If Systems Trump People, Then. . .

. . .Why Worry So Much About People?

My blogo-friend Chris Bailey at Bailey Workplay has a thought-provoking post.

Since we're talking here for a while about Systemic Thinking, Chris' post is directly related. He notes that:

In Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton write that systems trump individual effort on a regular basis. They argue that “bad systems do far more damage than bad people, and a bad system can make a genius look like an idiot. Try redesigning systems and jobs before you decide that a person is ‘crappy.’”

I agree. "Bad stuff" that happens isn't always because of the people (but it can be traced back to someone who is allowing it to continue).

The systems vs. people thing makes me wonder:

If systems trump people, then should organizations be spending more time identifying honest employees and job candidates who simply have the minimum skills necessary to operate the system and not go so crazy focusing on the “best and the brightest”?

Sort of like the “minimum daily requirement” in vitamins. They’ll keep you healthy (not necessarily super-charged) for a long period of time.

It would save money on salaries, time in the hiring cycle, and limit expenditures on “development.”

This is actually a legitimate question to ponder if the systems vs. people argument is true.

Do weigh in on this--it's a good one!

 

Comments

[Beth Robinson]

The first question that came to my mind in response to yours is that if you hire people with only the minimum skills to operate the system then who do you have in the future to change the system when business conditions inevitably change? Or does the system itself provide for the personal and career development needed to think systemically in order to create better systems? And will the the "best and brightest" be able to develop that ability more effectively than the "honest with minimum"?

[mvellandi]

True; it's better to have more average but good folk tuned into a system, then place the attention and energy on a few brilliant, creative folk who might not stay around forever and could end up creating bottlenecks and taxing the system's throughput and quality control.
Wow, you sure know how to stir up organizational philosophy Steve! :)

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Beth,

Wow, am I glad you chimed with those specific questions. You've got a terrific gift for synthesizing.

Believe it or not, I just spoke with someone regarding the issues surrounding the second: "systems themselves providing for development. . ." This individual actually does believe, at this point, that the right systems will somehow both provoke and produce development. This person's thinking also includes the importance of software to track the performance appraisals and accomplishments of people in order to "automatically see" who the high performers--and therefore high-potentials--are in the organization. I got nowhere with a conversation regarding intentional development through job assignments, coaching, mentoring. . .blah, blah, blah.

After I get up the strength, I'll think maybe I'll include your observations and see if there's any change in the thinking.

Thanks, Beth.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Mario,

I am assuming that you got back home safely--good weekend!

It's fascinating to me how the human condition tends to gravitate to either/or thinking: for example, its' "Either systems or people" vs. "Systems and People."

Truthfully, most clear thinking people would intellectually acknowledge the importance of both. Yet faced with a specific budget --especially a smaller one--I see expenditure decisions lean toward the "systems" side: software, technology, capital improvements, equipment--vs. investing in the people who have to run them.

An accurate analysis would show that, at any given moment, it isn't going to be a 50-50 split under any circumstances. Business conditions require a sound assessment of what is needed. The part that continues to baffle me is this: Too often there isn't an in-depth discussion of all of the benefits and risks of systems vs. people development spending. It often lands on one side or the other based upon a pre-disposition.

I hope this conversation stays stirred up, because it's one that impacts the profitability of organizations and the well-being of the people within them.

[Jamie Notter]

I just blogged about this, but I'm with Beth: systems don't just sit there. They need to be changed and developed over time, and this work is done by the actual people in the system. If you have only "adequate" people, I don't see you maintaining really good systems over time.

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

Systems AND people!

Virtually a chicken/egg conundrum on first read. Simplistically, an organization needs to hire internal/consultants to build the sustainable systems that will support the organizational goals irrespective of market conditions, leadership changes, the loss of a 'star', or other challenges.

The people hired are a mix of do-ers and thinkers (art v. science in the right mix!) that excel because of the underlying systems. No savings in salaries - pay for the best. The ROI on talent is tremendous opportunity for productivity and the systems will bear this!

