MAC

Training and Development in Baker Hughes’ Leadership

Date: 21/05/2020

Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Introduction 3 Complexity thinking 4 Training process 6 apply to reality- systems thinking in six steps 6 evaluation 10 conclusion 11 references 12

The overall aim of this report is to assist Baker Hughes and its leaders, in becoming complexity thinkers to reduce the frequency of issues and increase employee safety. The short-term objective is to reduce incidents and give some suggestions to help BH adjust and improve company culture for the long-term development.

In the design of training materials, we firstly analysed the main problems of BH through BH's background brief and Oil and gas industry insight. As a leading energy technology company, BH mainly supporting drilling activities and producing oil and gas equipment. We investigated cases in the BH and oil and gas industry, and found some security risks in the work process; unpredictable and hidden dangers have also been analysed. We found that repeatable errors were made because some leaders overlooked certain types of hazards. Many safety problems can be avoided through improved decision-making by managers. As a result, we decided three key objectives of this training program: (1) Leaders become complexity thinkers. (2) Improving the individual’s perceptiveness in scanning for and identifying different types of safety. (3) leaders can continuously improve their Complexity thinking ability at work (learn on the job).

Based on the problems we analysed, we designed a phased training plan-'A step by step program' for training participants' complexity thinking skills. Our step by step program is mainly divided into three stages. The first stage is through video and slide to lets participants understanding concepts of self-organisation which is our key complexity idea. The second stage is to train participants to think systematically through a combination of games and discussions. Here we use 'the Six Systems Thinking Steps introduced by Michael Goodman and Richard Karash to make leaders take complexity thinking ideas into consideration. The third stage is the evaluation process. Teams will undergo written tests and produce group presentations relating to an identified problem they face on a day-to-day basis on the 2-day of the seminar. This could be swapped out for an online exam, which is dependent on the discretion of the leaders.

Complexity thinking is a complex study of systems which are chaotic in nature and how order, structure and pattern arise from these systems (Martin, 2007). Complexity thinking deals with the study of a large number of agents which are independent in nature and how they can spontaneously order themselves into the formation of a system which is coherent. Complex thinking is an important study aspect in human lives as it helps us to understand systems which are overly complicated like human beings and cells by the using Complex Adaptive System (CAS). Complex thinking is important in allowing the understanding of systems which span around different lifestyle disciplines, which are only understood in a partial manner when traditional ways and traditional scientific methods are used.

A good example of complex thinking is the study of human cells and organs. Cells are independent agents which are complex in nature and their merger forms molecular life, like a human organ. Thus, the study of a human organs requires complexity thinking. Cells exist in an independent manner. There are millions of independent cells which form a single organ to function in the way that they do and also adapt to the different forms of environment which they are exposed to, in order to function properly in any given environment (Hager, 2019). Without the particular separate cells, there would be no organs and as a result, to understand the human organs, one has to first think in a complex manner about the existence of the cells which form it. The system of the human organ can be evaluated in complexity thinking by evaluating it as a Complex Adaptive System. The system is complex as it involves an autonomous number of cells which are molecular and independent agents, they are adaptive as they have the ability to alter and change from past experience in order to work in a harmonious manner and also a system since it is a set of interconnected cells, which are independent parts, interconnected to form a complex system (Hager, 2019). The human organ can only thus be understood by complexity thinking as the traditional scientific methods may not fully define it. This leads us to the idea that self-organisation is the key to unlocking and fully understanding the need for complexity thinking. Without, individuals fully understand how to organise themselves, when clear instructions are not given safely complexity thinking will not be effective.

Systems can sometimes be disordered. Self-organization is a process where some form of overall order arises from interactions locally between parts of a system which had previously been disordered (Braakman, 2017). The process of self-organization occurs in a natural way and through internal forces and it has no influence from any external force, provided that sufficient energy is available to make the process occur in a spontaneous manner. Self-organization involves an emergence of patterns and order in a system by internal process rather than through external constrains (Halatek, 2018). Global features often emerge by self-organization involving local interactions between individuals. Self-organization is also evident in human beings and animals whereby individuals organize themselves in a way that resembles their behaviours communally and create a form of order by interactions between themselves and without any form of external influence being used to unite and bring them together to form a community or an organization. A good example of self-organization is the self-assembly of molecules, often called molecular assembly. Molecular Assembly is defined as a process by which molecules adopt a defined arrangement without guidance or management from any outside source (Braakman, 2017). The potential of self-organizing systems to enhance competitiveness is becoming clear to managers of some conventionally structured businesses. Look at the hottest players in retail: Amazon, Apple iTunes, and Netflix (Ticoll, 2004), even though this are not business in the BH industry it is clear that the way in which firms are managed is evolving. The ability to stream complex, real-time information to the front line gives hierarchical companies greater power than ever to exploit self-organization (Ticoll, 2004). This will not just be beneficial to the bottom line and improved safety but also the self-actualization of the employees. Self-organization also allows team members to identify the tasks they intend to accomplish. This allows employees to prove their worth and shine through with their talents. Self-organization is all about team members using their talent for the purpose of achieving a common goal (Jager, 2020), this may be an intrinsic reward that is created as result of this newfound understanding.

