When organisations face persistent challenges such as inefficiencies, delays or disconnects between current reality and vision, the Levels of Perspective tool, developed by Dr. Daniel Kim, offers a powerful diagnostic framework. This approach provides a structured method to look beyond surface-level symptoms, uncovering the deeper structures and assumptions that drive behavior and outcomes.
In this article, I’ll explore how the five levels of perspective might be applied to a potential client in the IT sector.
1. Events: Reacting to What's Happening
The Events level focuses on specific incidents or crises as they arise. In the IT sector, these events might include recurring project delays, security breaches, software defects or budget overruns due to inefficiencies.
For our case study, let’s imagine an IT services company where developers and clients frequently clash over timelines and project scope. Developers are hesitant to share emerging innovative solutions early due to concerns about intellectual property (IP) security, while clients seek rapid, cost-effective results.
Reactive Diagnosis: Addressing events reactively involves taking immediate steps to resolve each issue as it surfaces. In this scenario, developers may withhold ideas, fearing that their innovations will be utilised without adequate recognition or suitable compensation. Clients, on the other hand, might demand quick solutions, leading to short-term fixes that may provide a quick fix and kick the can down the road.
Reactive Intervention: Set up urgent meetings that provide patchwork solutions to address immediate pain points, knowing fundamental issues remain unresolved.
While reactive responses are necessary to keep projects moving, addressing symptoms alone isn’t enough for sustainable change. This leads us to the next level, where we examine recurring patterns.
2. Patterns Over Time: Identifying Emerging Behaviours
At the Patterns Over Time level, organisations identify behaviors that emerge consistently, revealing trends that go beyond isolated events. In our IT case, these patterns might include stakeholder resistance to collaboration (for instance, in integrating functionality across software stacks) and a lack of early developer involvement in project planning and systemic integration.
Adaptive Diagnosis: At this level, leaders analyse why certain behaviors persist and consider how to encourage adaptive changes. For example, resistance to early involvement may stem from a lack of trust among stakeholders, which fosters a cycle of fragmentation and inefficiency.
Adaptive Intervention: Create regular collaboration platforms, such as joint planning sessions, where developers and clients can co-create project solutions.
Identifying patterns offers valuable insights into persistent issues. However, to address these patterns effectively, organisations must also examine systemic structures—the foundational processes, policies and systems that influence behavior over time.
3. Systemic Structures: Addressing Root Causes through Policies and Processes
Systemic Structures represent the organisational scaffolding that shapes behaviors over time. In our IT sector case study, outdated policies, hierarchical decision-making and fragmented project management practices discourage collaboration and innovation. Having a main contractor with third-party IT vendors adds to the complexity.
Creative Diagnosis: Systemic structures can provide a creative intervention point where leaders can evaluate how policies and systems might be adjusted to support work processes. In our scenario, updating project management and streamlining workflow can encourage more upstream design and IP management; this could go some way toward addressing the resistance faced by developers.
Creative Interventions:
- Develop mechanisms to encourage new IP creation, ensuring developers can safely share ideas without fear of exploitation.
- Adjust budget allocation to encourage sustained innovation and regular maintenance to facilitate periodic planned upgrades.
Systemic structures exert a deep influence on behavior, but to understand why these structures exist, organisations must delve into mental models, which are the assumptions and beliefs that shape decision-making.
4. Mental Models: Challenging Core Beliefs and Assumptions
Mental Models are the often-unspoken beliefs, assumptions and perceptions held by individuals and groups within the organisation. These models shape decisions and actions, often subconsciously.
In our IT case study, various stakeholders hold assumptions that impact collaboration and innovation:
- Developers believe early involvement is risky due to inadequate IP protection and fear of idea-stealing.
- Project managers assume that withholding ideas protects against scope creep and escalating client demands.
- Clients prioritise cost savings over long-term system reliability, viewing innovation as a potential risk rather than an opportunity.
- Executives focus on short-term gains to meet immediate performance targets, deprioritising investment in sustainable innovation.
Reflective Diagnosis: To challenge these mental models, leaders must surface and examine these assumptions. For instance, developers’ concerns about IP theft can be addressed through policies that provide recognition and protection across the project life cycle.
Reflective Intervention: Facilitate dialogues that allow stakeholders to express their assumptions and listen to each other’s perspectives. For example, developers and clients could discuss ways to balance project scope and innovation without compromising on cost or timeliness.
By shifting mental models, organisations lay the groundwork for sustainable change. However, for these changes to endure, they must align with a unifying vision that serves as the organisation’s North Star.
5. Vision: Defining Long-Term Aspirations
At the Vision level, organisations and their stakeholders articulate a clear, shared purpose that inspires and directs actions and decisions. In our IT case study, the aspirational vision might be to transform IT solutions for resilience, security and sustainable innovation.
Generative Diagnosis: To activate this vision, leaders need to craft a compelling, purpose-driven cause that unites stakeholders. Establishing frameworks for risk-sharing and value creation allows all parties to feel confident in contributing to long-term transformation goals.
Generative Intervention: Co-create guiding principles for collaborative innovation that might guide new systemic structures, e.g., joint ventures or partnership agreements that equitably distribute risks and rewards.
By aligning stakeholders around a compelling vision, the organisation fosters a shared dedication to overcoming challenges identified through each level of the Levels of Perspective framework.
Final Thoughts
The Levels of Perspective framework provides organisations with a comprehensive tool to diagnose and address complex challenges by examining them through multiple lenses. In industries like IT, where rapid technological change and intricate stakeholder relationships create tricky complexities, this approach enables organisations to adapt, innovate and thrive.
The SIM Centre for Systems Leadership (CSL) aims to develop and build systems leadership capacity to drive transformational, systemic change for the benefit of current and future generations.
We achieve this by offering professional learning and development programmes, partnering with professionals and enterprises to enhance and apply their systems leadership capabilities for greater individual and organisational success. To learn more, email us at simacademy@sim.edu.sg to arrange a discussion.
