The seduction of programmatic thinking
Photo by Mayur Gala on Unsplash
Whether it be supply chain hold ups, workforce shortages, cyber hacks or the pallor state of airline travel in Australia, we are being reminded daily of system failure. The nation gasped when Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas, suggested that problems at airports resulted from passengers not being ‘match fit’ 1, the premise being that service users need to adjust their behaviour to accommodate a poor performing system.
As researchers grappling with how to bring about system change to better support young people at a community level, we know this tension all too well. A common starting point is to focus on the individual behaviour of young people, rather than on the system that could better support them. This often leads to the introduction of programs that aim to change the behaviour of young people – better skills, stronger resumes, more knowledge etc – while paying scant attention to a system that is failing them. Underlying this tension is a programmatic reductionist mindset.
As Hal Portner points out, when 'applying programmatic thinking, we plan and treat people, policies and procedures as discrete items’ 2. They are divorced from each other and the contexts in which they are implemented. In addition, at least in the area of health promotion, many programs tend to fail or show only modest gains 3. But such thinking is seductive. We have a program-driven workforce, program-oriented research and funding and organisational structures that support programmatic thinking. The path of least resistance is to grab a program off the shelf, preferably one that shows promise, and target those experiencing the problem (be it young people or airline passengers).
Donella Meadows calls these interventions ‘fixes that fail’ 4– by narrowly focusing on only one part of the system and fixing it, other people, organisations or governance structures maintain or reinforce their position, and so the fix 'fails'. We might be match fit, but we are still waiting for our bags!
Alternatively, we can resist programmatic thinking and the often sole focus on individual behaviour change and zoom out to target the system that, in our case, will either support the flourishing of young people, or keep complex problems in place.
Dr Therese Riley
Associate Professor of Complex Community Interventions
References
Champagne, I. (2022) OK, Alan Joyce, we’re going to give you one last chance — before we set Crikey readers on you. Crikey. Available from: <https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/06/22/alan-joyce-qantas-one-last-chance/>.
Portner, H. (2019). Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond. Corwin Press, California.
Hawe, P., Shiell, A. & Riley, T. (2009) Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3-4):267-276.
Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont.