Chapter 4: Systems Thinking for Communities

Chapter 4: Systems Thinking for Communities

There are many points raised in the chapter that describe a variety of problems and solutions that different types of communities and different aspects of a single community face often. When Jay Forrester began his study of social systems in 1956 out of MIT, he broke ground on a frontier that has blown up into such a complex methodology that is used to create situation analysis for present day problems that communities face. One of his most imperative points that he brings to light in this chapter was the fact that in a system, the connections and relationships are more important that the elements themselves. I partially agree with this statement, but feel that the elements are the foreground and basis of these systems. So while the connections are important, without and elements or particular kinds of elements the system can easily be flawed. A system needs the right elements to be successful; it cannot just rely on the various loops that interconnect.
Hallsmith goes into detail and explains a numerous amount of feedback loops and how each one differs from another. One basic example, how a positive feedback loop would for instance make two dominoes fall the same way and a negative feedback loop be compared to a see-saw where when one side goes up the other goes down. To take feedback loops to the next dynamic level, system archetypes include different types of feedback loops working simultaneously. Hallsmith gives the example of traffic congestion in this chapter (figure 4.13), which exemplifies a positive feedback loop, a negative feedback loop and delay. While these scenarios are more or less hypothetical, they are based on social science and human trends. As the single problem of road congestion arises, there are many elements involved that seem to be logically deduced, but in the end, more congestion is produced and the problem has not been solved. These systems definitely have a lot of feasibility and can anticipate an outcome before money has been spent, roads built, time wasted and resources used up. I feel that while these systems do that, and do that well. It is our job or someone’s responsibility to than go from there and come up with a system or a solution so that these problems are no longer feedback loops but linear and corrective. We need to learn how to manage congestion in a way to not create more on a larger scale. Hallsmith does a great job of pointing out the how’s and why’s things are the way they are, but lacks in presenting reasonable solutions.

Ch.5 celebrating assets and creating a vision

Hallsmith believes that to create a community vision you must first start with an empty agenda, and open mind. The most desirable next step would be to educate the community on systems thinking. Since this is not usually very doable the next best thing is to figure out what assets already exist in the community and recognize them. Assets are determined by HOW they help fulfill community needs. The next step is to determine how all the needs of the community (which are social (well-being), governance (empowerment), economic, as well as infrastructure and the environment (material)) are met, not just celebrating those that are most effective. During this period criticism and negativity must be addressed to further the pursuit of trust building. Diversity of people and their opinions is also highly recommended. Next, the sustainability of the community system must be evaluated through either assessing the capacity available within the needs satisfaction system, or by ranking assets by the level of impact they have. By making this picture clear (through a diagram or some other sort of visual) you will finally be able to identify the places where needs are not being adequately met, if at all. Now comes the hard part, trying to get a community to articulate a shared vision (direction and goal). This vision must in addition be simple and most importantly change the BEHAVIOR of the way the community (individuals) think and act. An interesting example presented was that of Burlington, Virginia where a survey of three questions were sent out (What do you value about Burlington? What do you want to stay the same for your grandchildren? / What do you think needs to change? / What ideas do you have for improving things in Burlington?), ideas compiled, and then a simple vision for the city written (addressing the economy, neighborhoods, governance, youth and life skills, and the environment).

I think that this is a very clear procedure. I almost wonder why it hasn't been done more often. Of course it seems almost too simple, but Hallsmith does discuss a couple of difficulties that may be encountered. This seems like a plan that would always have to be modified to fit each city with their own problems and solutions. It probably is being done...maybe not with great success most of the time, or unnotable success.

This applies to what we've read before about systems. It applies most to why we need to think ‘systems’, in order to see the greater problem, and then prioritize what is most grave. The only thing is, what is the point of determining systematically what is wrong/missing by way of community needs, if in the end we will let the community individuals (who may not know all the facts...most likely don't) make the decisions?

