De-personalisation of stakeholders

Depersonalisation – Representing a human being as a physical thing deprived of personal qualities or individuality.

Reification – Representing a human being as a physical thing deprived of personal qualities or individuality.

This morning I was giving thought to depersonalisation/reification, and my thoughts flowed in many different directions, but always 'circling the drain' by coming back to a single focal point.

I am currently reading a book by Colin Yeo, an immigration barrister – "Welcome to Britain - Fixing Our Broken Immigration System". It is hard reading, primarily because anyone with a high ethical compass would be appalled at the way the Home Office treats both migrants and citizens of the UK, in the context of a 'hostile environment', which is the current immigration policy. But this blog is not about the hostile environment, not directly.

Giving deeper thought into the immigration policies and practice of the Home Office, I noticed a disquieting similarity between the Home Office and Local Authorities in carrying out their mandates. Unfortunately, both give undue weight (instead of the rule of law, human rights and other ethical legal functions) to government policies, which in turn disregard the rule of law, human rights and other legal functions.

The reality is that people needing their services are treated as nonhumans. There is a high sense of depersonalisation/reification, because people are not people to those employed within these two systems. People become meaningless numbers or names, simply because they are not present, or unknown to those whose job it is to assist them. Even if it is just in the processing of paperwork, this highly depersonalised environment is toxic. The human touch is lost.

As I pointed out to someone, at the end of a working day, the employee of either of these government branches will go home to a warm house, and a hot meal. Anything pertaining to work is left at the door of the office. There is no consideration for the situation of the person in need of assistance. Rules are applied in a very impersonal manner, without consideration of the impact they would have on the person.

Representing a human being without personal qualities or individuality may or may not be a form of self protection for any employee of these organisations. But I think it goes way beyond that. It becomes part of the 'institutionalisation' that is adopted by people working in large systems. To understand what I mean by institutionalisation, you need to watch "The Shawshank Redemption".

Institutionalisation is both an excuse and a reason for reification within systems. I will need to think more about this – but I will leave you with this thought: reification causes more problems than it solves.

So… what exactly is this thing called Systems Thinking?

Systems Thinking (ST) is another way of looking at problems. ST does not advocate for reductionist thinking, that is, reducing a problem to manageable parts in order to find solutions. Instead, ST advocates for holistic thinking, a way of looking at the whole problem and instead of seeking 'solutions', look at improving the situation. Of course, there must be a necessary shift in the way we think.

Rather than give a simple definition of ST, the principle behind the LJ is to reflect upon what you learn, review it at later dates and see how your thinking and learning has changed from the early days as you gain experience and knowledge. Note that in ST, "problems", "situations", "messes", "complexity" are synonymous with problematic issues that need to be improved or resolved. You will therefore find me using these terms frequently, but they all have similar meanings.

ST is especially suited for what is deemed 'messy situations', or complex problems, in which there are no easy answers. It involves setting a boundary – limiting your view to a particular aspect of the problem – in order to improve the situation. One has to be adaptable, ready to discard ideas that do not work, change and tweak those ideas that need it in order to progress. ST is therefore in constant flux.

ST also has other unique characteristics.

First, it does not pretend that a situation/problem exists on its own. It involves people, situations of interest (problems, messes and complexity) and interrelationships between them.

Second, the person doing the systems thinking – let us call him the systems practitioner (SP) – is a part of the situation. But this is only one perspective. Other people are involved (called stakeholders) and will have different perspectives, and part of ST is to acknowledge and give weight and consideration to those perspectives. This gives a more holistic view not only of how the situation is viewed, but also it affects other people. Traditional problem-solving methods leave the practitioner outside of the situation.

Third, the SP has the task to set the boundary, that is the limitation from which the situation will be viewed. Setting the boundary too big will take in unnecessary factors, whereas setting the boundary too small will ignore necessary factors.

Fourth, ST makes ample use of diagrams. Think of mind maps/concept maps. Diagramming a complex problem will simplify relevant factors as well as the relationships between them.

Fifth, ST takes into consideration the emotions and feelings of stakeholders, mindful that these are important drivers which affect situations of interest.

Sixth, ST involves active participation and collaboration. It is not helpful if stakeholders or the SP is recalcitrant or stubborn.

The Learning Journal

The OU’s STiP programme of study encourages a student (me) to keep a learning journal (“LJ”). What the heck is that?! Of course, I know what a journal is, but why keep a learning journal?

To answer that question, I had to reflect a little. Our Western education system (the one I grew up in is based upon the British education system) does not really encourage keeping a learning journal. The idea is a pretty new one to me. Well, as it turns out, ST is highly personal. I’ll get more into the personal bits later on in subsequent posts, but for now, it suffices to say that ST is based upon the perspective of the practitioner (the person ‘carrying out’ or ‘facilitating’) ST.

The purposes of the LJ are numerous, but keeping it simple, it assists in reflective learning. ST also requires different views/perspectives from people involved, reflection on situations/ideas and importantly, the emotions and feelings of those involved. An LJ marks observations, feelings, thoughts, behaviours etc that go along with a problem/mess/complexity (things ST deal with) and gives opportunities (plural because you can revisit as many times as you like) for reflection and learning.

Clearly, this is an idea (along with ST and CT  [critical thinking]) that should be introduced in earlier education levels… secondary schools perhaps.

I have therefore created two LJs. One online (this one) and another in my PC that I use to flesh out my thoughts and learning. Perhaps that is the messier one.

For newcomers to ST, and who read this blog/journal, I will point out that there are lots of acronyms, and therefore my first tip is to make note of these as I will be using them frequently. Mainly to avoid too much typing but also because they are familiar to those involved in STiP.

Why systems thinking?

Why, and how did I get into systems thinking as a postgraduate study field?

I started thinking about postgrad studies when considering my next step after my Bachelor of Law (LLB) degree at the undergraduate level. My research showed that I could not afford the Bar Practice Training Course (BPTC) unless I combined it with a Master in Law (LLM). This was because I found out that:

1.    a combined LLM/BPTC is approximately £16,000
2.   student finance (SLC) funds postgrad studies only up to £10,906
3.   the difference would still be too much for my modest affordability

With the deadline for registering on postgrad studies drawing uncomfortably close, I began looking at the MBA, Master in Business Administration. After all, most lawyers work in a business and work for businesses in the form of clients. I thought I’d better understand clients' needs by knowing their ‘world’ so to speak.

I found out MBAs are also around £16,000 and therefore out of my reach as well.

With two days to go before registration deadline, I was browsing the Open University’s site and came across a module on project management which looked interesting. Following up on the module brought me to the linked MSc – Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP as it is commonly abbreviated).

The OU is one of 2 universities offering this program in the entire UK!

I had never heard of this. It sounded strange; bizarre even. I searched online to find out more about it, and also looked at other modules linked to the MSc STiP. Most of the modules that I saw were involving management – only to me, it appeared like management on steroids!

Why do I describe it in those words?

Well, the MSc STiP is essentially about managing complexity which occurs in any and every given field. Think project management, environmental management, data management, human resources management, creative management and so forth… As I said, management on steroids.

I was rather excited to see this spread of management; to me, it felt like I stumbled upon a goldmine while searching for a single nugget.

I didn’t think twice. I immediately registered on TU812 – Managing Systemic Change. And so my journey into STiP begins.