Systems Archetypes for Strategic Decision-Making. Part I. Beyond the Quick-Fix Trap
Introduction
Organisations have a similar way of dealing with problems. It is because of the difficulty in assessing the problem's potential for disruption and the stiffness caused by their orientation to efficiency. Through years of working with organisations, I observed the same patterns emerging consistently, forming a recognisable systemic archetype. I expanded the systems archetype “Shifting the Burden” to represent a common problem space I encounter when dealing with organisational complex problems.
While not all dynamics are present with the same intensity in all situations, the more complex the problems, the more likely all these dynamics are to appear and persist, making the problem chronic.
It is worth noting that many organisational problems are not initially complex but evolve into complexity over time. A significant factor in this evolution is the failure to recognise that our efforts to address issues have profound impacts on both the social dimension and power dynamics within the organisation. When these dimensions are left unattended, seemingly straightforward problems can spiral out of control, becoming intractable challenges that resist conventional solutions. This article aims to identify these patterns to enable more effective interventions.
1. Quick-Fix: The Hamster Wheel
When problems arise, organisations typically resort to quick fixes, attracted by their promise of immediate relief and minimal risk. Theoretically, this allows us to maintain operations with minimal disruption, though such approaches often address symptoms rather than root causes.
These short-term interventions typically alleviate some of the pressure created by the problem, allowing operations to absorb the impact without significant disruption. However, if the situation continues, people become accustomed to making decisions based on familiar patterns they recognise and the situations they've encountered before, without considering other possible alternatives. This mirrors what Gary Klein describes in his Recognition-Primed Decision model, where experienced professionals rely heavily on pattern recognition rather than comparative analysis.
Assessing whether an emergent problem threatens organisational survival is rarely straightforward. Some organisations overreact to problems that resolve themselves with minimal intervention, whilst others dismiss warning signs until modest concerns transform into existential crises.
The challenge of evaluating an emerging problem's risk, combined with the practical rule of thumb of basing decisions on recognised patterns and the immediate relief that comes from a quick solution, makes this reactive approach the default response to emerging problems
2. Risk Perception in Fundamental Solutions: Feed-Forward Loops
However, quick fixes rarely address fundamental problems. When palliative measures cease to work, deeper solutions become necessary. This typically requires mobilising the organisation to undertake significant change and committing people to the outcome of the process. This approach carries substantial risk, which discourages people from implementing fundamental solutions and instead reinforces reliance on quick-fix options.
There are cases where the organisation takes the risk and begins implementing necessary changes to address problems. This journey often resembles a trek through the desert, with people easily losing faith that the project will deliver the expected improvements. When trust crumbles, staff passively resist implementing the necessary changes. The foundation beneath turns to quicksand, leaving the fundamental solution fatally stuck.
Implementing the fundamental solution is anything but straightforward, and people are well aware of this difficulty. They can anticipate risks and sense troubles well before these difficulties materialise. This creates a feed-forward loop that can lead them to consciously or unconsciously sabotage the implementation of the fundamental solution.
3. The Erosion of Trust. The Rise of Backlash.
Temporary solutions reduce their effectiveness over time because they focus on the symptoms of the problems not on their real causes. This situation usually creates a gap between the people who decide how to handle the problem and the people who cope with the consequences of these decisions.
When the organisation finds itself trapped in a cycle of quick fixes and unable to deliver meaningful alternatives, people typically react by refusing to adopt these temporary solutions. Cynicism and conflict are likely to develop, and individuals with valuable skills and talent begin to leave the organisation. This increases the pressure on the organisation to implement a fundamental solution but at the cost of social cohesion.
I distinguish this from the traditional notion of unintended consequences. When people find themselves in harmful environments, they will naturally suffer damage and subsequently take whatever actions they can to alter their circumstances. This response isn't truly unexpected or unintended, rather, it's a logical and foreseeable outcome of their situation that we can anticipate and take steps to prevent.
4. The Challenging Path to Fundamental Solutions
Fundamental solutions require significant investment, resources, time and trial and error, making them inherently risky endeavours. Change necessitates a deep understanding of the organisation as an integrated social, technical and cultural system, alongside a clear vision, sufficient resources, and exceptional interpersonal skills to guide people through periods of uncertainty.
The challenge extends beyond simply making sense of the situation to identify the most appropriate fundamental solution. Rather, it involves evolving the core ideas, beliefs and norms that enable people to adopt new tools and processes without compromising social cohesion and organisational integrity.
It is the leaders' responsibility to create an environment where people can behave differently; however, as we shall see, not all leaders think this way.
5. Power struggles
The hierarchical structure of organisations inherently creates power imbalances. Those in higher positions have greater opportunities to benefit from the organisation. While this isn't necessarily the hidden agenda of all leaders, once someone attains a leadership position, it becomes difficult to relinquish it for others' benefit, particularly if similar opportunities elsewhere are limited. This creates a dynamic where current leaders seek to preserve their status while others aspire to gain those positions.
In this environment, implementing fundamental, risky solutions can create vulnerability for those responsible for delivery and outcomes. Certain leaders may exploit this vulnerability by seeing an opportunity to strengthen their own position. The resulting power struggles can lead to conflicts between leaders that ultimately undermine the full implementation of long-term solutions.
6. The Unintended Consequences Dilemma
All these dynamics occurring simultaneously can create unintended consequences. These unforeseen outcomes may not only increase the likelihood of derailing the fundamental solution's implementation but can also generate additional new problems. These problems intensify pressure and overwhelm resources and attention, reinforcing dependence on short-term thinking.
These unexpected consequences can also alter the rules of the game, leaving the organisation in a vulnerable position to respond to market changes or competitive pressures.
Conclusion
This analysis reveals how organisations become trapped in cycles of short-term fixes, struggling to implement fundamental solutions due to risk perception, social disruption and power dynamics. The interplay between these forces creates a self-reinforcing system where quick fixes remain the default response despite their diminishing effectiveness.
In the forthcoming second part, we'll examine how practitioners can help organisations recognise their place within cycles of calm and complexity, clarifying both constraints and opportunities at each stage. By fostering collective sense-making and adapting approaches to match your authority and resources, you can guide organisations toward fundamental solutions whilst respecting their dynamic equilibrium.
