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

[Steve Roesler]

Wally, I've always looked at the first two as the extremes from which a sensible, effective mixture is created, since they are the poles from which one leads situationally. (Military folks would add more to the meaning of situational, but "situational" works as well as anything, I think).

It's the Hero Cult/Level 5/Charismatic/Celebrity CEO model that bothers me. I've worked with a cross-section of CEO's and have not found the same"characteristics" in any two. I can say that what made the successful ones successful is this: They brought the right task/process focus at the right time. The really good ones knew when their season was ended and it was time to bring in a different person.

What concerns me most about the "Hero" model is this: There is an unspoken undercurrent in this approach that says, "Someone can save me, make things better, and be my organizational Prince Charming."

That's not only magical thinking, but a posture that abandons both self-responsibility as well as influence in the tide of one's existence.

I'm a lot more scared of the Hero Cult than a time-and-motion weenie.