Tension Through Suspension: Systemic Barriers to Changeability
Brenda J. Zimmerman, York University

19-94

SCHULICH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario
M3J 1P3

June 1994

These models are based on a research project conducted with Bryan Hayday and Janet Brown.


The Framework: TENSION THROUGH SUSPENSION

The metaphor from which this framework is derived is that of a suspension. Suspensions are simultaneously both liquid and solid. They exist as a physical paradox - a tension between two states.
In our model, we explore the notion that organizations in order to continue to evolve (concept of changeability) must exist in three states or phases, simultaneously including:

1.         A solid (stability) state;



2.         A suspension (changeable) state; and



3.         A liquid (changing) state.

In figure 1 we see both the physical and metaphorical images of the three states.

Figure 1 - Solid, Suspension and Liquid

Solid	Suspension	Liquid

LINKING THE THREE STATES

1. This framework sees value in all three states and suggests that what is critical is the “recognition” of the state, considering both the organization and the individuals within it.



2. In some cases, components of the organization will move between states. In other cases, it will make sense for a part of the organization to remain in a solid, suspension or liquid state. The same is true for the individuals within the organization.



3. What is important is to find the processes that support creative tension for innovation and evolution rather than destructive tension which leads to distractive discord and fragmentation.

Features and outcomes of the three states are summarized in Figures 2 and 3, following, and are described after the figures. In reviewing them, consider both the system or organizational perspective and the individual perspective.

Figure 2 – Features of the Three States

Features	Solid	Suspension	Liquid

Information Flow	Linear	Both linear and non linear	Free flowing (internally & externally)
Structure	Clear boundaries and structures Context is given	Boundaries becoming permeable Context is changeable	Constantly recreating boundaries & structures Context is co-created
Tools	Rules, procedures and data driven change	Visions and value statements	Issues and info. (meaning) framed by context and sense of identity
Accountability	Local AUTHORITY	LOCAL authority	LOCAL AUTHORITY
Ideally suited for	Pattern maintenance	Pattern Recognition	Pattern Generation

Figure 3 – Outcomes of the Three States

Outcomes	Solid	Suspension	Liquid

Safety	Found through rules and structures	Found through increased awareness of the context	Found through self-reference and connectedness
Change	Is an externally defined event	Is an externally defined event	Change is an internally driven state not an event
People	Connected through structures Cognitively engaged Externally defined	Connected through structures and context Cognitively and behaviourally engaged Externally and self-defined	Connected through processes and context Cognitively, behaviourally and emotionally engaged Self-defined
Risk management	Rules, compliance & procedures to minimize risk of goal incongruence	Increased awareness of context decreases dependency on rules	Judgement-based

SOLID STATE

Features

In the solid state information flows tend to be linear - clear direct linkages – usually vertically. There are clear boundaries and the structure is obvious. Context, or the environment, is external to the structure and can be mapped out or predicted.

The structure and its related processes are designed to maintain patterns. Rules, procedures and data-driven changes are the primary tools to maintain the patterns. Accountability is focused on authority rather than local context or conditions.

Outcomes

In the solid state, safety is found through rules and structures. Hence, risk management relies on rules, compliance and procedures to minimize the risk of goal incongruence.

Change is something that happens to the organization; it is an externally defined event.

The people are connected primarily through structures and their sense of identity tends to be externally defined by position or reputation. They are cognitively engaged in the change management process.


LIQUID STATE

Features

At the other end of the continuum from the solid is the liquid state. Here information flow is free-flowing, non-linear and does not respect the distinction between internal and external structures. The boundaries are not fixed but rather are constantly being defined or recreated. Context - the environment - is co-created by the various parties.

This state is ideal for generating new patterns, for innovation or novelty. A strong sense of identity and that ability to create meaning or interpret context are critical tools for this phase. Accountability is concerned with authority but in balance with the context or needs of the constituents.