Our objective is that leaders can apply complexity thinking to their actual work, so the second part is more focused on how to solve the problem using complexity thinking. Michael Goodman and Richard Karash introduced Systems Thinking in Six Steps in their paper Six Steps to Thinking Systemically as below: (1) Tell the story, (2) Draw Behaviour Over Time (BOT) Graphs, (3) Create a Focusing Statement, (4) Identify the Structure, (5) Going Deeper into the Issues and (6) Plan an Intervention as a the explanation by Six Steps to Thinking Systemically (Six Steps to Thinking Systemically - The Systems Thinker, 2020).

Step 1, "Telling a story", is to bring all the important participants in the situation together and let everyone describe the problem from his or her perspective. One of the commonly used tools for establishing this understanding is to use concept maps (Figure 1), which also reflects the importance of a 'Network' in complexity thinking. Step 2 is to Draw Behaviour Over Time (BOT) Graphs (Figure 2). This graph uses the axis graph to show the relationship between time and chosen variable. In a complex system, variables change over time, and there is no absolute relationship. The BOT chart connects the present to the past and shifts from individual events to identifying patterns over time, rather than only focus problem on the current moment. Step 3 is to ‘Create a Focusing Statement’. The statement may involve pictures of what people want or questions about why certain problems occurred to guide the rest of the process. Step 4 is Identify the Structure, to describe the system structure that is creating its identified behaviour pattern. Step 5 is Going Deeper into the Issues, which is to conduct a more in-depth study of potential problems in order to change from understanding to action. Step 6 is Plan an Intervention, which uses knowledge of the system to design a solution that will be structurally changed to produce the desired result. This can take the form of adding new links or loops that will produce the desired behaviour, breaking links or loops that will produce bad behaviour, or combining the two. (Six Steps to Thinking Systemically - The Systems Thinker, 2020).

Figure 1: Example one of concept map (source: Carnegie Million University)

Figure 2: BOT Graph (source: Michael Goodman and Richard Karash).

Based on these six steps, In the second part of our training program, we designed a practice process that combines games and discussions. It allows leaders to personally go through these six steps to exercise the complex thinking of solving problems. Among them, step 1 and step 2 are designed as a group interactive game, which will be conducted in 2 rounds. Steps 3 to 6 will be implemented in the discussion.

In terms of the game, we mainly use the concept map of causality. The game will gradually increase in difficulty and complexity over time. In the first 10 minutes, participants need to use the private information in their mobile phones and the public information displayed on the screen to complete a concept map of the relationship (Figure 3). Because private information can be communicated, but not public, this part of the work requires teamwork, more specifically self-organisation. And after the game has been played for 10 minutes, we will give the second concept map and information. At the same time, the information about the first concept map will be randomly changed, the relationship of the first concept map will be changed as well. The rules of the game remain unchanged, and participants cannot disclose personal information in their hands, so only the participant can see whether private information has been changed. After 20 minutes of the game, we will give a third concept map. At the same time, the first relationship map and the second relationship map will have a new connection, and the relationship will change accordingly (Figure 4). The game will be played in a scoring manner. A correct relationship branch counts as 1 point, and the score for each group will be displayed in the BOT Graph on the public screen. Because the relationship will change throughout the game, participants will see the change in the score curve (Figure 5).

Figure 3: Example two of concept map (source: Carnegie Million University)

Figure 4: Example three of concept map (source: Carnegie Million University)

Figure 5: BOT Graph (source: Michael Goodman and Richard Karash).

After the first round of the game, we will let the participants discuss to implement steps 3 to 6. This will enable them to make a summary of their performance in the first round of the game and workout how can improve. Then we will play the second round of the game.

