfully and productively with the holistic feedback mechanisms of her environment. She perceives herself as part of a whole, the influence of the whole upon herself as well as her own influence upon the whole. By observing her own interdependence in the feedback intensive environment, she is able to act intelligently.” (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007, p. 4)
“The Systems Intelligence approach stems from a deep belief in the human potential. In its positive overtones and strive towards flourishment, as opposed to avoiding pitfalls or neutralizing negatives, Systems Intelligence runs parallel to Positive Organizational Scholarship and to Positive Psychology.” (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007, p. 7)

Holding Back

Now, a central tenet in Systems Intelligence is the notion of “Holding Back”:

“The concept refers to mutually aggregating spirals which lead people to hold back contributions they could make because others hold back contributions they could make. We believe such systems are fundamental to human interaction – indeed, our conviction is that human interaction has a tendency to slide into systems of holding back unless conscious effort is launched to counter this tendency. A negative dance of holding back will prevail unless it is countered time and again.” (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007, p. 26)
“We speak of ‘Systems of Holding Back’, and of ‘Systems of Holding Back in Return and in Advance’. The subject holds back what would benefit the other because the other first holds back from me what would benefit me. Systems Of Holding Back gain momentum […] because there is a bias in human mental constitution to be more aware of the contributions others fail to make to me than of the contributions I fail to make to others.” (Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2008, p. 824)

A simple example for the phenomenon of “Holding Back”: a young man wants to say “I love you” to a young woman – but refrains from doing so out of fear that the feeling is not mutually. Unfortunately, it´s exactly the same for her. As a consequence, they break up after some time…

Now obviously, this is not something entirely new to me. I´ve experienced things like this myself – and I see similar occurrences on a regular basis when working as a coach. But the term “Holding Back” has induced an elevated level of understanding, a new kind of clarity – and the desire to explore this phenomenon; particularly: what we can do about it…

I´ve decided to make only one New Year´s resolution: 2014 is going to be my year of “Not Holding Back”. I´m going to monitor my behavior closely – and when I detect “Holding Back”, I´m going to figure out why – and then do something about it. 2014 is going to be my personal “Year of Kindness”. I will try hard to be a more considerate person. And I´m going to do it systematically – turning it into a personal change project. My mantra: “Don´t hold back!. Animate. Validate. Elevate.” Keep your eyes peeled, there´s something coming up…

But for now, I wish you an exceptional New Year´s celebration and a happy and healthy year 2o14! 

Don´t hold back

References

Hämäläinen, R. P., & Saarinen, E.  (2007). Systems intelligent leadership. In R.P. Hämäläinen & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems intelligence in leadership and everyday life (pp 3-38). Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

Hämäläinen, R. P., & Saarinen, E. (2008). Systems intelligence – the way forward? A note on Ackoff’s’ why few organizations adopt systems thinking’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(6), 821-825.