This quick view begets the 'flexible factory' concept. Right people, right process, right time.

Thanks for bringing this topic to the world in this way. Saves reading so many books that profess a polarity of systems OR people.

Systems AND people!

Best,

Joe

[Beth Robinson]

Thanks, Steve. And re: your response to Mario, I agree that the question is more a continuum than a versus. An organization might not need to fill every spot the same way over time.

But re: your other discussion - I don't understand how a system can predict high potentials. It can predict if I'll continue to perform well or poorly as an engineer, for example, but it has no data on how I'll perform as a manager or in marketing or in logistics.

No data = no predication of any significance, statistical or otherwise.

Those deliberate job assignments and coaching opportunities and so forth have to come first in order to generate the data needed. After all, a mediocre, but generally honest, employee could become great at something else, if they are interested in that path.

[Steve Roesler]

Jamie, you won't get an argument from me. But I thought I'd start one :-)

Your post reflects my experience on the topic. Since we're spending some time talking about systemic thinking, I thought it would be interesting to throw out the "either/or" nature of much that goes on.

Then again, that's what probably keeps us in business. . .

Thanks for stopping by.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: Thanks for provoking this exploration of the seeming dichotomy between individuals and systems, Here's some more on the both/and approach to this:

If systems are things, then people are replaceable inputs, line item expenses, and potential noise to filter out -- while the system is maintained and perfected. If systemic awareness is in play, then great systems attract great people, offer great challenges, utilize experiences effectively and inherently cultivate the potentials of the people involved. The boundary of "the system" extends beyond the enterprise to include the particular situations of the customers getting served by the offering, the job market that propagates a reputation of the enterprise as a place to work, and countless other contexts that impact "the system's" functionality. Meanwhile flawed systems attract damaged people with the 'right stuff" to spawn political skirmishes, service breakdowns, divided camps, failed implementations, etc. The lack of systemic awareness creates a lack of skillfulness, responsiveness, inclusiveness and inherent usefulness of everything that happens.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Joe,

Hey, it's really good to see you out and about. I was wondering, with the new executive responsibilities, how often you would be able to do what you do so well: analyze systems and people.

(As I'm typing this I'm also reading Beth's comment coming through, and she has a really, really good one).

As for "Right people, right process, right time."--I've always found truth to come in sentences, not paragraphs. If any organization chose that mantra and decided to stick to it, they'd be in good shape.

Have a good weekend, Joe.

[Steve Roesler]

Beth,

Did I use the term "high potentials"? Or maybe it was my use of the word "promotables" that prompted your exceedingly astute remark regarding job assignments, etc.

I happen to be in agreement with you about the mystical nature of "assessing potential" and am a fierce advocate of deciding nothing about someone's until they've been given the chance to perform. In fact, I actually lost a gig because I refused to work with a company that insisted on magical, crystal ball thinking about "High-Potentials" without ever defining what it meant and how the "potential" would be tried out in reality.

I'm going to do a post on your comment. Hold fast to your principles on that one.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom, that's a full book in a paragraph.

Something that has been increasingly bothersome to me is the lip-service paid to the "people are our most important asset" in annual reports. In fact, I have increasingly observed people being seen more as commodities to be bought, sold, and traded.

I don't get the sense (from the companies with whom I work) that there is much malice aforethought. Instead, there is a view of business as an entity that gets rewarded on quarterly results--even if the corporate line is long-term sustainability. This is a systemic issue. When the investors and analysts demand a 5-year plan but visibly "reward" on a short-term basis, then there is systemic pressure to produce short-term profit. Since you can't usually generate big profit increases over the course of a quarter, companies do the same thing that we do at home: cut costs. And people end up being part of the cost.

Then, when systemic pressures change, organizations spend huge bucks recruiting and hiring new people, as you well know.

I don't have a solution, if there is one. Life's systemic cycles are what they are. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is deep thoughtfulness regarding the cuts.