The second part of the training process will exercise leader’s complexity thinking in two aspects. On the one hand, the games performed in Step 1 and Step 2 require participants to make high-intensity communication and changes in thinking that requires high communication skills. It also requires Agile ability to adapt to changes, and Complexity thinking skills. More than this, because the information in the actual training will be designed by actual work content of BH, it will also evaluate leader’s knowledge and professionalism. On the other hand, through the cross-play of games and discussions, participants will actually implement Six Systems Thinking Steps introduced by Michael Goodman and Richard Karash. In the discussion, they will deepen their understanding of complexity thinking through summarizing the experience of complex thinking they experienced during the game.

The understand of the different key ideas will addressed but the main one that the seminar will aim to ensure all attendees have a full understanding of will be self-organisation. A collection of self-directed, transformational, action, andragogy, projected based learning (Colman, 2019) will be used throughout the seminar. The reasons for using this collection of learning types are: self-motivated learners structured formal learning and applied goals, specific problem solving, personal change and growth mindset, complex analytical processes, situational evaluation and analysis, team building uncovering areas of needed learning , filling gaps in organizational knowledge, long term management activities and process improvement (Colman, 2019). The reason for a mixture of learning styles is cater for all learning preferences in the group, furthermore learning is linked to an end result.

The first day of the seminar will comprise of discussion and information outlining self-organisation. The second day will be the seminar will consist of presentations or preparation for an exam dependant on the choice of the learner. This is an example of project-based learning, which will also help to improve teamwork skills amongst the learners. Group discussion after each presentation will further deepen the understanding of complexity thinking as alternate solutions may arise to the problem identified. An online interface to track learning through all of complexity thinking key ideas may be helpful to make sure that the learner is aware of what they know and what they must still complete. We believe that continuous learning every 3-months will need to be done to fully grasp the concept of complexity thinking in its entirety. This will be a vital tool for the leaders, and many will be coming from engineering backgrounds with minimal knowledge is management/leadership. This will also provide an advantage to other organisations in the industry who are yet to make this development or level the playing-field of those who already have. Other modes of learning can used after the 2-day seminar such as videos, readings/articles and assessments that may be graded at the end.

Through the approach of discovering the problem, collecting, and analysing the data, designing the appropriate consulting frameworks, and implementing the solutions, giving support and education in the end. I hope that the recommendations and the study program can improve the individual’s perceptiveness in scanning for and identifying different types of safety. In addition, we expect the training material can be introduced to help reduce management risks and increase employee safety. Also, it has advantages of helping managers implement complexity thinking in practice, improving their management ability and enhance BH’s culture and performance.

Braakman, R., Follows, M. J., & Chisholm, S. W. (2017). Metabolic evolution and the self-organization of ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(15), E3091-E3100.

Colman, H., 2019. 6 Adult Learning Theories and How to Put Them into Practice. [online] Ispringsolutions.com. Available at: <https://www.ispringsolutions.com/blog/adult-learning-theories> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

Ticoll, D., 2004. Get Self-Organized. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: <https://hbr.org/2004/09/get-self-organized> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

Hager, P., & Beckett, D. (2019). Complex Systems and Complexity Thinking. In the Emergence of Complexity (pp. 155-183). Springer, Cham.

Hager, P., & Beckett, D. (2019). Complexity Thinking and Co-Present Groups. In the Emergence of Complexity (pp. 185-218). Springer, Cham.

Halatek, J., Brauns, F., & Frey, E. (2018). Self-organization principles of intracellular pattern formation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1747), 20170107.

Jager, T., 2020. The Importance of Self-Organization. [online] Everyday Power. Available at: <https://everydaypower.com/importance-self-organization/> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

Japaridze, A., Muskhelishvili, G., Benedetti, F., Gavriilidou, A. F., Zenobi, R., De Los Rios, P., ... & Dietler, G. (2017). Hyperplectonemes: a higher order compact and dynamic DNA self-organization. Nano letters, 17(3), 1938-1948.

Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2007). Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography. Journal of economic geography, 7(5), 573-601.

The Systems Thinker. 2020. Six Steps to Thinking Systemically - The Systems Thinker. [online] Available at: <https://thesystemsthinker.com/six-steps-to-thinking-systemically/> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/seeing-the-unseen-transforming-safety-by-improving-hazard-sensitivity> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

Designorate. 2020. The Six Systems Thinking Steps To Solve Complex Problems. [online] Available at: <https://www.designorate.com/systems-thinking-steps-solve-complex-problems/> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

Thinking.net. 2020. [online] Available at: <http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

Appliedsystemsthinking.com. 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.appliedsystemsthinking.com/supporting_documents/PracticeSixSteps.pdf> [Accessed 21 May 2020].

2