Accepted Manuscript

APPLYING SYSTEMS THINKING MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL

DESIGN AND CHANGE IN COMMUNITY OPERATIONAL
RESEARCH

Derek Cabrera , Laura Cabrera , Erin Powers , Jeremy Solin ,

Jennifer Kushner

PII: S0377-2217(17)31017-2
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.006
Reference: EOR 14794

To appear in: European Journal of Operational Research

Received date: 22 July 2016

Revised date: 24 October 2017
Accepted date: 6 November 2017

Please cite this article as: Derek Cabrera , Laura Cabrera , Erin Powers , Jeremy Solin ,
Jennifer Kushner , APPLYING SYSTEMS THINKING MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND
CHANGE IN COMMUNITY OPERATIONAL RESEARCH , European Journal of Operational Research
(2017), doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 Two systems models for organizational design and change are proposed
 Change requires enacting the simple rules that lead to adaptivity in organizations
 All organizations are complex adaptive systems, irrespective of formal structure
 The complexity of the community context requires complexity-friendly systems models
 These two models are useful for theory and capacity building

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
APPLYING SYSTEMS THINKING MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND CHANGE

CR
IN COMMUNITY OPERATIONAL RESEARCH

Derek Cabrera124*, Laura Cabrera124 , Erin Powers24, Jeremy Solin34, Jennifer Kushner34

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE

1 College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

2 Cabrera Research Lab, Ithaca, NY, USA
3 University of Wisconsin - Extension, Cooperative Extension, 432 N. Lake Street Madison, WI 53706,
USA
AC

4 ThinkWater, www.thinkwater.us

*Correspondence to: Derek Cabrera, Cornell University, College of Human Ecology, Ithaca, NY 14850,
USA. E-mail: [email protected]

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ABSTRACT
In this article, we present a systems thinking approach to organizational design and change called VMCL

T
(vision, mission, culture/capacity, learning) and describe different community applications to illustrate its

IP
theoretical and practical relevance to Community Operational Research (Community OR). VMCL was
developed to apply systems thinking and complexity theory to any situation that involves groups of

CR
people, such as organizations. Additionally, we elaborate a network-based theory of change called NFST
(naysayers, fence-sitters, supporters, thought leaders) for implementing VMCL in any community

US
context. We describe how VMCL was extensively applied to local grassroots movements involving
community members, students, staff, teachers, school leaders, and board members to change US school
districts. We then discuss the relevance and application of VMCL and NFST to community mobilization
AN
by a grassroots movement in Wisconsin, USA. We conclude by discussing the ways in which VMCL and
NFST foster systemic Community OR, and how they are useful tools for community organizers and other
practitioners.
M
ED

KEYWORDS
OR in organization theory
PT

systems thinking
complexity theory
CE

education
networks
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OR, Community OR, AND SYSTEMS APPROACHES

This article introduces new models for organizational design and change in the community context. These
models are based on (1) the assumption from complexity theory that all organizations are complex
adaptive systems (CAS), that is systems that self-organize and continuously evolve to become better
suited to their environments; and (2) a network-theory understanding of the real-life structure of semi-

T
autonomous agents underlying a variety of organizational forms. (For some useful readings on

IP
complexity theory and its application in understanding organizing, see Gell-Mann (1995a, 1995b;
Waldrop, 1992). The models we will present are uniquely applicable to Community Operational Research

CR
(Community OR), given the increased complexity that is often involved when operating in community
contexts, compared with business and public sector organizations (Jackson, 1987, 1988).

US
Numerous authors have discussed the history of Operational Research (OR) and the origins of
Community OR (see, for example, Johnson, 2012a; Midgley & Ochoa-Arias, 2004a). Citing Bajgier,
AN
Maragah, Saccucci, Verzilli, and Prybutok (1991) and Taket and White (1994), Johnson and Smilowitz
(2012) clarify how ―UK-style‖ Community OR deviates from the ―consultant‖ view of traditional
operational research: ―successful community-based OR models and applications require substantial
M

stakeholder participation in problem definition, solution, and implementation (p. 104).

ED

OR has a long history of community applications (see Ackoff, 1970, for one of the seminal papers). In
his classic article, Jackson (1988) reviews a variety of OR and systems approaches that are well suited for
the community context. Following Jackson and Keys (1984), he divides community problem contexts
PT

along two axes: ―the nature of the ‗systems‘ of concern and the relationship between the relevant
‗participants‘‖ (Jackson, 1988, p. 716). Systems can be relatively simple (―mechanical‖) or complex
CE

(―systemic‖). The relationships between participants can range from unity of goals (―unitary‖) to
―pluralist‖ or ―coercive,‖ with the latter representing diverse goals managed through power.
AC

Jackson (1988) writes that most authors working in community settings practice a form of
―enhanced OR,‖ choosing or mixing methods in response to the nature of the context. These methods
may be quantitative or qualitative, but are invariably applied in action research to support community
decision making. Many practitioners also retain ―an associated commitment to interdisciplinarity and the
systems approach‖ (p. 717). In the community context, we infrequently see mechanical, unitary types of
systems (Jackson, 1988). Instead we see more complex, ―systemic‖ contexts characterized by differing

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

viewpoints. An ―enhanced‖ (Jackson, 1988) or ―engaged‖ (Midgley, Johnson, & Chichirau, 2018)
Community OR approach that borrows systems thinking approaches and methods is thus seen as more
appropriate for these types of contexts.

We argue that (1) underlying even hierarchical organizations and Jackson‘s (1988) coercive systems are
distributed networks of individuals who share a collective interest to a greater or lesser extent, and (2) all
organizations/groups are CAS and therefore amenable to a systems approach. This makes the divide

T
between Community OR and traditional OR, which has opened up because of historical differences in

IP
approaches, less analytically fruitful and practical than it at first might appear (see also Kaplan, 2008;
Rosenhead, 1993). Certainly both fields are interdisciplinary and benefit from systemic approaches—

CR
Community OR even more so given the additional complexities involved (the existence of more and
diverse stakeholders, plus socio-cultural, political, environmental, and economic factors). The value of

US
methodological pluralism to Community OR—given the diversity of contexts in which it can be applied
(think of Jackson‘s categorization)—is widely accepted (Midgley, 2000; Midgley & Ochoa-Arias 2004a,
p. 16). Likewise, Johnson and Smilowitz (2012, p. 102) characterize Community-Based Operations
AN
Research (CBOR) problems as ―messy‖ and highly dependent on political and social considerations.
Complexity (i.e., ―messy‖ problems) is, of course, the purview of systems thinking (Ackoff, 1981;
Checkland, 1981).
M

Cautious about specifying a single definition given the plurality of methods and approaches in the field,
ED

Midgley and Ochoa-Arias (2004a) describe those working in Community OR as an umbrella group united
by a desire to make a difference in communities, and they have an interest in methodology and methods
to bring about such change. In a recent example, Lane, Munro, and Husemann (2016) describe an
PT

important instance of the application of a systems approach to the resolution of problems within the child
protection system in England. They demonstrate how multiple systems approaches and methodologies
CE

were pivotal in identifying the problem, its causes, and practical solutions. The systems analysis focused
on the importance of organizational learning and developing shared group understandings, both of which
AC

characterize the systems-based approaches introduced in this article.

We introduce systems approaches concerned with capacity-building for organizations and communities,
along with a change theory with network insights that is of both theoretical relevance (understanding
organizational and community dynamics) and practical importance (implementing social change in
groups) to people working in and for communities.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.2 New Systems Thinking Models for Community Operational Research

Systems thinking (ST) models and approaches are predicated on recognizing the complexity of reality.
Underlying the diversity of ST theories, methods, and approaches are four simple rules: making
distinctions and recognizing systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP) (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015;
Cabrera, Cabrera, & Powers, 2015). While each of these patterns of thinking have been considered in the
literature, they have not been considered at the depth of the DSRP formalism which includes: modularity
of simple elements combined and recombined across scale (i.e., fractal modularity), the co-implying

T
elements leading to patterns of cognition and eventually molecular structures, and the ability to make

IP
structural predictions about the evolution of knowledge based on DSRP‘s dynamical properties as a
complex adaptive system.

CR
Distinction making, often discussed in terms of the exploration and setting of boundaries, has been

US
considered in the systems thinking literature (see Churchman, 1970; François, 2004; Fuenmayor, 1991;
Glanville, 1990; Goguen & Varella, 1979; Midgley, 2000; Midgley et al., 1998; Midgley & Ochoa-Arias,
2001; Peterson & Sko-Grant, 2003; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994; Ulrich, 1983; Young, 2005). However, the
AN
literature emphasizes the internal-external boundary of the whole system. While DSRP applies to the
system boundary, it also applies to each and every distinction being a product of two co-implying
elements (identity-other) and their multi-modal differentiation (e.g., that an other created by an identity is
M

also an identity from another perspective).

