A Straightforward Recipe for Changing Culture

Source: COS website

We recently came across a clear, easily communicated road map for implementing cultural change.*  We’ll provide some background information on the author’s motivation for developing the road map, a summary of it, and our perspective on it.

The author, Brian Nosek, is executive director of the Center for Open Science (COS).  The mission of COS is to increase the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research.  Specifically, they propose that researchers publish the initial description of their studies so that original plans can be compared with actual results.  In addition, researchers should “share the materials, protocols, and data that they produced in the research so that others could confirm, challenge, extend, or reuse the work.”  Overall, the COS proposes a major change from how much research is presently conducted.

Currently, a lot of research is done in private, i.e., more or less in secret, usually with the objective of getting results published, preferably in a prestigious journal.  Frequent publishing is fundamental to getting and keeping a job, being promoted, and obtaining future funding for more research, in other words, having a successful career.  Researchers know that publishers generally prefer findings that are novel, positive (e.g., a treatment is effective), and tidy (the evidence fits together).

Getting from the present to the future requires a significant change in the culture of scientific research.  Nosek describes the steps to implement such change using a pyramid, shown below, as his visual model.  Similar to Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a higher level of the pyramid can only be achieved if the lower levels are adequately satisfied.

Source: "Strategy for Culture Change"

Each level represents a different step for changing a culture:

•    Infrastructure refers to an open source database where researchers can register their projects, share their data, and show their work.
•    The User Interface of the infrastructure must be easy to use and compatible with researchers' existing workflows.
•    New research Communities will be built around new norms (e.g., openness and sharing) and behavior, supported and publicized by the infrastructure.
•    Incentives refer to redesigned reward and recognition systems (e.g., research funding and prizes, and institutional hiring and promotion schemes) that motivate desired behaviors.
•    Public and private Policy changes codify and normalize the new system, i.e., specify the new requirements for conducting research.
     
Our Perspective

As long-time consultants to senior managers, we applaud Nosek’s change model.  It is straightforward and adequately complete, and can be easily visualized.  We used to spend a lot of time distilling complicated situations into simple graphics that communicated strategically important points.

We also totally support his call to change the reward system to motivate the new, desirable behaviors.  We have been promoting this viewpoint for years with respect to safety culture: If an organization or other entity values safety and wants safe activities and outcomes, then they should compensate the senior leadership accordingly, i.e., pay for safety performance, and stop promoting the nonsense that safety is intrinsic to the entity’s functioning and leaders should provide it basically for free.

All that said, implementing major cultural change is not as simple as Nosek makes it sound.

First off, the status quo can have enormous sticking power.  Nosek acknowledges it is defined by strong norms, incentives, and policies.  Participants know the rules and how the system works, in particular they know what they must do to obtain the rewards and recognition.  Open research is an anathema to many researchers and their sponsors; this is especially true when a project is aimed at creating some kind of competitive advantage for the researcher or the institution.  Secrecy is also valued when researchers may (or do) come up with the “wrong answer” – findings that show a product is not effective or has dangerous side effects, or an entire industry’s functioning is hazardous for society.

Second, the research industry exists in a larger environment of social, political and legal factors.  Many elected officials, corporate and non-profit bosses, and other thought leaders may say they want and value a world of open research but in private, and in their actions, believe they are better served (and supported) by the existing regime.  The legal system in particular is set up to reinforce the current way of doing business, e.g., through patents.

Finally, systemic change means fiddling with the system dynamics, the physical and information flows, inter-component interfaces, and feedback loops that create system outcomes.  To the extent such outcomes are emergent properties, they are created by the functioning of the system itself and cannot be predicted by examining or adjusting separate system components.  Large-scale system change can be a minefield of unexpected or unintended consequences.

Bottom line: A clear model for change is essential but system redesigners need to tread carefully.  


*  B. Nosek, “Strategy for Culture Change,” blog post (June 11th, 2019).

Real Systems Pursue Goals

System Model Control Panel

On March 10, 2023 we posted about a medical journal editorial that advocated for incorporating more systems thinking in hospital emergency rooms’ (ERs) diagnostic processes.  Consistent with Safetymatters’ core beliefs, we approved of using systems thinking in complicated decision situations such as those arising in the ER. 

The article prompted a letter to the editor in which the author said the approach described in the original editorial wasn’t a true systems approach because it wasn’t specifically goal-oriented.  We agree with that author’s viewpoint.  We often argue for more systems thinking and describe mental models of systems with components, dynamic relationships among the components, feedback loops, control functions such as rules and culture, and decision maker inputs.  What we haven’t emphasized as much, probably because we tend to take it for granted, is that a bona fide system is teleological, i.e., designed to achieve a goal. 

It’s important to understand what a system’s goal is.  This may be challenging because the system’s goal may contain multiple sub-goals.  For example, a medical clinician may order a certain test.  The lab has a goal: to produce accurate, timely, and reliable results for tests that have been ordered.  But the clinician’s goal is different: to develop a correct diagnosis of a patient’s condition.  The goal of the hospital of which the clinician and lab are components may be something else: to produce generally acceptable patient outcomes, at reasonable cost, without incurring undue legal problems or regulatory oversight.  System components (the clinician and the lab) may have goals which are hopefully supportive of, or at least consistent with, overall system goals.

The top-level system, e.g., a healthcare provider, may not have a single goal, it may have multiple, independent goals that can conflict with one another.  Achieving the best quality may conflict with keeping costs within budgets.  Achieving perfect safety may conflict with the need to make operational decisions under time pressure and with imperfect or incomplete information.  One of the most important responsibilities of top management is defining how the system recognizes and deals with goal conflict.

In addition to goals, we need to discuss two other characteristics of full-fledged systems: a measure of performance and a defined client.* 

The measure of performance shows the system designers, users, managers, and overseers how well the system’s goal(s) are being achieved through the functioning of system components as affected by the system’s decision makers.  Like goals, the measure of performance may have multiple dimensions or sub-measures.  In a well-designed system, the summation of the set of sub-measures should be sufficient to describe overall system performance.  

The client is the entity whose interests are served by the system.  Identifying the client can be tricky.  Consider a city’s system for serving its unhoused population.  The basic system consists of a public agency to oversee the services, entities (often nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs) that provide the services, suppliers (e.g., landlords who offer buildings for use as housing), and the unhoused population.  Who is the client of this system, i.e., who benefits from its functioning?  The politicians, running for re-election, who authorize and sustain the public agency?  The public agency bureaucrats angling for bigger budgets and more staff?  The NGOs who are looking for increased funding?  Landlords who want rent increases?  Or the unhoused who may be looking for a private room with a lockable door, or may be resistant to accepting any services because of their mental, behavioral, or social problems?  It’s easy to see that many system participants do better, i.e., get more pie, if the “homeless problem” is never fully resolved.

For another example, look at the average public school district in the U.S.  At first blush, the students are the client.  But what about the elected state commissioner of education and the associated bureaucracy that establish standards and curricula for the districts?  And the elected district directors and district bureaucracy?  And the parents’ rights organizations?  And the teachers’ unions?  All of them claim to be working to further the students’ interests but what do they really care about?  How about political or organizational power, job security, and money?  The students could be more of a secondary consideration.

We could go on.  The point is we are surrounded by many social-legal-political-technical systems and who and what they are actually serving may not be those they purport to serve.

  

*  These system characteristics are taken from the work of a systems pioneer, Prof. C. West Churchman of UC Berkeley.  For more information, see his The Design of Inquiring Systems (New York: Basic Books) 1971.