Complexity and Systems: Concept 2 - Feedback processes both inhibit and promote change within systems

The Concept: Feedback can be understood as the influence or message that conveys information about the outcome of a process back to its source (Capra 1996). At its most basic feedback can, on the one hand, be positive/amplifying which causes pressure for escalating change or deviation in the system. On the other hand, feedback can be negative/dampening which resists change in the system.

Although feedback plays out very differently in simple and complex systems, the basic principles of feedback is similar. The difference is that in simple systems, feedback is understood to be linear, predictable and consistent. In complex systems, feedback "is about the consequences of non linear, random changes over time" (Byrone 1998 cites in Ramaligam 2008).

Munro in her Review of Child Protection uses this concept to explain how a system learns and how it is monitored. In her first report she introduced the concepts of single and double loop learning which distinguishes atomistic (isolated) from holistic (reflective) approaches to understanding child protection work.

Her diagram of single loop learning illustrates how a system is regulated for compliance to performance targets in child protection. Although in linear terms compliance to these targets is desirable, inevitably these targets and the approach used ripples through the system producing effects that were not intended.

"Ripple effects such as this are not ‘side effects’, in that they are no less ‘effects’ than those originally intended. What they are is effects that the changes were not meant to produce but which do result from the complex connections in the system. They are unintended consequences" (Munro 2010).

Munro then goes on to produce a series of complicated diagrams of feedback loops which illustrates organisational addiction to prescription. Perceived failures in linear approaches are hidden and critical reflective learning (and the need for variety in approaches) does not take place.

Complexity & Systems: Concept 1 - Interconnected and interdependent elements and dimensions

The Concept: A complex system is easily understood as one made up of multiple elements (which may be elements or processes) which are connected to and interdependent on each other and their environment (Nicolis and Prigogine, 1989). Complex systems are also characterised by multiple variables, or dimensions, which are interconnected and interdependent. Complex systems frequently have multiple levels of organisation. The degree of connectivity between these elements, dimensions and levels has a profound influence on how change happens within the broader system. (Ramaligam 2008).

The idea that complex systems comprise of interdependent and interconnected elements and processes is very familiar. The dimensions of the child, parents and their environment has become a well known and standardised framework in the UK for social workers assessing children in need of services and protection.

However, what seems to be further developed in complexity theory is the nature of connection networks between elements, which can vary in different parts of the system and over time. The degrees of interconnection (whether systems are tightly or loosely coupled) is crucial in understanding how the system behaves and how change occurs.

A tightly coupled system is seen as comprising a high degree of interconnection within the system with increased opportunities for the exchange of information and the options of rapid change within the system. However, this is not always an advantage as the more connections there are the more unstable the system will be. This is when relatively trivial changes in one element or dimension can spread rapidly and unpredictably through the system and have dramatic and unpredictable effects.

Those systems where elements are not tightly linked or interdependent with many other components are called loosely coupled systems. In these systems, elements influence each other over longer timeframes, and in more diffuse and subtle ways. It is also considered that although in loosely coupled systems, for example, may contain certain problems because of their lack of connectivity, they also do have benefits in supporting more independency, stability and resilience.

Contribution to Munro's Review

Although the Munro Review had sought quite limited and specific questions from practitioners, I decided to contribute the following thoughts:

How can we create a system for learning from practice which counteracts blame and allows for critical professional reflection? How can the government most effectively support this?

Learning from ordinary practice.

· Serious case reviews can be seen to be limited in their learning experiences as they focus on cases where things go wrong, and mostly, horribly wrong. It doesn’t seem possible in those cases to consider how learning can be conducted without blame. Of course there are cases where things work well and clearly there is more motivation and desire to learn from best practice than from serious case reviews.

· However, very few cases either go horribly wrong or fantastically well. Most cases appear to be rather messy with a combination of good, average and even poor practice elements evident. In my view, there are considerable amount of learning experiences that can and need to happen within the majority of the cases, those which are most familiar and most common to practitioners. Learning from practice is more likely to occur if professional weaknesses and strengths are acknowledged and understood as being part and parcel of ordinary practice rather than associated with the exceptional or extraordinary, the worst or best practice examples on either side of the spectrum.