ED

Consideration of systems is of course the greatest commonality among the diverse methods and theories
found in the systems thinking literature (see Angyal, 1941; Bertalanffy, 1956, 1968; Bunge, 1977;
PT

Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015; Hall & Fagen, 1956; Hoffman, 1998; Kosko, 1993; Latimer, 1997, 1998, 1999;
Marchal, 1975; Mortensen, 1998; Opie, 1999; Rakover, 1998). Here again, while part and whole systems
structure has been considered in the systems thinking literature, it is most often misconstrued as being in
CE

conflict (i.e., holism over reductionism or whole instead of part). In addition, the multi-modal and co-
implying part-whole structure proposed by DSRP has not been considered as elements of a pattern of
AC

cognition that is fractal, modular, and that dynamically interacts with the other elements of DSRP.

Relationships as a concept are additionally addressed by many in the systems thinking community (for
examples, see Forrester, 1971; Wiener, 1948), but not as a quantifiable formalism of co-implying
elements (action-reaction) that are fractally and dynamically embedded in the DSRP algorithm.
Relationships take many forms in the literature, but it is the new contribution of DSRP to propose that
these relationships are themselves boundary distinctions, capable of both part-whole structure and taking

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

on unique perspectives or being a function of a perspective. Finally, perspective taking is also addressed
in the systems thinking literature (see Ackoff, Magidson, & Addison, 2006; Checkland, 1981; Checkland
& Scholes, 1990; Churchman 1968; Mason & Mitroff, 1981; Rittel & Webber, 1973). New, however, is
the quantifiable formalism of perspective taking as being comprised of point and view co-implying
elements which are then dynamically altered by the elements and patterns of DSRP, resulting in
differences in perspective that can be compared and contrasted quantifiably.

T
The DSRP rules have not previously been considered as the four atomic cognitive actions that constitute

IP
all systems thinking methods and approaches (Cabrera, 2006a). DSRP theory analyzes systems thinking
as an emergent phenomenon produced by varying and simultaneous combinations of distinction making,

CR
recognizing the parts and wholes of systems in a fractal manner along with the nature of the relationships
among parts and wholes, all while making evident the perspectives embedded in every cognitive act.
DSRP simultaneously helps break down complexity through application of the four rules, while

US
emphasizing the intricacies of how each rule operates-—including defining its two interacting elements
(see chapter 3 in Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015).
AN
Cabrera et al. (2015) argue that systems thinking is an emergent property of applying these simple rules;
therefore, individuals who want to become better systems thinkers need to learn and systematically apply
M

them. The merits and applications of this idea have been debated elsewhere in the literature (Cabrera &
Cabrera, 2008; Cabrera, Colosi, & Lobdell, 2008; Midgley, 2008; Reynolds, 2008), and will not be
ED

rehearsed again here.

However, what about groups that want to operate as systems thinking organizations? Groups, too, can
PT

become adaptive and learning organizations by following simple rules. Those simple rules—vision,
mission, culture/capacity, and learning (VMCL)—produce systems thinking groups. Also, NFST
CE

(naysayers, fence-sitters, supporters, thought leaders) is a network-informed change strategy that models
the real distribution of any grouping of semi-autonomous individuals. It can be applied at the community
level for any type of social change. Thus, VMCL and NFST provide systems thinking tools to effect
AC

social change through adaptive, learning organizations comprised of systems thinkers.1

Applied in corporate, NGO, and educational contexts and informal movements, VMCL has relevance for
the field of Community OR, a field unified by its interest in methods for and the methodology of

1
An infographic on VMCL and NSFT is available at:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/329040_fa034ebacd1945b487bb700cfffe8807.pdf

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

community interventions and development (Midgley & Ochoa-Arias, 2004a). VMCL applies systems
thinking principles and complexity theory to understand groups of people in organizations (including
multi-organizational or multi-agency teams), and to enable those groups to adapt and learn. Viewing all
organizations as complex adaptive systems (CAS) with organizational processes resulting in complex and
emergent outcomes, VMCL shows that the power of activists and leadership lies principally in deciding
on and implementing simple rules for the organization. VMCL explains how to have a focused,
measurable, and achievable organizational vision, and a mission that offers simple rules that when

T
followed by group members bring about the vision. VMCL also explains how to build a culture of shared

IP
mental models informed by continuous learning based on individual and group systems thinking.

CR
In VMCL, the word capacity refers to the ability to execute the mission. Capacity is comprised of the
systems that make doing mission possible. Attending to the capacity aspect of VMCL entails mapping an

US
organization‘s numerous formal and informal systems and aligning them with its mission. The most
critical among any organization‘s capacity systems is culture, defined as shared mental models. While
culture is subsumed under capacity, we have found that newcomers to VMCL find it easier to focus
AN
primarily on the culture aspect of capacity. Thus we write ―culture/capacity‖ in this article and focus on
culture.
M

VMCL is implemented in organizations through an organizational change model called NFST (naysayers,
fence-sitters, supporters, and thought leaders). Even very hierarchical organizations like traditional
ED

corporations and the military must be mindful of the network dynamics that operate in all groups and
harness the power of a committed minority during change efforts (Marwell & Oliver, 2007; Marwell,
Oliver, & Prahl, 1988; Xie et al., 2011). In all instances, VMCL provides an operational strategy, and
PT

NFST a dynamic change model, that is compatible with our understanding of network dynamics. NFST
encourages organizers to develop a change strategy based on real-world networks of independent actors,
CE

irrespective of organizational structure.

The NSFT change model divides a group‘s members into four categories, each evincing different levels of
AC

support (or lack thereof) for the collective‘s vision and mission. Movement across the four categories
(i.e., cultural change) requires a different organizational strategy for each group. Misallocation of these
strategies often leads to failed change efforts. Whereas organizational activists frequently focus their
efforts on incentivizing fence-sitters and convincing naysayers, we argue the merits of focusing greater
resources on individuals supportive of change. This strategy is supported by recent work in network

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

theory showing that a committed minority constituted by just 10% of group members (a tipping point) can
effect a change in the view of the majority (Xie et al., 2011).

We describe the application of the VMCL framework to organizations with different structures in order to
illustrate its universality. We begin by elaborating the VMCL approach and its application to change
efforts in US school districts. We focus on a single case, but include insights from the authors‘ experience
consulting and conducting research on VMCL in different school districts across the country. We also

T
explain how applying VMCL for organizational change in school districts led to the development of the

IP
network theory-informed NFST strategy for implementing collective change. Then we discuss the
ongoing application of VMCL to a natural-resource community organization and movement called the

CR
Wisconsin Water Thinkers Network, recently formed with funding by the Wisconsin Environmental
Education Board.

US
We conclude by discussing the fact that Community OR deals with inherently complex phenomena, and
its practitioners consequently need systems thinking models that are adaptive and predicated on the
AN
understanding that all groups, irrespective of formal organizational structure, are complex adaptive
systems.
M

2. METHODS
The methods employed in this study were observational, in a loose sense of the word. We detail a
ED

composite quasi-case study of school districts implementing VMCL and NSFT, and report on the early
application of these strategies by a natural resource movement. We use one school district‘s experiences
to exemplify that which we have seen across more than 29 US school districts in the last 8 years. The
PT

range of school districts that have implemented these efforts is wide; from a small rural school district in
New Jersey with a total enrollment of 475 students, to a large metropolitan district in the Washington,
CE

D.C., area serving 180,000 students annually. While the districts differed demographically, each faced the
same problem: how to improve outcomes for their students in both the short and the long term. Each
AC

school community wished for, and worked towards, cultural changes that would better serve both the
teaching and learning functions in their districts. And finally, each of them knew that what they were
facing was a systemic set of interrelated problems that were firmly embedded in an existing bureaucracy.
Most notably, all of the resources and efforts expended were due to an unwavering commitment to
positively affect their students and the wider community they lived in.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Our observations and quasi-case studies involved engaging organizations as participant observers,
facilitators, and researchers. We listened to, documented, and analyzed the comments and concerns of
community leaders and members. This included the facilitation and observation of organizational
sessions, in which we observed the practices of leaders and members of the community, and the resultant
interactions and effects. We used a mix of methods to document our observations, from simple note
taking, transcription of audio and filmed resources, quasi-experimental survey(s), focus groups, and
monitoring of both formative and summative assessment criteria. As a result, data was gleaned from a

T
variety of sources, including metamaps produced in group work, observation of group dynamics, audio

IP
and video of group discussions, and responses provided in both in-person interviews and online surveys.
Metamaps are produced using the cloud-based MetaMap software used to visually map systems and

CR
conceptual models. It has been designed to help teams conceptualize, capture, clarify, communicate, and
co-evolve mental models as a way of building culture (Cabrera Research Lab, 2016).