Chapter 7 Challenge of Change

A )
Tuesday’s discussion sparked a few very important questions for me:
“Is it possible for a country like the US possibly become sustainable in the face of wonton capitalism?”
“if change toward sustainability is possible in the U.S. how will it be achieved?”
“Are we currently on the right track?”

The 7th chapter in the key to sustainable cities book, “Challenge of Change”, offered some insight into these questions. First, the nature of change and how humans generally react to change was addressed. People generally do not like change, especially when they feel that the changes are brought onto them, that they have no control. Several types of change were discussed. Cyclical change describes small changes that occur so a period of time only to return to the original state—putting storm windows in during the winter is an example of this type of change. Incremental change describes a process in which small changes occur over time and generally go uncontested and unnoticed. The type of change needed for people to move toward creating sustainable cities is structural change. This type of change is radical.

Now that the foundation is set and a goal has been established, it is time to find the means to do it. Servant leadership is described as the type of leader who seeks to serve others first, before establishing any power/leadership role. Leading in the opposite direction is generally done by egotists, acting out of fear and a lack of trust. That kind of leader is not what is needed for effective structural change. Servant leadership is all good, but we need more than one person to start this revolution. The innovator is the person who comes up with an alternative way to do something, this individual is the starting point for change. Next are the opinion leaders/change agents who convince others that the innovation will be successful and will help consumers. Trendsetters are next in the process, fearlessly investing in the new innovation. Conservatives/mainstreamers are the people generally resistant to change, however, the extended time they take to accept the innovation provides stability to the system. Iconolasts are the social critics who challenge old ideas but do not come up with new ideas. These types can be very helpful to what is now becoming the innovative movement. Reactionaries and curmudgeons are the people who generally resist any change at all, however there is a slight difference between the two. Reactionaries protest any change to the status quo, whereas curmudgeons challenge everything. Spiritual leaders are the people who inspire the masses to think and believe in the new concept on a higher level. Examples of these types include: Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and the like.

Moving to more practical application of this knowledge, the author outlines 9 guidelines for conducting successful and insightful group processes. 1. Speaking, 2. listening, 3. Using time, 4. open to outcome, 5. focus on system as the problem, not the people, 6. Keep arguments, 7. be present-oriented, 8. avoid hypothetical situations, 9. always do your best. These seem to follow closely with participatory practices and I will discuss them more when I connect them to my experiences.

Community patterns of group behavior are next laid out in a helpful manner: forming, storming, norming and performing. These words represent the stages of group behavior that service leaders looking to create structural changes should identify. Also, someone in this position must identify elements of a system likely to resist change and provide openings to external influences that might facilitate change.

The chapter is ended with examples of stakeholder participation on a governmental level. Proxies are defined as people who are chosen to represent particular interests on a board that helps government make decisions. Also, direct democracy through Town Meetings is also defined and discussed.

B) So, how does all of this connect to our discussion?
I’d say that our discussion on Tuesday hovered around the issue of how structural change should occur in order to be successful, and this chapter provides a general description of practices that will lead to success. Generally, it seems like the advice is to be open to new ideas and to extend leadership opportunities to stakeholders so they take ownership of the process.

In what part of the process of group behavior are we in now? It feels as though we have come upon the “forming” stage and are beginning “storming” and “Norming.” I would say that we will fluctuate back and forth between these stages as class progresses and the goals become more clear.

C) It is hard to make a critique of the this chapter because I am familiar with the practices and principles which the author proposes. If I had never heard of participatory planning practices I would be learning the principles through this reading without really having a name for it. It seems clear to me that approaching structural change with an open and inclusive attitude is the best practice. Though the author does credit others for their work in this field, reading this chapter should not serve as a general introduction to participatory planning practices.