· Although there are concerted efforts to improve learning from serious case reviews and even from best practice examples there are currently limited opportunities to learn from the majority, run of the mill cases. For example, the way the system is structured into specialist teams on the one hand can assist in accessing specialist expertise and services but on the other hand, it fragments practice and makes it difficult to encourage learning and see the bigger picture. Overall casework outcomes are often not evident to those involved as families and children pass through various workers, teams and services. Although clients do contribute to reviews of child protection or care plans their focus is on reviewing specific safeguarding plans or statutory care responsibilities at the time of review. Sometimes client feedback is sought for inspection or advertising purposes but rarely is feedback sought with the purpose of learning and development and letting those practitioners who were involved be part of this learning experience. Therefore learning from practice is very difficult if social workers are frankly not aware of the outcomes and impacts of what social work is done and the way it is done in cases they were involved with.

Critically applying research and theory development to practice

· Learning from practice also raises the need for undertaking more and better research and developing theory. However, outside of academic studies, exploring applicability of theory to social work practice is not usually encouraged. Theory is seen as too esoteric and abstract to inform and develop practice and too divorced from the real world. The problem is not only that thinking about theory is discouraged but also that there are limited intellectual and theoretical social work frameworks available for practitioners.

· In addition, undertaking basic research in social work is not included in current social work qualifications. Research and theory testing or development is therefore viewed by most frontline practitioners and managers as something relevant only in the world of academia with little relevance to practice as it is happening on the ground. Not surprisingly, what little social work research is conducted and theory tested and developed has no or little impact for most qualified practitioners as many do not have the skills to engage in theoretical and research reflection beyond the superficial.

· I anticipate the College of Social Work will promote research and theory development in practice that is professionally led rather than politically led. However, I believe that conducting a research project as part of the basic degree for social work (as it is the case in South African qualifications in social work for example) will promote a bottom up interest and input for better quality, more ground-based learning and research and more deeper understanding of research that is conducted.

Promoting independent professional supervision

· Critical reflection and learning from practice involves not only developing better intellectual skills and abilities but also a critical awareness of emotions and values. Social workers in child protection are confronted with some of the darkest, most difficult, value ridden and emotionally charged human situations any profession has to deal with. These situations can challenge fundamental values and evoke intrapersonal responses in involved practitioners and their managers. These human responses impact powerfully, either negatively or positively, on professional relationships and on individual and collective practice. Value dilemmas and emotive factors are also many times not obvious or explicit, occurring within practitioner and organisational blind spots, which requires considerable and specialist skills and abilities in identifying and exploring them in supervision.

· Much has been written about the need for effective supervision to support reflective practice and to address emotional and value issues that may be involved. However, the problem with how supervision is currently implemented and promoted is as an employer and managerial led process, primarily for monitoring of performance and conduct. I also believe the employment dynamics inherent in the relationship between a social worker and their line manger are not conducive to the required trust that is often necessary to promote critical professional reflection and learning from practice. For example, social workers will be not inclined to openly share their own difficulties that a client’s situation may evoke with their line managers (let’s say in dealing with experiences of discrimination, abuse, violence, addictions or mental health issues) out of fear that raising these will adversely affect their employment opportunities. As a result, these issues are often not effectively explored or addressed within current supervision practices.

· Further, line managers may be both unwilling and unable to identify or challenge wider working practices within the team that impacts negatively on casework, as managers are part of those practices themselves, and may indeed be the driving force behind them. Frontline managers themselves also often experience poor quality supervision from their line managers and they themselves have nowhere to go to explore in any detail the value dilemmas or emotional stresses that supervisees may evoke in them. In addition, line managers are also under obligations for implementing corporate priorities and policies and are under pressure from senior managers who have sometimes vested interests in implementing dubious processes and procedures (for example, in the top down implementation of the ICS based on my experiences).

· Similar to research, I believe there is scope for including supervision theory and practice (again as is the case in South African social work training for example) as part of current training for social workers. This would provide newly qualified social workers with basic supervision skills that will promote the value of supervision (including peer supervision) and develop better quality practice if they do wish to specialise in professional supervision as they progress. In addition, I would think that there is further scope of government piloting the provision of professional supervision outside of local authority direction and control. In Sweden, for example, external professional supervisors promote learning and reflection in combination to line managers who retain responsibility for case direction and decisions. This seems like a good idea as independent supervisors are more likely to allow practitioners the opportunities for a much more critical and deeper awareness of both individual factors and wider working and organisational practices that many times cloud professional judgement and decision making.

· In conclusion, from my perspective as a practitioner, with more focus on learning from the average, run of the mill cases, more ground-based social work research and theory development and better quality professional supervision independent of line management, is fundamental in supporting critical professional reflection and practice learning.