Change
Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution
By Paul Watzlawick, John H. Weakland, and Richard Fisch
TOPICS
Creating Change • Systems Thinking • Problem Framing
The Big Idea
This book explores why change can be so difficult to bring about and how well-meaning solutions can turn into greater problems than what they were aiming to improve.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
It proposes a Theory of Groups and Theory of Logical Types and demonstrates the practical application of each. The theories provide a mental framework for defining a problem and avoiding “common sense” solutions and inappropriate interventions that exacerbate a problem.
When framing problems and attempting solutions, we must acknowledge that persistence and change exist hand-in-hand.
Key Definitions
Theory of Groups. A group is made of members that share at least one characteristic. These members can be combined in any sequence, but the combination remains the same. It gives us a framework for thinking about the kind of change that can occur within a system that itself stays invariant.
Theory of Logical Types. A collection (or class) is made of member parts, but is not itself a single part. For example, mankind is a class of individuals, but it not itself an individual. “Any attempt to deal with the one in terms of the other is doomed to lead to nonsense and confusion. For example, the economic behavior of the population of a large city cannot be understood in terms of the behavior of one inhabitant multiplied by, say, four million. This, incidentally, was precisely the mistake committed in the early days of economic theory and is now scornfully referred to as the Robinson Crusoe economic model.”
This theory gives us a frame for considering the relationship between the member and class and the “peculiar metamorphosis which is in the nature of shifts from one logical level to the next higher.”
What’s the Significance?
A framework for thinking about the type of change that can occur
First order change is for when making an internal change, but keeping the status quo of the system itself (first order change). A system cannot generate from within itself the conditions for its own change.
A too-simple example would be to rearrange where members of an orchestra sit, but still performing together as an orchestra.
Changing the structure of a system itself requires an intervention from outside the system (second order change). These types of change “appear unpredictable, abrupt, illogical, etc.” because they are introduced from outside the system and are therefore unfamiliar.
A too-simple example would be to change from an audition process where only the best player wins a position to one where everyone who shows up is welcome to join the ensemble, thereby changing the nature of the ensemble.
Ensuring we apply the right order (level) of change
Applying a first-order type change when the goal is structural systems change will result in more of the same. The system cannot change itself from inside.
But choosing a radical, second-order solution when an internal change is desired will escalate a mere difficulty into a full-blown problem. Or create a problem where there really wasn’t one to begin with.
Paradoxically, the right approach might be to attack the solution, rather than the problem
Problem-solving can become problem-making if the wrong intervention is chosen.
In design, we talk so much about “framing the right problem.” This book makes me wonder how many times we design an intervention for the sake of flexing our design muscles, when the desired outcome would be better achieved by non-action?
Practical Application
Persistence and change need to be considered together. All perception and thought is relative, operating by comparison and contrast. Without persistence, change is not possible.
“For example, whenever we observe a person, a family, or a wider social system enmeshed in a problem in a persistent and repetitive way, despite desire and effort to alter the situation, two questions arise equally: ‘How does this undesirable situation persist?’ and ‘What is require to change it,?’”
This book invites us to think about the dynamics of the system, whether interventions might be creating or perpetuating problems, and then look for the bigger picture, possibly paradoxical solutions if the goal is whole-system change. Watzlawick provides practical, relatable examples for applying his process and attaining desired changes.
The ‘Black Box’ approach to examining issues. “[Black Box], which originated in World War II, was applied to the procedure followed when examining captured enemy electronic equipment that could not be opened because of the possibility of destruction charges inside. In these cases the investigators simply applied various forms of input into the ‘box’ and measured its output. They were thus able to find out what this piece of equipment was doing without necessarily also finding out why.”
Watzlawick exhorts us to spend more time asking “what happened/is happening” than developing a theory for “why”—which may or may not contribute to a solution.
Be specific in setting goals for change. “[M]any people seeking help for a problem describe the desired change in seemingly meaningful but actually useless terms: get more out of life, worry less, etc., etc. It is the very vagueness of these goals which makes their attainment impossible. If pressed for an answer as to what specifically would have to happen (or stop happening) so that they would then be happier, or communicate better, etc., they are very often at a loss. This bewilderment is not primarily due to the fact that they have simply not found an answer to their problem, but rather that they are asking the wrong question in the first place.”
Conclusions
Questions to ask ourselves. This book leaves us with a set of questions to evaluate our approach to a challenge:
Is this truly a problem, or merely a difficulty?
Is the intervention I’m attempting actually perpetuating the problem?
Where are the boundaries of this system, as I understand it?
Am I approaching this issue from inside or outside the system?
What do I want to see different, if this change is successful?
Narrower scope for problem solving. The book cautions there might be a narrower scope of ethical psychological treatment and promise of relief for patients than has been generally promoted. That makes me wonder if design has similarly overpromised what it can actually and ethically deliver. For example, Design Thinking has promised to turn non-designers into effective problem-solvers and change-makers by simply learning to apply a few methods or techniques.
In describing their desired impact, nonprofits find themselves in a precarious position and can inadvertently create more problems than they are seeking to eliminate. But getting specific on what will happen or stop happening, and selecting the appropriate level of change can help prevent this pitfall.
This book pairs well with …
Liminal Thinking by Dave Gray.
Practice 6 in Liminal Thinking is almost exactly the second-level change that Watzlawick talks about in Change. Gray talks about stepping outside the problem, the doom loop, and attacking the solution, instead of attacking the problem.
Finite & Infinite Games by James P. Carse.
Carse frames systems dynamics in terms of game play, where a finite game (closed system) is played for the purpose of winning, and an infinite game (open system) exists for the purpose of continuing the play. Staying within a finite game is similar to Watzlawick’s first-order change, while rewriting the rules to become an infinite game demonstrates a second-order change of the system’s structure itself.
Who should read this book?
People working in systems change
Leaders of organizations and groups
Nonprofit leaders