Hallsmith's "Success" from Key to Sust. Cities

I decided to read the chapter called "Success" in Hallsmith's Key to Sustainable Cities because of the discussion in class on Tuesday. It seemed important for the group to understand what exactly Hallsmith means by terms like, "whole human life," "basic needs," and even sustainability itself. What, for her, is a successful sustainable community? Is such a thing possible?

Unfortunately, I was not able to discover her exact definition (not a surprise). It was more the case that by not telling us what she thinks, she was hoping for us to examine what we think is successful.

Most usefully, she cautioned that rather than following procedural guidelines to the tee, one should carefully delineate the goals or aims of a certain project before beginning. This way, it will be more clear at the end whether the project was a success or not. Instead of spending time fulfilling the requirements of the funders, one should spend time evaluating whether the initial (ideals?) goals are being met.

This is almost common sense, it seems. So I wonder a couple of things. The system that is in place currently, where a foundation or organization calls for grant proposals include certain requirements for an appropriate project, is the way things are right now. How can we change that? Can we? (Who is we?) Also, I begin to wonder how it came to be this way. I ask this in a larger context as well. It seems to me we cannot fix something we don't understand. So how has society come to be the way it is?

In the end, she writes that, "Ultimately the success of efforts to improve the sustainability in communities will be evaluated based on whether or not all the human needs are being satisfied in the community." (P215) Still, one might wonder what are needs and who can/should define them. Is it like Thoreau said, and all a person needs is food and shelter? Or are needs defined by the television? Or as we are wont to do in the United States, entirely on an individual basis?

Lots of questions!

The Challenge of Change (Ch 7)

I found this chapter particularly relevant after Tuesday's discussion. Let me begin by quoting Hallsmith's final sentence: "whole systems change comes about through co-creating a shared vision, generating a contancy of purpose, and germinating new emergent possibilities." After identifying the dynamic systems relationships and how these systems work in order to implement a new vision it is important to review different transformation strategies to determine how to successfully implement the vision. Hallsmith begins by recognizing that due to a city's complexity, metamorphasis is a better term to speak about the changes that occur when implementing a vision. Hallsmith writes of the success of servant leadership, essentially the concept that strong leaders have been servants first, additionally, that this is a leadership of service, not ego. When I was given a promotion at the small, four-person, non-profit I worked at before coming to Cornell, I felt my abilities as a leader were enhanced by the fact that I had worked for a year "in their shoes." I could use my own experience as a "servant" to be a better leader. Another principle identified by Hallsmith is innovation diffusion, a concept developed by Everett Rogers. Innovation diffusion looks at ways in which people respond to a proposed change and attempts to identify personal response patterns that can be applied more generally to the population. I felt that this principle was most applicable as both a way of anticipating how people will behave, but also as a strategy that can be used to implement change or metamorphasis. The main players in this strategy are the Innovator, Opinion Leaders or Change Agents, Trendsetters, and Conservatives or Mainstreamers. Innovators are individuals who may come up with a change but are too isolated to implement or communicate it. Change Agents have the social skills and connections to communicate the innovation to others. Trendsetters are the people that are the first to embrace the innovation. The Mainstreamers are the group who are resistant to the innovation. They need to see clear demonstration of the benefits before they embrace the innovation. An example of this would be an Innovator who sees that recycling can reduce the amount of waste they output. A Change Agent sees the social and economic benefit of recycling and uses their influence to implement a recycling program, possibly through their influence in city government in this case. Trendsetters are the first people to fully use the program, and give it enough popularity to continue. Mainstreamers may be resistant to recycling, feeling like it is too much effort but hopefully would see the results, or the economic benefit of the recycling program, such as the one in Ithaca where recycling saves on the cost of trash tags.

The other players in innovation diffusion are Iconoclasts, Reactionaries, and Curmudgeons. These outsiders are more difficult to engage and their identification in innovation diffusion demonstrates Hallsmith's other most relevant point to our recent discussion: one person really can't change anyone else and that innovations are more successful when "the people on whom the change is imposed agree to it." Hallsmith outlines several other strategies for participatory processes which engage all the affected parties. These strategies include tips on successful meetings, retreats, and conflict resolution. The greater inclusivity of the process, the greater potential for success.