US
Early theoretical models, observation, and quasi-case studies are an important starting point whenever the
knowledge of a phenomenon is lacking or uncertain. Therefore, exploratory methods are not only
AN
appropriate but essential to build enough knowledge to begin establishing construct-valid terms and
functions that can be subjected to further quasi-experimental, experimental, randomized, controlled, and
meta-analytical designs. While such exploratory methods are absolutely essential, they are in no way
M

conclusive. Take for example this excerpt from an administrator interview in a district that implemented
our systems-based models of DSRP, VMCL, and NFST:
ED

It has been outstanding, the results that we got far exceeded any of our expectations... We
saw huge growth in achievement in a short period of time. So across three to five months
we saw a 74 percent jump in achievement, but...because of the population of students that
we‘re working with, we also saw a 58 percent reduction in behavior issues that they were
PT

experiencing outside of their school settings.

We can clearly see, for example, in the quasi-case studies described herein, that both the ―treatment‖
CE

(organizational use of VMCL, NFST, and DSRP) and the ―outcomes‖ (increased graduation rates,
membership, engagement, achievement, behavior, etc.) exist. And this administrator believes/implies that
AC

there is a causal link between them. Yet we cannot speak to omitted variables or causation. Indeed, in
such complex and adaptive systems, it may require many years of not only research, but research
innovation itself, to adequately conclude such things. That said, the Method Matching Matrix (MMM) in
Figure 1 provides a model for research over time, where the condition (extent, validity, reliability, nuance,
etc.) of knowledge increases over time and facilitates the use of new, more fine-grained research methods
to produce even more valid and reliable results (see Figure 1). In short, our exploratory methods are
admittedly (and purposefully) coarse-grained.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Meta-analysis

Method Choice Randomized Control Trial

Methods
Mixed
(i.e., the continuum of
methods available) Randomized Design

Experimental Design

T
Quasi-Experimental Design

IP
Case / Survey Designs Nascent Developing Mature

CR
Condition of Knowledge
(i.e., the qualitative and quantitative state of
the existing knowledge on the topic under
consideration, e.g., literature review)

US
AN
Figure 1: Method Matching Matrix (MMM): a systemic analysis of the relation between
justification of methods choice and condition of knowledge (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2007).
M

In the quasi-case studies and observations described below, theoretical models (VMCL, NFST)
approximate the CAS reality in that they describe, summarize, predict, and lead to behavior in real-world
ED

settings. From those real-world settings, through systematic observation, we can begin to get feedback on
our models and evolve them.
PT

approximates
CE

mental real
AC

model world

provides feedback on

Figure 2: Adaptive Learning Process

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

This systematic MMM approach to research leads to incremental knowledge building over time. Figure 2
illustrates a feedback loop leading to better mental models characterized by clearly distinguished
constructs that can be better tested and validated using fine-grained methods. Without such an approach,
we risk premature use of experimental designs and randomized controlled trials which establish causality
between and among constructs that lack validity and reliability. Our methodological approach focuses on
establishing construct validity over time.

T
3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, FUNCTION, AND MODELS

IP
3.1 THE NETWORK STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATIONS

CR
The network structure underlying groups and organizations of all types is conducive to a systems
approach based on complexity science, specifically recognizing that collectives of individuals, no matter

US
how structured, are complex adaptive systems (CAS). All organizations are made up of the networked
interactions of individuals (agents) who adapt to and learn from an environment (Meralia, 2006). In CAS,
including all human organizations, the behavior of the organization (the system) is not easily predicted by
AN
the behavior of the individuals themselves. The organizational behavior is an emergent property of the
many agents and their interactions with each other and their environment (Goldstein, 2011). Figure 3
illustrates three different types of organizations based on their formal structure (as might be captured by
M

their official organizational chart).

ED

Loosely
Structured Quasi- Highly
structured Can be seen as different
(e.g., Structured
PT

at a superficial level
communities, (e.g., public (e.g., many
movements, schools, businesses,
mobs) Congress, military)
academia)
CE

Underlying CAS Structure

(distributed, dynamic, adaptive But function the same
networks way at deeper level
AC

of semi-autonomous people)

Figure 3: Underlying Structure of All Organizations

Traditional corporations and the military can have highly formalized and rigid structures, such as
hierarchies. These structures are often erroneously assumed to reflect the nature of the organization. In
quasi-structured organizations (such as public schools, Congress, or academia) the formal structure might

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

be the same (i.e., a hierarchy), but other formal structures and processes such as tenure or representational
democracy exist to curtail its influence. We see this, for example, in public schools where a
superintendent has no hiring and firing power. In these quasi-structured organizations, the multiple
formal structures effectively limit the authority of any one structure. In loosely structured groups (such as
movements or even mobs), structures are minimal, develop organically, and evolve if the group identity
persists over time. In a sense, these groups take the natural form of a self-organizing, distributed,
dynamic, CAS network of semi-autonomous people. Understanding loosely structured groups is

T
particularly relevant for Community OR, as Friend (2004), Midgley and Ochoa-Arias (2004a), and

IP
Midgley et al. (2018) correctly note that many Community OR projects work with transitory stakeholder
alliances, often coalescing across and beyond formal organizational boundaries.

CR
Here, however, one might make the mistake of assuming that Community OR primarily applies to

US
unstructured organizations, whereas more traditional OR is most appropriate for quasi- or highly
structured organizations. This would be a mistake because the underlying structure of all these
organizational types is a distributed, dynamic, CAS network of semi-autonomous individuals. Therefore,
AN
all these organizational types can benefit from a systems approach that acknowledges the complexity of
all groups. VMCL (and its related concepts of CAS, network theory, and NSFT) provides a model that
corresponds with all organizations, formally structured or not, because it focuses on their underlying
M

network behavior. It is important for the reader to keep this in mind over the coming pages, as the term
"organization" crops up regularly, and it is used in this broader than usual sense.
ED

3.2 Organizations are Complex Adaptive Systems

A critical lesson from the natural world for understanding how organizations or groups of people work
PT

involves CAS and how they adapt to become better suited to their environment (Cabrera & Cabrera,
2015; Gell-Mann, 1994). An example is the flocking behavior of a group of hundreds or thousands of
CE

starlings, which is self-organizing, adaptive and efficient, and indeed life-saving. The key to this CAS is
that the agents, here birds, follow simple rules (Couzin, Krause, James, Ruxton, & Franks, 2002). Those
AC

rules are:
1) maintain a certain distance from your nearest neighbors;
2) adjust direction relative to nearest neighbors; and
3) avoid predators.

There is no bird leader directing the flocking behavior; instead, all agents following simple rules produce
an adaptive response within this superorganism (Okubo, 1986). In a CAS, interaction with the
environment drives learning, which in turn drives behavior. The interesting thing about a CAS is that the

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

collective dynamics of these local agents and simple rules lead to the overall behavior of the system,
sometimes referred to as an emergent property or emergence (Cilliers, 1998; Gell-Mann, 1994; Goldstein,
2011; Merali, 2006). The question to systems theorists and Community OR practitioners alike is, if the
various systems we are dealing with are CAS, how can we ensure that the mental models (e.g.,
frameworks, theories, concepts) we are using to understand those systems are CAS-compatible?

Cabrera (2002a, 2002b, 2006) introduces the idea that systems thinking itself is not a ―thing‖ or an

T
―input‖ but an emergent property. This makes sense because the kind of real-world phenomena that

IP
systems thinking deals with are necessarily complex and adaptive, as is the human mind and cognition,
which is one of the most complex and adaptive systems we know. Thus, Cabrera asks what are the simple

CR
rules that bring about this emergent phenomenon. The discovery of DSRP (making distinctions and
recognizing systems, relationships, and perspectives) provides these simple rules for systems thinking at

US
the individual level. While DSRP produces individual systems thinkers, we need to know what the simple
rules are that govern a group of individuals that wishes to approach their team or organization
systemically. We propose that these simple rules for collective organization are VMCL (vision, mission,
AN
capacity, and learning). Relatedly, we must ask how individuals and organizations transition from one
phase of organizing to another—often called a change model. MAC (map, activate, check), a systems-
based model for teaching and learning, explains how this works at the individual level, while NSFT
M

explains the transition at the organizational level (see thinkwater.us, 2017a). The current paper focuses on
the explication of VMCL and NFST as models for use by Community OR practitioners. DSRP and MAC
ED

are well explicated in other publications (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015; Cabrera et al., 2015; thinkwater.us,
2017). Figure 4 illustrates the models of simple rules and their applications.
PT
CE
AC

Figure 4: Systems Thinking Models and Their Functions

Community OR approaches need to (and for the most part already do) recognize that the modern
environment in which all organizations and communities operate is characterized by high levels of

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

complexity, rapid change, information inundation, and technological innovation. As trends shift, group
members must adapt. Agents following simple rules can become a complex, learning, adaptive super-
organization. Such an organization allows for on-the-ground adaptation at the point of community
contact, which traditional command and control (i.e., hierarchical) structures do not allow. To
successfully engage and serve community interests, we propose there is a need to shift our mental models
of an organization—irrespective of its formal structure—to one in which a group of systems thinking
individuals follows simple rules to most efficiently and effectively accomplish their organization‘s vision.

