Alan,
Good idea! I think that getting back to fundamentals like . . .
> What makes an intervention systemic?
> Can an intervention itself be systemic or does the intervention
> simply work to certain effects in the systems of an organization?
. . . is a good idea and that your first pass at listing "Characteristics
of Systemic Interventions:" is well done.
My input would be to also evaluate how the consulting firms who offer
systemic change see themselves as part of the "system".
For instance, any intervention brings up the possibility of creating the
"shifting the burden" archetype (where the organizations become dependent
on the consultants) and/or a "fixs that fail" archetype (where the
consultants address symptoms while failing to fix underlying causes).
It would certainly be possible to come up with some more possible issues,
but I am thinking that the underlying issue is that a "systemic
intervention" would recoginize that the intervention will also be part of
the system as long as the consultants are around.
An implication of this would appear to be that the consultants should have
a plan to manage their role as part of the system: when they arrive, while
they are there, and when they leave.
Regards,
Robert L.
RLucadello@AOL.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>