Outcomes

The relevant point for reference in this state is not rules and structures but rather a sense of identity; self-reference. Paradoxically, we found that an increase in self-reference is accompanied by an increased awareness of the connections between parts of a system. Consequently, risk management is highly dependent on judgment and an ability to learn and transfer the learning from different contexts and experiences.

Change is not seen to be an event but rather an internally driven state - a way of being.

People are self-defined, labels and positions are less relevant. The connections are through patterns of interaction and context. All three levels - cognitive, behavioural and emotional – are engaged in the change process.


SUSPENSION STATE

Features

Poised in between a solid and liquid is a suspension where information flows are both linear and non-linear. Boundaries are somewhat permeable and the context is changeable and must be constantly monitored. Hence, this state is ideal for pattern recognition.

The organizational tools for managing change, such as vision and values statements, tend to be cohesive statements with some room for interpretation. Accountability in this state relates to an awareness of the local context more than on the rules or procedures. This is a state in which local changes are recognized and reacted to.

Outcomes

Safety in this state comes through an increased awareness of the context - both the internal and external environments. Risk management is derived from pattern recognition or monitoring skills.

Change may be seen as an event or a state but in either case the source is external.

People are connected through the context but also to some extent through the structures. Their identity is both externally and self defined. They are cognitively and behaviourally engaged in change processes.

IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF THE FRAMEWORK

It is our hypothesis that organizations need to maintain all three states (solid, suspension, liquid), but in a tension which is creative rather than destructive and which increases understanding rather than creates turmoil, confusion and anxiety. The challenge for organizations is to create this tension which allows the flux between the various phase states over both space and time for both the organization and the individuals within it. This is a virtuous cycle in which all three levels - cognitive, behavioural, and emotional - needs to be engaged.

We found that there were three possible cycles for the processes of change that are explored in this framework including two vicious cycles and one virtuous cycle (Senge, 1990). In both cases reinforcing loops create cycles which repeat. A vicious cycle reinforces undesired behaviour (e.g. resisting change when change is required or not acting on positive ideas). A virtuous cycle reinforces desired behaviours (e.g. encouragement of innovation).

The vicious cycles are depicted in Figure 4 on the next page and include:

• Pattern recovery - a vicious cycle which gets pulled back to the stability stage before the innovations have had sufficient opportunity to take hold.

The problem is a “failure to feel” the changes. We found evidence of this where “old” tools were used to enhance the changes (e.g. using long standing “command and control” methods to encourage innovation). In order for the cycle to be a virtuous cycle, all three levels - cognitive, behavioural and emotional - need to be engaged.

• Pattern escape - a vicious cycle where innovative ideas dissipate because they are not enacted.

We also saw evidence of pattern escape where changes “escape” or dissipate because they are not brought into the behavioural or action repertoire of the system. This problem is a “failure to act” in that the emotional and cognitive beliefs were not translated into a commitment to act.


Figure 4 – Pattern Recovery and Pattern Escape

Vicious Cycles: Pattern Recovery and Pattern Escape

Vicious Cycle - PATTERN RECOVERY

Vicious Cycle - PATTERN ESCAPE

Figure 5 illustrates the third possibility: pattern evolution - a virtuous cycle which incorporates all three phase states.


Figure 5 – Pattern Evolution – Tension Through Suspension


Virtuous Cycle: Pattern Evolution





VICIOUS CYCLES, PATTERN RECOVERY AND OUR INTERVIEW FINDINGS

We have labelled the first vicious cycle "pattern recovery" to indicate that the changes do not have a chance to take hold before the system is pulled back into its traditional or usual cycle. The diagram below depicts this as a return to the stability state. Although the changes may be understood cognitively, without an emotional buy-in the system reverts back to the previous state. It is a “failure to feel” which leads to system back to the old patterns.



We found many examples of this vicious cycle in the transcripts and have captured the main themes of this data using three categories: (1) not seeing the micro-macro connections; (2) risk management - “not making mistakes”; and (3) using old tools.