T
Understanding this property of all organizations, we can elaborate the simple rules that enable systems

IP
thinking by a group.

CR
3.3 Vision, Mission, Culture/Capacity, Learning (VMCL)
The simple rules that can help groups achieve their goals—vision, mission, culture/capacity, and
learning—are summarized below.

Simple rules Short definitions

US
AN
Vision (V) concise desired future state or goal
Mission (M) simple rules that in repetition lead to vision
Capacity (C) shared mental models and mission-critical systems that support vision
Learning (L) incremental improvement of the culture and mission→vision through
individual training in systems thinking (DSRP)
M

Table 1: VMCL Simple Rules

ED

The VMCL rules can be thought of as operating in pairs. The relationship is as follows: learning leads to
culture/capacity and mission leads to vision (see Figure 5 below).
PT
CE
AC

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 5: VMCL Cycle adapted from Cabrera and Cabrera (2015, p. 194)
M

3.3.1 Mission→Vision
An organization‘s vision is its desired future state or goal, and its mission is the simple rules that, in
repetition, achieve the vision. The purpose of having an organizational vision is to ensure that everyone
ED

knows the future goal the organization is trying to reach. The purpose of a mission is that everyone knows
the simple rules to follow to achieve the vision. This is why we write ―mission→vision‖ to denote the
PT

order of the relationship. Finally, a group‘s vision and mission must work well together.

The mission should be short, simple, and easily understood. It must also be specific and measurable, so
CE

one can easily discern whether (1) the simple steps are being taken or not, and (2) repeatedly doing the
mission achieves the vision. The group‘s vision must also be definitive and measurable, such that its
AC

achievement can be assessed. The vision should depict a binary future state (i.e., it exists or does not) that
leadership sees and can depict for group members. It must be intrinsically motivating for all members of
the organization. Finally, it is important to understand that the meaning of mission→vision is
organizationally defined and highly specific. The words of the vision and mission are not restricted to
dictionary definitions: Missions and visions are shared mental models (group understandings).

3.3.2 Learning→Culture/Capacity

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Culture is constituted by shared mental models. Mental models come to be shared through a process of
learning. A leader creates culture by repeatedly building and sharing mental models among all members
of the group. The learning that leads to culture in an organization needs to be guided by the simple rules
of its mission, and by an adaptive process (see Figure 2) by which information from the environment
alters mental models, which in turn constantly improves the vision, mission, and culture.

Capacity simply refers to the mission-critical systems (e.g., finance, technology, human resources,

T
community organizing) the organization must have in place in order to have the capacity to do its mission

IP
day after day. Organization members must possess a common mental model of these systems which is
often accomplished through sharing visuals (e.g., metamaps) of these systems and how they work

CR
together to provide capability to do the mission. One other important aspect of managing and sharing
mission-critical capacity systems is to distinguish between an unorganized ―bunch of systems‖ and an

US
organized ―system of systems‖ (DeLaurentis & Callaway, 2004).

When analyzing an organization‘s capacity, it is important to assess the integral purpose of various
AN
systems, which should be to increase the organization‘s capability to do its mission. These systems may
be identified from a variety of domains, such as engagement, community organizing, engineering,
marketing, administration, and activation. They may also take the form of functional categories such as
M

systems to "find and retain the best people,‖ or "identify and execute innovative ways to engage
communities," or ―assess stakeholders and feedback.‖ Finally, capacity includes a common systems
ED

thinking language and process (DSRP), which drives organizational thinking and learning.

It is critically important that organizational learning (L) is laser-focused on building additional capacity,
PT

predominantly and initially through culture, but also through building more efficient, integral, and
focused capacity systems within the organization. A cultural system is one of the most important capacity
CE

systems. This includes campaigns (e.g., posters, t-shirts, twitter, classroom design elements) but also
deeper endeavors such as ensuring that everyone in the organization builds the same constructs through
AC

dialogue and constantly revisiting, using, and adapting the mental models of the organization.

3.3.3 Ten Requirements for the Effective Application of VMCL

Developing an organizational vision and mission is challenging, as is organizational learning to align
culture and capacity to the mission→vision. We offer general prescriptions to assist
organizational/community leadership in the process of establishing the right kind of vision, the simple
rules of mission, developing capacity systems, and building a learning organization. There are ten

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

requirements for the effective application of VMCL (see Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015, chapter 11). These
requirements (listed below) guide Community OR practitioners, designers, and leaders in creating a
VMCL. The degree to which the resultant vision, mission, capacity, and learning adhere to these
requirements will determine the effectiveness of their efforts.
1. The mission→vision should be short and simple so that it is easy to understand, rally around, and
remember.
2. Visions should depict a binary (i.e., it exists or does not exist) future state. The definition of

T
leadership is that someone sees a future state (that differs from the present one) and enables

IP
others to see and move toward it.
3. Visions must be intrinsically motivating so as to enthuse and inspire people to contribute time and

CR
effort, and they can do so by tapping into values that matter. Visions give people purpose and
meaning.

US
4. Missions are simple rules that follow a formula: Tell group members to repeatedly do [the
mission] in service of [purpose or client] to bring about [the vision].
5. Repeatedly doing your mission should bring about your vision; they must be coupled in a causal
AN
manner. If following the simple rules steps of the mission does not achieve your vision, one (or
both) must be adjusted.
6. Both the vision and the mission must be measurable. Because you can measure the vision, you
M

can know whether it has been achieved. For the mission, this means that every step can be
measured by some metric or combination of metrics, which enables you to discern whether the
ED

steps are or are not being taken.

7. Mission moments are rare and precious. The mission statement is a shared mental model for the
organization, and a mission moment is an instance of the mission being fulfilled. For example,
PT

organizational interaction with a ―client‖ (which could be a person, place, or thing) presents a
mission moment.
CE

8. Mission→visions are mental models, not just statements. Both the vision and the mission must be
concepts—internalized mental models—shared by everyone in the organization, rather than just
AC

words on a page.
9. Capacity is measured in terms of ability to do the mission. Capacity takes the form of formal and
informal organizational systems. It is essential that these mission-critical systems are integrated
(i.e., they should be a system-of-systems). The production of culture is integral to the building of
systems and is of the utmost importance. Culture is built on shared, core mental models. What
makes an effective organization is a group of people who share the same vision, mission, culture,

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and learning mental models. Leaders need to do the hard work of clearly articulating these mental
models and ensuring that all group members have a shared understanding of each.
10. Learning constantly improves the vision, mission, and capacity/culture; its purpose is to build
capacity/culture to carry out the mission better, faster, and/or cheaper to achieve the vision better,
faster, and/or cheaper. Effective leaders are skilled teachers and facilitators because they know
that any organization‘s success is dependent upon learning, both at the level of the organization
and the individual. We suggest that the primary drivers of organizational learning need to be

T
systems thinkers (e.g., people skilled in the use of DSRP).

IP
3.3.4 The Proper Focus of Leadership

CR
Given that all organizations are CAS, how does one maximize organizational outcomes and achieve the
group‘s vision? The answer lies in realizing where leadership is most able to effect change. Since the

US
outcomes of group/organizational processes are complex and emergent, the skill lies principally in
deciding on, implementing, and enculturating simple rules for the organization.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE

Figure 6: The Proper Focus of Leadership (from Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015, p. 45)
AC

Note in Figure 6 the dotted line. Above it, organizers/leaders have little influence or control because the
collective dynamics of the system are exceedingly complex. Below the dotted line they have greater
influence and control to select and train the agents or tweak the simple rules of the group. In sum, the
critical leverage points for leadership, depending on the organization‘s structure, include:
1. Goal explication (vision);
2. Simple rule explication (mission);

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Agent selection (i.e., recruiting, training, incentivizing talent to be systems thinkers and
driving learning); and
4. Culture and capacity building to support shared learning, mission, and vision among the
group.