"Leverage Points" - Hallsmith Chapter

I chose to read Hallsmith’s chapter on Leverage Points (pp. 169-185). I wanted to learn more about some of the strategies to effect change, since overcoming inertia and engaging nonparticipants seemed to be threads running through Tuesday’s class discussion. Leverage points, as defined by Hallsmith, are institutions or actions that can help to spur or solidify a community’s commitment to change. To that, I would add that people can sometimes be leverage points: witness Bogota’s mayor, Nelson Mandela, MLK Jr., etc. Although their strategies and actions certainly made use of leverage points, I would argue that the people themselves became emblematic of the possibilities for reform.

The main idea of a leverage point is to identify some way to make a relatively small change that will in turn have systemwide impacts. Two examples:

• Building community spirit around a natural resource (i.e., a watershed or river) by initiating a festival or outdoor classroom that will raise community involvement and awareness around the issue.

• Identifying nexus points that already involve the entire community in some way or another, to bring a particular issue to light and show how every person is in some way effected. (E.g., Using the public school system and students to bring attention to neighborhood crime.)

As any student of business knows, there is such a thing as negative leverage. Hallsmith stresses that finding leverage points may be relatively intuitive, especially for those who are intimately familiar with the system(s) they are trying to change. However, she cautions that precisely because these points often represent the confluence of many groups or perspectives, and because the issues tend the be somewhat sensitive, applying pressure to the points to effect change should be done intelligently and sensitively.

I would agree with this assessment; it’s clear that issues such as land development, school budgets, and other community matters can just as easily (and probably more often than not) divide as they can unite. But, because they tend to be subjects that elicit strong feelings among stakeholders, a positive outcome can have truly transcendent results.

Key to Sustainable Cities-Hallsmith

One key concept Hallsmith presents is the belief that people need other people in the form of a society or community, and that in order to meet individual physical and material needs the community's needs must be met. These needs being physical well-being, economic security, governance, and social well-being. All of which must be met also to achieve "whole human lives". This leaves the question of who is to determine what is to be considered a "whole" life. Some individuals would be happy to rid themselves of the ties that seemingly bind us to society. This brings me to question whether, just because the world we live in now ties us together, this is the best way to live. Dependent.

Another interesting point Hallsmith discusses are her 5 key variables for sustainable economic development. 1. trust, cooperation, and leadership in a community leading to collective action towards improved local economy. 2. equitable distribution of economic resources. 3. new products and services created or have value added to them within the community. 4. income in a community spent and invested locally. 5. way in which products and services are manufactured, cultivated, or created has to be sustainable and environmentally sound due to carrying capacity. I question the attainability of some of these pursuits. In particular the 'goodness' of people to be equitable in this country. I feel people think they work for and earn their luxuries, and the fact that some people are born disadvantaged does not mean they should be given a level playing field.

Throughout Hallsmith points out that power should be spread amongst individuals in the community, in this way avoiding the vicious governance cycle of overworked decision-makers making bad choices. She proposed instead that the community form committees to make some of these decisions. I agree that this may lead to better decisions, I do wonder whether this can be done in an efficient matter.

The most imporant concept Hallsmith reiterates is "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts." She shows this through the various systems of feedback loops. This point also emphasizes the need not only to see problems and find solutions, but analyze and make links between problems in order to realize and solve the true problem. I think this is a good method. I'm only left wondering exactly how far out must we look in order to avoid making our solution the problem.

The reading has relevance to our course in that Hallsmith repeats the need to form relationships with each other in order to make positive change. In this course I feel we will be doing just that, individually, amongst each other in class, and with the community as we work to see change realized through our projects. At the same time we will build trust in the community and gain power in the decision-making process of this town.