Thanks, Tom.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve
Thanks for amplifying and clarifying the "exploitation issue" in all this. In my view, we've cycled back around to familiar issues from the nineties. Hamel/Prahlahad's advice applies again to stop cutting core competencies and stop practicing "denominator management" that improves the bottom line whiling crippling the enterprise's ability to get to the future first. It also appears to be time again for Imparto/Harari' s advice to jump the curve as the old systems, value propositions, industry structures go into decline. I suspect the new enterprises, divisions, product lines, services,-- will innovate with the systemic awareness of the many contexts to be served, sustained and responded to creatively. Those enterprises that are "going down the curve" are thinking "desperate times call for desperate measures". They cannot help but think in either/or, short-term survival terms. They are inside a declining system, not launching a new curve. For them systems are things, people are expendable and talent can be bought but not cultivated.

[Steve Roesler]

Tom, your last line strikes a chord in the present times.

I'm working with longstanding companies of substantial size who are actually deciding whether or not they can stay in business. They are not short-term thinkers but are cutting costs to buy time to answer the long-term question as accurately as possible.

Truth be told, this is a gut-wrenching activity for most who are involved.

First: They are receiving big salaries and they know it. (They are not taking raises).

Second: As corporate officers (many of them), they are responsible to the shareholders as well as the employee population. Since some may even sit on their Board, they have even deeper statutory liability.

Third: None (that I deal with) would take an either/or point of view. They agonize over making cuts on the employee side and all have cut costs in other areas first.

What is fairly clear is this: Those of us who have been around for many years are seeing what may very well be the final throes of the "grey flannel suit" corporation and all that is associated with it. Career longevity, employee-employer loyalty (long-term)--even the notion of having a "career" in the traditional sense, which i've written about before, are being re-defined.

My conclusion as of this moment: Even people like ourselves, who may be experienced and well-intentioned, need to stop responding to current business trends by using models that were associated with past dynamics.

Let's hold fast to unchanging principles. Truth doesn't change. How to apply Truth to the reality of the moment is the way to be most helpful.

The best, as always. . .

[Lisa Gates]

Steve,
I have a couple of places on the internet that I travel to to get my education. My Ph.D (possibility highly developed). Yours is at the top of the list.

I don't have the credentials or the philosophy at the top of the food chain here...but I must confess that as a middle-to-lower management employee in my past lives, I had the uncanny knack of choosing a job just when a merger was in progress, a reorganization, a board crisis, or some other fiasco. In every case, org consultants were hired, retreats were had and serious, earnest, back-breaking work ensued. I fell in love with the consultants. Complete adoration. I often said, "I want to be you when I grow up."

And what I noticed after the heroes were gone and life as usual had its way, was a deification of the system over the human; or trying to plug the wrong human into the new system. And many other versions of the either/or thinking.

I want to hear the stories of complete evolution and how they did it. The company that did both/and. And sustained it over time, and kept reinventing and adjusting.

I know you could probably point me to several hundred books, but who are they and how did they do it?

[Jo]

@ Lisa

I would suggest the story of De Beers / Anglo American in southern Africa. There is plenty of controversy but there is also clear thinking which helps think clearly about other circumstances.

I would also suggest Michael Riley on the hospitality sector. He talks about hotels in general. He has a capacity to marry principles with practices. Acting while thinking clearly.

[Chris Bailey]

I love how we're all stretching and playing around with this topic. What started with some simple questions has blossomed into a variety of different perspectives and tangents. We almost need a mindmap to map out the dialogue here...which may not be a bad idea.

The dialogue here has been excellent. The one notion that I would add is to consider the various people-systems as systems, as well. It's this that goes to the heart of my own post. We can talk about the systems that can exist parallel to the human component (technology, financial, etc). Within these systems, I can see the dichotomy between people and systems, one where you can plug in an individual and watch them act. But where I see most organizations falter is understanding their own people-systems (learning, social networks, engagement, etc) which is an integration that connects people to the organization's culture and deeper purpose. This conversation and exploration will always get trumped by financial and more traditional concerns as long as the old way of doing things is exalted. But I see things changing in this regard which is very exciting.

Steve, I really appreciate your inclusion of your experience with long-standing companies trying to figure out how they might stay in business. It seems that they may be realizing all too late that things have changed and their good intentions are likely not enough to keep the vultures away. And I see this honestly as a positive - its the cycle of death and rebirth that can be a powerful incubator of new and dynamic businesses. Would we rather work at a gutted organization still in business or a new organization with fresh focus, better market prospects, and - hopefully - a better grasp of its people-systems to help it succeed in this new age of business?

[Steve Roesler]

Lisa,

That is a very generous and humbling intro.

Your description of the dynamics, energy, and commitment that often arise from a really good group consultation rings very true. What has happened is that, at last, a sense of real hopefulness emerges--only to be mysteriously shattered as time goes on.

There are as many reasons for follow-up success and failure as there are organizations who undertake these kinds of activities.

Here is my overall take on what makes some successful: Consistent Leadership from the very top, specific follow-through on the doing what was agreed, and visible recognition for those who do--as well as visible disappearance for those who don't.

What managers/leaders who initiate changes don't realize is this: The person who has to invest the greatest amount of time, energy, and visibility until "critical mass" is reached is the person who started it. In the example you gave, too many see this as an "event" that will somehow cause people to 'go forth and multiply.'
None of us does that unless the person with the candy is standing there handing it out. And if an emissary is sent, that's as bad or often worse than the leader not showing up at all. The message is: "This is important enough for all of you to show up; but I'm busy doing other even-more-important things."

If something else is more important--and I'm an employee at any level--then that's what I want to be involved in, too.

You've got me thinking about future posts on some organizations that have successfully done sustainable both/and. I'm going to try and figure out a way to do that without violating any confidences.

I appreciate you being frank about your experience. . .you are not alone!

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

The deBeers saga is fascinating in every respect. I had a nice Braaivleis at the Oppenheimer home some years ago before going down into the Kimberly diamond mines. Between the Braai and the diamonds, I've been co-opted:-)

Did you know that in order to go into the mines, first you undress in front of armed guards; don a jumpsuit; then undress and re-dress again (same voyeurs) upon returning?

For that one should at least get to keep an uncut carat or two!

[Steve Roesler]

Hey, Chris,

Ooh. I think that I made one of those 'assumptions-that-will-bite-you' by not wording things the way that you have. I'm so darned used to thinking "systems" that I automatically see 'thing-systems and 'people-system's in the same mental image. You've done a public service--I'll start being more specific as we continue.

Isn't it fascinating how the 'systemic' topic leads down so many different trails? Yet that's the point: We're all part of a systemic entity that possesses individual attributes that press against--and are pressed by--all of the other parts. While we have never met, what we say and do makes a difference. So if we aren't paying attention to each other--and acknowledging each other in some way--the system weakens, gets into conflict, and dies. In this case, the conversation dies. Yet again, that's the point! If the purpose of the system is to generate thoughtful discourse, then conversation reflects the health of our 'organization.'

As for companies realizing their situation "too late". . .again, one has to look at the connectedness and health of the functional and people systems that got them there. It's not the job of a financial spreadsheet to pick up the phone and call the management team with an alert; a person has to analyze, synthesize, and act. And it the case of organizations, management groups are called together to do just that and make group decisions. So, a company may have been having conversations for a loooooong time; but if the discussions weren't healthy ones because of a systemic predisposition toward half-truths, rosy thinking, cover-your-butt, etc.; then all the discussion in the world wouldn't have made much difference.

And sometimes, things just happen quickly with no warning: your largest customer suddenly folds, a government takes over your biggest manufacturing facility by force, exchange rates tank...and you just need to hunker down and regroup. If your total systems are working well, you may be able to get through it.

I guess the one thing that comes to mind is this: If a company gets hit hard for the very first time, it's my hope that the pain will cause a close examination of the totality of its existence vs. "Let's blame __________". Those who learn and adjust will come out the other end healthier; their branches will have been properly pruned and not hacked off, and new sprouts will emerge.