In our experience (e.g., as elaborated in the educational context in section 4.1 below), implementing
VMCL in an organization generates many positive effects. First, it creates a universal and unifying shared
mental model of where the group is going and how to get there, which ensures everyone is on the same

T
page. Second, it creates a laser-like focus on what matters most, helping group members directly link their

IP
daily actions to the mission and vision. Third, it introduces an overarching vision that provides
organizational members with intrinsic motivation, since extrinsic incentives can only go so far. Fourth,

CR
VMCL helps differentiate organizational leaders (who focus on vision, culture, and learning) from
managers (who focus on executing the mission). Fifth, the learning part of VMCL moves members
toward adaptation by aligning their mental models of how the world and the organization works with how
they work in reality (refer back to Figure 2).
US
AN
3.4 NFST for Organizational Change
In terms of understanding network behavior when it comes to social change, Xie et al. (2011) used
simulations to explore the network dynamics by which a minority opinion comes to be adopted by the
M

majority of society. They found that when a mere 10% of individuals hold an unshakeable minority belief,
that belief will always be adopted in a society where the majority holds a different view, but are open
ED

minded to other perspectives. The 10% represents a tipping point, after which society rapidly converts to
the new belief, and this occurs across a variety of network structures. Building on these insights, NFST
(naysayers, fence-sitters, supporters, thought leaders) focuses less on achieving immediate group-wide
PT

adoption of change efforts and instead offers a process for building support for a unified mission→vision.
CE

Ideally an organization would implement an effective vision and mission at the outset. More realistically,
however, if the organization or stakeholder alliance has a pre-existing history, the vision and mission will
need to be introduced or developed through a change process. Anything more than superficial
AC

organizational change requires a shift in the culture of the organization and that requires individuals to
change their mental models.

The mission→vision (MV) graph shown in Figure 7 is a culture-building model that categorizes those
already on board with organizational change (supporters and thought leaders) and those decidedly less so
(fence-sitters and naysayers). A change of mission and vision requires a culture shift, and the MV graph

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

helps leaders know where and how to focus their efforts. This is especially important in groups where the
leadership lacks the desire or authority to dismiss or marginalize those opposed to change. The goal is to
move people from the left to the right side of the graph to create a critical mass of support. Thought
leaders typically require just camaraderie and appreciation to continue their work in support of the
mission and vision. More incentives and efforts should be focused on supporters (those who buy into the
mission but are not thought leaders) to effect organizational change.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M

Figure 7: Mission→Vision (MV) Graph (from Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015, p. 200)
ED

A tactical error is often made in trying to buy the loyalty of fence-sitters: such rewards only incentivize
fence-sitting. Instead, motivate fence-sitters to join supporters by showing them what we call ―party
PT

photos,‖ or communications that show them the benefits of being a supporter (e.g., camaraderie, getting
rewards, having fun, loving what one does).
CE

Effective leadership also eschews control battles with naysayers (i.e., does not focus efforts on trying to
AC

convert them). Naysayers can be a heterogeneous group, and new leaders or groups of reformers will
inevitably face them. The first step is to learn about their grievances, as they may have very legitimate
complaints. In some instances, you can move naysayers to thought leaders by addressing their legitimate
grievances and/or by encouraging their participation in developing the vision and mission. The value of
meaningful participation to Community OR (Midgley et al., 2018), and indeed OR practice more
generally (e.g., Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001), cannot be overemphasized. Other times leaders may simply
be faced with staunch opposition to change, despite efforts to be participatory. In such instances, they

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

should focus on redirecting naysayers‘ energy so they do not set the agenda with their opposition. Having
earnestly entertained their grievances, leadership must refocus its efforts on other group members.

Do not discuss culture, learning, or mission with naysayers; focus only on the vision. The reason for this
is that the vision is often less controversial than the tactical and strategic systems and considerations
entailed in mission, culture, and learning. For example, if the vision is ―Save Lake Wakaneesha,‖ one
might ask a naysayser, ―Are you against us saving the lake?‖ If the answer is no, then we may be able to

T
move the naysayer out of the naysayer camp (i.e., we found something to agree on, the vision). If the

IP
answer is yes, then it becomes clear that the naysayer is either: (1) not a good fit for working with the
group/organization, (2) has some relevant and important position that should be considered, and/or (3) is

CR
simply not going to agree with the vision even after dialogue (either because it is inimical to his/her
narrowly conceived interests, because of a belief that is strongly entrenched, or because of significant

US
differences in values). Of course, the naysayer may disagree with what the term ―save‖ means (or other
important constructs), and those are all places where active listening to feedback (even negative feedback)
is essential.
AN

The goal is to build shared mental models (i.e., culture), so if the meaning of the construct ―save‖ is
changed from, for example, a conservation-based construct to a sustainability-based construct, then this is
M

the important work of building meaning and culture. At the same time, if the community has thoughtfully
established a sustainability-based construct of ―Save Lake Wakaneesha‖ and an adequate amount of time
ED

is spent in dialogue, then it may simply be that the naysayer disagrees with fundamental distinctions, and
there is no desire to change on either side. This explicit disagreement should be noted, and work should
continue. Once agreement is established on vision, discussion can move to mission (how to achieve the
PT

vision). If agreement is achieved there, discussion can proceed to culture/capacity and eventually
learning. Effective leadership moves incrementally toward building shared mental models that move
CE

group members to the right of the MV graph (Figure 7).

AC

4. COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS OF VMCL AND NFST

4.1 Implementing Systems Models of Change in School Districts

VMCL has been implemented in school districts and organizations of all kinds nationwide. While we
primarily reference one particular district, we incorporate other instances and address the experiences
different communities have had with this model.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A US community featuring a mid-sized school district (which, to preserve its anonymity, we will call
―Falls City School District‖ or FCSD) set out to accomplish an admittedly audacious goal: to change the
face of public education by moving beyond ―teaching to the test.‖ A new superintendent was hired for
that purpose, and she began working with Cabrera Research Lab (CRL) on how exactly the community
might accomplish its goals. The superintendent was interested in adopting a systems thinking approach to
the task by incorporating multiple theoretical models that would help her transform everything from the
design of classrooms, the organization (district) itself, teaching and learning practices, how content

T
curriculum was viewed and handled, assessment and evaluation, and school culture. The size of the goal

IP
required participation across several scales within the school district, and those involved included
students, classroom teachers, special topic teachers, professional development and curriculum design

CR
staff, as well as all those who directly worked with the superintendent and school board.

US
Given the scope of the task and the diverse players and constituencies involved, the superintendent
embraced the idea of implementing VMCL and held numerous community meetings to secure buy-in.
This process always begins with setting forth a new vision for the organization. School districts are often
AN
drawn to the mission→vision of the lead author‘s own organization, CRL, which is to Engage, Educate,
and Empower 7 Billion Systems Thinkers; many schools over the years have asked and received
permission to adopt a modified version of this mission→vision statement. FCSD similarly passed a Board
M

of Education resolution approving the adoption of a modified mission→vision to ―Engage, Educate, and
Empower 8000+ Thinkers‖ (see FCSD‘s VMCL in Appendix A).
ED

The superintendent of FCSD then worked to build shared community mental models to transform Falls
City School District. The district began by examining their targeted measures of ―success,‖ such as
PT

standardized test scores, attendance, graduation rates, and SAT scores. These measures were referred to as
―Do Goals.‖ They also recognized equally important ―Be Goals‖ for the organization that highlighted the
CE

importance of developing students‘ emotional intelligence and prosocial skills through metacognition
(Cabrera, Cabrera, & Powers, 2015). Be Goals included proceeding from love, forgiveness, and trust.
They were the antithesis of the ―us vs. them‖ culture that often permeates school settings at many scales
AC

(student vs. student, staff vs. administration, student vs. teacher, etc.), and the superintendent wanted them
to become foundational to FCSD‘s culture. Work on both types of goals was important, and the process
was based on the idea that organizational learning about both would need to be based on analyzing the
feedback between how the leadership thought things were in relation to how they actually ―manifested‖ in
reality. This type of organizational learning was a critical part of the district‘s process, as its goals were
subject to evolution based on interaction (through feedback) with an ever-changing environment. A

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

critical, systems-based analysis of FCSD led to the identification of strengths and weaknesses that the
district needed to address to help reach their stated mission→vision.

FCSD saw marked improvements after adopting its new mission→vision in 2012. The graduation rate
climbed from 78% to 90%, and students performed above state and national averages on standardized
tests. The district increased grade-level math and reading skills, and narrowed the achievement gap for
minority and special education students. More interestingly though, in terms of the goal of FCSD to

T
transcend a sole focus on teaching to the test, the qualitative effects on students and teachers in districts

IP
that implemented VMCL were even more pronounced, with reported increases in prosocial behavior,
decreases in bullying, and increased transfer of learning across subjects.

CR
It is important to emphasize that the words of the CRL mission, including as adopted by numerous school

US
districts, have very specific meanings. The first part of the mission, Engage, means to get students
thinking. We know that students build knowledge by thinking about information, which is also the root
action of true engagement. The presence of strategic compliance, rebellion, and/or retreatism is an
AN
important feedback mechanism, because it indicates that the school or classroom culture is
disincentivizing authentic engagement.
M

The second part of the mission, Educate, is to cause learning (acquisition of or a change in knowledge).
Again, knowledge is acquired when students structure information by thinking about it. While students
ED

can acquire information, knowledge must be built through the process of thinking. In keeping with the
VMCL tenet that the mission is a shared mental construct, the ―map, activate, check‖ or MAC
(thinkwater.us, 2017a) model and corresponding methods to activate learning (see infographic,
PT

thinkwater.us, 2017b) underlie the organization‘s understanding of ―Educate‖ are used ubiquitously
throughout the district. Empower, the third part of the mission, means to transfer, over time, the role of
CE

teacher to the student. Once students acquire the capacity to embody the teacher role, they become
masters of their own lifelong learning.
AC

An important part of implementing VMCL in Falls City was deliberate alignment of culture, capacity, and
learning. Key facets of this effort involved planning the use of technology in the classroom, brain-based
classroom design, and implementing the MAC-AC model as primary to their existing Teaching and
learning Framework. Posters, t-shirts, wall murals, and twitter were all used as ways to culturally promote
the FCSD mission→vision. Capacity systems included classroom technology, classroom design, teaching
curricular content (such as common core though MAC), and adapting and improving the curriculum
through feedback from the environment. Community members started meetings by spending a few

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

minutes reinforcing the mission→vision, ensuring that members were incrementally increasing their deep
understanding of its underlying constructs. In addition, capacity systems visuals (metamaps) were shared
electronically throughout the organization using cloud-based software. These maps were edited and
adapted as a result of community conversations and dialogue, illustrating their evolving nature and the
practice of incorporating new learning, data, and feedback into FCSD‘s mental models.

The NFST change theory was developed through the experience of applying VMCL to FCSD. This began

T
with a district-wide training of 400 teachers in DSRP, the building blocks of cognition and simple rules

IP
underlying systems thinking (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2015), and associated teaching methods (Cabrera &
Colosi, 2011; Cabrera Research Lab, 2015). One year in, after the initial training sessions, the

CR
superintendent was concerned that there was not complete adoption by district teachers. There were,
however, a committed and sizable minority of 70 teachers participating in ongoing training and

US
implementing methods in their teaching practices. A critical point is that, of the remaining 330 teachers,
there was neither a majority nor an equal-sized minority that was committed to any other agenda or ideas.
Using an understanding of how ideas, norms, culture, and practices are transmitted through network
AN
dynamics, FCSD adopted the NFST theory to leverage that minority. Each group, with the exception of
naysayers, needed to be systematically addressed in a way that moved them toward supporting the
mission→vision.
M

This is in direct contrast to the thinking of most district superintendents (and indeed most training
ED

professionals and change agents). Leaders often believe that to create a change effort, they need to get
―everyone‖ on board because the change won‘t succeed without full adoption across the organization. In
contrast, NFST suggests something different: Trying to get everyone on board will actually thwart your
PT

change effort. Instead, leaders should work with those who are willing from the onset and ―differentially
incentivize‖ various subgroups in the change effort to move from their subgroups to a more ideal
CE

subgroup (from N toward T on the continuum). In school districts and other organizations, this translates
to some very different practical implementation decisions and strategies such as: (1) do not train
AC

everyone, (2) work with individuals where they are and move them through differential incentives, forms
of training, and dialogue; and most of all, (3) recognize and leverage the immense communicative power
and network dynamics of the committed minority.

NFST advises groups/communities to consider the power of committed minorities from the beginning of
any change efforts, and explicitly manage the change process in small increments, sometimes one person
at a time. So while FCSD originally intended to implement compulsory training in the mission→vision,

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the NFST framework refocused superintendents, boards, and community leaders towards capitalizing on
social network dynamics and recognizing that universal training was unlikely to beget universal
implementation.

In terms of applying VMCL in school districts specifically, the vision keeps the district personnel (at all
levels) intensely focused on what matters most—creating thinkers (rather than passive consumers of
information). In our experience, the most successful district leaders enculturate the mission→vision

T
throughout organizational efforts so that everything that goes on in that district is mission→vision

IP
focused and aligned, especially including culture and learning.

CR
An illustration of the importance of culture comes from FCSD‘s four initiatives that they aligned with
their mission→vision to Engage, Educate, and Empower 8000+ Thinkers.

1. ―Metrics that Matter‖ was the first cultural initiative (i.e., a mental model that needed to be built

US
and shared). Real school change entailed recognizing that tests and grades are the ―low bar‖ of
assessment and that deep understanding, transfer, metacognition, and whole-person development
AN
constitute the high bar. The focus came to be on metrics that were based entirely on measuring
the vision and mission to show authentic engagement (e.g., attendance, voluntary enrollment, and
new scales to differentiate authentic engagement from subtle or not-so-subtle forms of
M

disengagement); education that involves thinking (e.g., deep understanding, thinking analytics,
differentiating between information retention and deeper learning); and empowerment (e.g.,
ED

graduation rates, self-efficacy, agency, and classroom interactions longitudinally).

2. The Professional learning Network (PLN) was the second culture-building initiative to create a
community for district leadership, staff, teachers, parents, residents, and students to learn more
PT

about the district‘s vision, mission, and cultural initiatives. This voluntary and self-organizing
professional learning community enabled its members to learn and share best practices, methods,
CE

techniques, and technologies.

3. Curriculum design (e.g., creating learning modules and daily lessons), the third culture initiative,
also reflected deep commitment to the district‘s mission→vision in each student-teacher
AC

interaction. FCSD did the hard work to redesign the curriculum and learning experiences that
transform students into well-rounded, thinking citizens—beginning with what they teach and how
they teach it.
4. The fourth and final initiative was an internal culture campaign organized to make thinking the
topic of discussion across the district—including among students, teachers, and the community.
Not unlike the "Reading is FUNdamental" campaign, successful districts launched a ―Think!‖

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

campaign to remind everyone that thinking is fundamental to students developing both a deep
understanding of subjects and themselves.
VMCL tells us that culture is the most powerful leverage for change available to any organization. This
stands in contrast to many leadership training programs that prioritize top-down strategic planning.
Culture is built from the ground up, and while it takes time to build, it is enduring. Building culture is
simply the building of shared mental models. Primary among these shared models is the organizational
vision and mission. Successful leaders understand that vision and mission are not just statements on a

T
website, but are enculturated in the hearts and minds of everyone in the district and the community.

IP
While widely applied across school districts, VMCL and NSFT have much broader application, in line
with the focus of Community OR.

CR
4.2 Implementing Systems Models of Change in a Natural Resource Movement
Now moving beyond the educational context, we can give another example from Community OR applied

US
to natural resource management. The Wisconsin Water Thinkers Network (WWTN) is a new initiative led
by ThinkWater, a USDA-funded national movement of educators, students, managers, stewards,
AN
scientists, and citizens who think and care deeply about water and believe that systems thinking is key to
a more secure water future. The WWTN was formed to create space for dialogue about effective water
education, research, and outreach. VMCL and NFST are foundational strategies being used in the
M

development of the WWTN.

The WWTN held its initial in-person gathering to kick off the network with approximately 55 people
ED

from across the state. In addition to building relationships, the purpose of the gathering was to begin
identifying the vision, mission, and culture of shared principles of the network and to establish the
PT

importance of incremental, evolutionary learning based on feedback. In small teams, participants used
systems thinking (specifically DSRP, as outlined earlier in this paper) to think through these questions:
●
CE

(Vision) What would we like to see exist in water education, outreach, and research in Wisconsin
that doesn‘t exist today? This question is a good way to isolate the organization's vision, because
it contrasts what can be seen today (undesired) versus what may be seen tomorrow that needs to
AC

be brought into existence (i.e., that which is visionary and desireable).