Man, you got me waxing poetic.

Outta here. . .

[Wally Bock]

As others have said, it's not either/or. I blogged on this last year in "Put your trust in systems, not in genius." The teaser was "What do Toyota and the Roman Army have in common? They both rely on systems instead of heroes and talented geniuses to produce results. They both created systems that enabled ordinary people to produce world-conquering results."

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2007/09/16/put-your-trust-in-systems-not-in-genius.aspx

Here's a key excerpt.

"For years, General Motors operated an auto plant in Fremont, California. Absenteeism ran around 20 percent. The plant had the highest defect rate in the country. Producing a car there cost more than anywhere else.

In 1985, Toyota took over the plant under a Toyota-GM joint venture named New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI). Eighty-five percent of the workers in the new plant had been workers at the plant when GM ran it. But the results were different.

Absenteeism dropped to 3 percent. The defect rate plummeted. The NUMMI plant turned out some of the highest quality cars in America at one of the lowest costs. The people, the talent, were the same as when GM ran the plan alone.

The difference was Toyota's system. It's so commonly used as a model today, that the Toyota name is often dropped and replaced by the term "Lean Manufacturing."

The organizational core of Toyota's system is the basic processes and methods of production. There is constant training, including training in quality methods and problem solving. And there is supervision, though Toyota expects a supervisor to be primarily a facilitator and trainer and not a directive boss."

My view on this is that if you hire for attitude and aptitude and train for specific skills you will do better than hiring for skills and trying to train for attitude. You will do better hiring "ordinary" people and putting them in a good system than you will trying to find "geniuses." Your systems needs to include ways to foster growth and development. In business systems, a key role of the supervisor is training, coaching and development.

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

Thanks for the link; I'll probably have it up there on a post this week as the discussion continues. After you described it, I did recall having read the post some time ago.

Examples such as the GM/Toyota one are peppered throughout business and industry. People allegedly are reading and studying this stuff all the time. So a question becomes:

If it makes sense to hire for aptitude and attitude--and create the systems to allow those to bloom and perform--then why isn't it the norm?

[Wally Bock]

I don't know why it isn't the norm, Steve, but I have some ideas.

First, we're talking about hard-slog work here. There won't be any cutesy self-help books on this. It's not sexy at all. We're talking about well-thought out and constantly improving systems that both support and develop people. That runs counter to the Big Three strains in management thought.

Frederick Winslow Taylor and his crowd think the system is all that matters. Hire anybody, by gosh they're interchangeable parts.

Elton Mayo and the humanist tribe think that only the people matter. Forget the system. Pay a little attention, turn up the lights a bit and things will work out fine.

The Hero Cult believe that the only people that really matter are what we call today "high potentials." Hire a couple of geniuses and a Level 5 (or Charismatic, depending on your preference) CEO and profits will rain down like waters.

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

You've cited the three camps that have been/are the foundation for much of the thinking on this.

How many people are familiar with all three, what they entail, how and why they came about, and the relatedness where there is any?

I like slogging; never much got anything done without it but it doesn't seem to be very popular in a sound-bite era that leads to sound-bite thinking. I'm not taking an old-school stand on this, but one that comes from long observation, experience in the trenches, and comparative analysis.

Many of the same folks who are espousing a War for Talent are, perhaps, looking to declare victory without dirtying the uniform and using a paperback from the airport as the Order of Battle.

Let's get real. Doing stuff right requires thought, work, re-work, re-thinking, mistakes, and doing all of that with the long-run in mind. Unless, of course, the unspoken objective is to garner short-term profits. Then it becomes an internal guerilla war; a civil war, if you will, with well-dressed people become very uncivil.

[Wally Bock]

Your question about "how many people are familiar with all three" brought an insight on the run. The problem with these common themes is that they're often unexamined assumptions that no one talks about because they're "assumed" to be true.