● (Mission) What can the WWTN do, repeatedly, to bring about the Vision? This question
addresses mission because it asks stakeholders to think about the repeatable steps (simple rules)
that must occur to achieve the vision.
● (Culture Systems) What are our core cultural values as citizens, water educators, researchers, and
business leaders? And how can we conceptualize, capture, communicate, and co-evolve them?

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

● (Capacity Systems) What are the systems that we need in place in order to have the capability to
execute our mission? This question helps identify the mission-critical systems that need to be
built in order to be able to perform the mission and therefore bring about the vision.
● (Learning) How will we ensure that systems thinking is used to continually evolve our thinking
on these cultural and mission-critical systems and our mission and vision?

Following the kickoff, a leadership team was formed to take the initial ideas and develop them into the

T
VMCL of the network and to begin implementation. The group has been meeting remotely via

IP
conference calls to refine the vision and mission. Utilizing the requirements for VMCL, the team
developed drafts of the vision and mission. The draft mission was ―Create, connect, and share water

CR
community engagement strategies and resources,‖ and the draft vision was: ―A state of engaged water
thinkers.‖ As an example of building shared meaning of and enculturating mental models, ―community

US
engagement‖ was chosen as the language in the mission to capture the leadership team‘s interest in
strategies and resources that result in knowledge, skills, and civic engagement. There was semantic
disagreement among the leadership team as to whether the term should be "education and outreach‖ or
AN
―community engagement,‖ but the team reached conceptual agreement by using DSRP to deconstruct the
different meanings of these terms and then construct a shared meaning. It was explicitly recognized that
community engagement must involve feedback to test and (if necessary) further evolve the vision and
M

mission.
ED

The WWTN leadership team has been very intentional about its mission statement, recognizing that it will
guide the daily/weekly actions of each member of the Network. The group has been enculturating shared
mental models as part of this process. To avoid ambiguity, overlap, and gaps in the distinctions that the
PT

WWTN team made, metamaps were used (see Appendix B). The vision was broken down into parts that
combined into a whole (systems and distinctions in DSRP). ―Engaged water thinkers‖ as an outcome was
CE

defined as containing the related sub-outcomes of knowledge, skills and civic engagement. The
relationship between the vision (outcome) and mission (treatment) was identified. The mission was
similarly more fully described by breaking it into parts. ―Create, connect and share‖—as the core of the
AC

mission—was described in ways allowed the mission to be evaluated. The mission in the metamap
captures the disagreement noted above about the community engagement (CE) vs. education and outreach
(EO) language, and this helps to clarify the ―treatment‖ of CE/OE. Importantly, following the VMCL
requirements, each of the parts of the mission were made measurable (see the map).

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The relationship between the WWTN‘s mission and capacity systems was also described. Then, the
capacity systems of the WWTN were identified as needing to be fleshed out later, including a cultural
mental model of the Four Agreements (Ruiz, 1997). These agreements (be impeccable with your word,
don‘t take anything personally, don‘t make assumptions, and always do your best) are sometimes adopted
by organizations, particularly in the not-for-profit sector.

Finally, after describing the relationships between capacity systems and learning, the WWTN learning

T
strategies were identified. The WWTN VMCL is subject to continued discussion among the leadership

IP
team and receives feedback from WWTN members. The current metamap of the WWTN VMCL (see
Appendix B) serves as a ―living document‖ that represents the organization‘s and its members‘ most

CR
current mental model. As that model encounters reality, it is adapted and co-evolved via learning.

US
The WWTN‘s work was also informed by the NFST change model, and was developed with the goal of
cultivating a committed minority to effect change. To build a committed minority to change the paradigm
of water education, outreach, and research in Wisconsin, ThinkWater wanted a strategy in which
AN
supporters and thought leaders could develop a shared mission→vision and cultural mental models.
ThinkWater believed that creating a space for critical dialogue about effective water education and
outreach could accomplish this.
M

To build the committed minority, the WWTN kickoff identified and brought together a group of
ED

supporters (and also identified other supporters who could not attend, but wanted to be involved) and
engaged them in forming the network. The leadership team that was created has helped to develop the
group of thought leaders. The group was intentionally selected based on self-identified interest,
PT

representation of diverse programs and institutions within the water education and outreach field,
willingness to think differently about water education and outreach, and intrinsic motivation to solve the
CE

problems WWTN was chartered to solve. Leadership group members were solicited and selected by
article coauthor and Wisconsin ThinkWater Coordinator Jeremy Solin, who is also facilitating the work of
AC

the group. This leadership group then defined the VMCL foundations for the organization, and worked
on developing activities that will continue building the group of supporters. Incentives for the leadership
team (i.e., thought leaders) were their own professional development and leadership opportunities in the
state. This group was already passionate about water education and stewardship. Incentives for the
supporters included being part of a larger effort in the state, and learning and sharing with colleagues. As
the organization grows, it will develop more robust incentive strategies; most importantly, these
incentives will target supporters rather than fence-sitters. Regarding fence-sitters, there will be continuous

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

easy entry points to engage with the network via remote professional development (e.g., webinars) and
dialogue (e.g., Facebook group discussions). The leadership believes that fence-sitters will need to see
examples (i.e., ―party photos‖) of how systems thinking-based innovations in water education and
outreach have influenced other programs or related activities to shift them toward support (i.e., the right
side of the MV graph). One way to distinguish incentives from party photos is to think of party photos as
examples, explanations, literal photographs, stories, and other communications of all kinds that ―capture‖
a supporter being incentivized. In other words, the NFST model attempts to ensure that fence-sitters say,

T
―wow, it looks like they are having fun over there, I want to join in!‖

IP
The WWTN is very much a developing organization in the midst of applying the systems models of

CR
VMCL and NFST. The programmatic outcomes are yet to be seen, but the outcomes of the VMCL
development process have thus far been quite positive. The WWTN expects these systems strategies to be

US
the foundation for innovative and effective efforts to change the paradigm of water education and
outreach in Wisconsin and beyond.
AN
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we have explicated why systems thinking that is predicated upon understanding complexity
and simple rules could be very useful to the practice of Community OR. Despite the popularity of linear,
M

hierarchical, and sometimes overly simplistic design and change models in organizational practice, the
subject matter of operational research in general is mostly of a complex and nonlinear nature, with
ED

problems that can be handled through linear thinking being in a minority (Checkland, 1985). As Jackson
(1987, 1988) indicates, this is even more true of the issues and contexts faced by Community OR
practitioners, who often have to address layers of complexity, low levels of hierarchical control,
PT

complicated political dynamics, the involvement of numerous network actors and organizations, and
diversity along many dimensions (including perspectival diversity). To deal with such contexts and
CE

issues, models and methods (such as VMCL and NFST) that are premised on understanding complex
adaptive systems (CAS) are particularly appropriate.
AC

At the outset, seeing the subject matter of Community OR as the generation and development of CAS that
are strongly community engaged leads to new methods for understanding and designing interventions and
supporting improvement in communities. VMCL and NFST are evolving models that enable systems
thinking through the design of adaptive, learning organizations, and they may aid practitioners working
for the collective good. Indeed, VMCL and NFST are representative of a new class of CAS-informed
theoretical models that can be used in Community OR activities. We are at the beginning, not the end, of

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

establishing and evolving these models. They are a good first step. However, more quasi-experimental,
experimental, controlled, randomized, and meta-analytical designs are also required. This article may
provide a corner piece or two of the complex Community OR puzzle, which will need a great deal more
work before the whole picture is revealed.

T
IP
CR
Acknowledgments—This article was written through ThinkWater, which is funded by the National

US
Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2015-68007-
23213. The funders were not involved in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of
data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References
Ackoff, R. L. (1970). A black ghetto‘s research on a university. Operations Research, 18, 761–771.

Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future. Chichester: Wiley.

Ackoff, R. L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. J. (2006). Idealized design: Creating an organization’s
future. Upper Saddle River NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

T
Bajgier, S. M., Maragah, H. D., Saccucci, M. S., Verzilli, A., & Prybutok, V. A. (1991). Introducing

IP
students to community operations research by using a city neighborhood as a living laboratory.
Operations Research 39(5), 701–709.

CR
Bertalanffy, L von. (1956). General system theory. General Systems, 1, 1-10.

Bertalanffy, L von. (1968). General systems theory. London: Penguin.

US
Bunge, M. (1977). General systems and holism. General Systems, 22, 87-90.

Cabrera, D. (2006). Systems Thinking. (Doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2860/1/DerekCabreraDissertation.pdf
AN
[8 July 2015]

Cabrera, D. (2002a). Patterns of Knowledge. Masters Thesis. Regis University.

M

Cabrera, D. (2002b). Patterns of knowledge: Knowledge as a complex, evolutionary system, and

educational imperative. In R. Miller (Ed.), Creating learning Communities (online ed.). Solomon Press.

Cabrera, D. (2001). Remedial genius: Thinking and learning using the patterns of knowledge. Project N
ED

Press.

Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2015). Systems thinking made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems
in a complex world. Ithaca, N.Y.: Odyssean Press.
PT

Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Powers, E. (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial
applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(5), 534-545. DOI: 10.1002/sres.2351
CE

Cabrera, D., & Colosi, L. (2008). Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): A theory
of thinking and of things. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(3), 311-317.
AC

Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., & Lobdell, C. (2008). Systems thinking. Journal of Evaluation and Program
Planning, 31(3), 299-310.

Cabrera Research Lab (2016). www.metamap.me [accessed on 6 October 2017].

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley: Chichester.

Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 757–767.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.

Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Dell.

Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations research as a profession. Management Science, 17: B37-53.

Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.

Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., James, R., Ruxton, G. D., & Franks, N. R. (2002). Collective memory and
spatial sorting in animal groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218(1), 1-11. doi:10.1006/yjtbi.3065.

T
DeLaurentis, D., & Callaway, R. K. (2004). A system-of-systems perspective for public policy decisions.

IP
Review of Policy Research, 21(6), 829-837.

CR
Forrester, J. W. (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Theory and Decision, 2, 109-140.

François, C. (2004). Distinction; distinction (primary); distinctions (cinematics of). In C. François (Ed.),
International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics (2nd ed., Vol. 1): 176-177. München, Germany:
K.G. Saur.
US
Friend, J. (2004). Perspectives of engagement in community operational research. In: Midgley G and
Ochoa-Arias AE (Eds.), Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community
AN
development. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Fuenmayor, R. L. (1991). The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems

approach. Systems Practice, 4, 419-448.
M

Gell-Mann, M. (1994). Complex adaptive systems. In G. Cowan, D. Pines, & D. Meltzer (Eds.),
Complexity: metaphors, models, and reality (pp. 17-29). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ED

Gell-Mann, M. (1995). Let's call it plectics. Complexity, 1(5).

Gell-Mann, M. (1995). The quark and the jaguar. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
PT

Glanville, R. (1990). The self and the other: The purpose of distinction. In Cybernetics and Systems ‘90
Proceedings of the European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Trappl R. (Ed). Singapore:
World Scientific.
CE

Goguen, J. A., & Varela, F. J. (1979). Systems and distinctions - Duality and complementarity.
International Journal of General Systems, 5, 31–43.
AC

Goldstein, J. (2011). Emergence in complex systems. In: Allen, P., Maguire, S. and McKelvey, B. (eds.)
The SAGE handbook of complexity and management. Los Angeles: Sage.

Hall, A. D., & Fagen, R. E. (1956). Definition of system. General Systems, 1, 18-28.

Hoffman, W. C. (1998). The topology of wholes, parts and their perception-cognition. Psycoloquy, 9
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.03 [7 July 2015]

Jackson, M. C. (1987). Community operational research: Purposes, theory and practice. Dragon, 2(2),
47–73.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jackson, M. C. (1988). Some methodologies for community operational research. The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 39(8), 715-724.

Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 35, 473-486.

Johnson, M. P. (2012a). Community-based operations research: Introduction, theory, and applications. In

M. P. Johnson (Ed.), Community-based operations research: Decision modeling for local impact and
diverse populations (pp. 3-36). New York: Springer.

T
Johnson, M. P. (Ed.). (2012b). Community-based operations research: Decision modeling for local

IP
impact and diverse populations. New York: Springer.

CR
Johnson, M. P., & Smilowitz, K. (2012). Community-based operations research. In OR tools and
applications: Glimpses of future technologies, 167, 102–123.

Kaplan, E. H. (2008). Adventures in policy modeling! Operations research in the community and beyond.
Omega, 36(1), 1-9.
US
Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy thinking: The new science of fuzzy logic. New York: Hyperion.
AN
Lane, D. C., Munro, E., & Husemann, E. (2016). Blending systems thinking approaches for
organisational analysis: Reviewing child protection in England. European Journal of Operational
Research. 251, 613-623.
M

Latimer, C. (1999). Intrinsic representations: Simultaneity of local and global processing? Reply to Opie
on Part-Whole-Perception. Psycoloquy, 10. http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.041 [7
July 2015].
ED

Latimer, C., & Stevens, C. (1997). Some remarks on wholes, parts and their perception. Psycoloquy, 8.
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?8.13 [7 July 2015].

Latimer, C., & Stevens, C. (1998). Wholes and parts: Topology, mereology and mechanism: Replies to
PT

Hoffman, Mortensen and Rakover on part-whole-perception. Psycoloquy, 9.

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.31 [7 July 2015].
CE

Marchal, J. H. (1975). On the concept of a system. Philosophy of Science, 42, 448-468.

Marwell, G. & Oliver, P. (2007). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theory. Cambridge
University Press.
AC

Marwell, G., Oliver, P., & Prahl, R. (1988). Social networks and collective action: A theory of the critical
mass. III American Journal of Sociology, 94(3), 502-34.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York: Wiley.

Merali, Y. (2006). Complexity and information systems: The emergent domain. Journal of Information
Technology, 21, 216-228.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York, NY:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Midgley, G., Johnson, M. P., & Chichirau, G. (2018). What is community operational research?
European Journal of Operational Research, doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.014

Midgley, G., Kadiri, Y., & Vahl, M. (1996). Managing stories about quality. International Journal of
Technology Management, 11, 140-150.

T
Midgley, G., Munlo, I., & Brown, M. (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing
house services for older people. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 467-478.

IP
Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (2001). Unfolding a theory of systemic intervention. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 14, 615-650.

CR
Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (2004a). Introduction to community operational research. In G.
Midgley & A. E. Ochoa-Arias. (Eds), Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for
community development, Kluwer: New York.

US
Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (Eds.). (2004b). Community operational research: OR and systems
thinking for community development. New York: Kluwer.
AN
Okubo, A. (1986). Dynamical aspects of animal grouping: Swarms, schools, flocks, and herds. Advances
in Biophysics, 22(C), 1-94.

Opie, J. (1999). Gestalt theories of cognitive representation & processing. Psycoloquy, 10

M

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.021 [7 July 2015].

Peterson, M. A., & Skow-Grant, E. (2003). Memory and learning in figure-ground perception.
ED

Psychology of learning And Motivation: Advances In Research And Theory: Cognitive Vision, 42, 1–35.

Rakover, S. S. (1998). Can mechanistic explanatory concepts be applied to part-whole? Psycoloquy, 9.

http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.02 [8 July 2015].
PT

Reynolds, M. (2008). Response to paper ―Systems Thinking‖ by D. Cabrera et al.: Systems thinking from
a critical systems perspective. Journal of Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(3), 323–325.
CE

Ritchie, C., Taket, A., & Bryant, J. (Eds.). (1994). Community works: 26 case studies showing community
operational research in action. Sheffield: Pavic Press.
AC

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. W. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4,
155-169.

Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Rosenhead, J. (1993). Enabling analysis: Across the developmental divide. Systems Practice, 6(2), 117–
138.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem
structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2nd edition). Chichester: Wiley.

Ruiz, M. (1997). The four agreements: A practical guide to personal freedom. San Rafael, CA: Amber-
Allen Publishing.

Taket, A., & White, L. (1994). Doing community operational research with multicultural groups. Omega,
22(6), 579–588.

T
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Bern,
Switzerland: Paul Haupt.

IP
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

CR
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Scientific American, 179, 14-19.

www.thinkwater.us. (2017a). MAC: Three Steps to Designing Better Learning Experiences. [online]

[Accessed 18 Oct. 2017]. US

Available at: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/329040_9b75b46d504a443e867ec4a2bc8e789e.pdf

www.thinkwater.us. (2017b). The Purpose of an Activity is to Activate a Concept. [online] Available at:
AN
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/329040_c0cfd04b93fb46c098a8c282859da84b.pdf [Accessed 18 Oct.
2017].

www.thinkwater.us. (2017c). VMCL: Build an Adaptive Organization. [online] Available at:

M

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/329040_fa034ebacd1945b487bb700cfffe8807.pdf [Accessed 18 Oct.

2017].
ED

Xie, J., Sreenivasn, S., Korniss, G., Zhang, W., Lim, C., & Szymanski, B. (2011). Social consensus
through the influence of committed minorities. Physical Review E, 84(1). DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevE.84.011130
PT

Young, J. (2005). On insiders (emic) and outsiders (etic): Views of self, and othering. Systemic Practice
and Action Research, 18, 151-162.
CE
AC

37