Systems + People Do Concern CEOs

As I sat down to create some visuals for the series on Systemic Thinking and Talent, I received a welcome phone call. It was to discuss "a better way" of looking at managing talent. How's that for a pleasant coincidence?

So I've been off "doing stuff" and am back with some first-hand news--good news--about the state of executive thinking regarding this whole talent issue. It's also kind of interesting. Here's the scenario--I'm curious to know what you see and how it matches your experiences.

The CEO's Observation: Systems

This is a CEO who has spent a little more than a year implementing well-disciplined systems in a company that previously had concerned itself a bit more with the top line than the bottom. In good times, who cares? But these aren't good times for most. It caught up with them in a pretty big way.

The new systems are exceedingly clear and most of the employees have what it takes to put them in place. It will take some time and he knows what the reasonable time period is. As a result, he manages the implementation results very regularly but doesn't beat people up when there is a gap. He asks three questions:

1. Why is it happening this way?

2. What are you going to do about it?

3. When do you think it will be sorted out?

Then, like clockwork, he follows through at the designated time.

The CEO's Observation: People

If the people are in place to put the systems in place, then all is well, right?

Wrong.

He sees a problem on the horizon, and this is where the conversation got good. Not because he has a problem, but because of his desire and willingness to look at a systemic solution. He connects the dots.

The issue is needing effective talent and managerial talent to take and connect the current systems and strategy with the future. He's not not convinced that those charged with developing, finding, and recruiting that kind of talent are actually adept at thinking systemically themselves.

As a result, the development, recruiting, and hiring systems may be the right ones. But an inability to properly discern all the ways in which candidates are capable of contributing and moving around the organization could undermine the systems.

Systemic thinking: constantly connecting the dots

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out all of issues that impact organizations from an HR viewpoint at HR Carnival #30, hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.

And just in case you do a lot of reading to help make connections, this post at Managing Leadership may help in making better choices.

Systems photo source: www.csimars.com

Comments

[Jo]

Steve, for your good luck - was this law of attraction? In my home environment, when I knew I wanted something, when I had crossed the Rubicon, what I wanted would come to me. It is a bit freaky when it is at the end of the phone and the other person doesn't know you want it. I can only surmise that a lot of opportunities cross our path on a daily basis and we see and hear what we want. Certainly, when I want something because I should have a goal, rather than have a goal because I want something, the universe does not conspire to help me.

I have used Michael Riley's book on HR in the hospitality industry as an integrated yet down to earth text/manual on HR. Regrettably most HR is taught as a set of procedures corresponding to the life cycle of the employee. If we taught systemic HR, then would we be connecting the dots? Would we have painting by numbers of a more sophisticated picture?

[Steve Roesler]

Hmm, Jo, that's an interesting image for me: painting by the numbers.

In fact, that's a very simple example that everyone understands and it fits very well with what we're talking about. It seems to me that if the linear systems were somehow visually represented as dots in some way--so that people could see them all the time--then their job would be to connect them.

I like this. (It doesn't hurt to be a little juvenile, as well:-)

Like Peter's one-liner on a previous post, this example may very well emerge along the way! (with attribution, of course).

[peter vajda]

hmmm...perhaps the metaphor of an impressionistic-type painting when, magnified 1000x, consists of a number of dots, without the numbers. When one magnifies an orange 1000x, all one sees is a few bumps (dots) but when looked at from a distance,and held as a single entity seems smooth to the touch. In both cases, the "dots" are there; I suppose one can take either a systems approach or a systemic perspective when looking at the painting or feeling the orange. One is linear, "so-called logical", and a "thinking" process. The other, well, is anything but.

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

So, if I understand this systemically thinking manager correctly, he extended his assessment of and integrative concern about organizational systems and systemic processes into the future, considering the sustainability of the organization's ability to meet its goals.

Has he asked himself the questions he identified as posing to his juniors? Does he train them to ask those questions to their juniors?

His concern is certainly valid about those traditionally charged from within, or commissioned from without, to develop talent as not being typically as oriented on discovering this sort of systemic thinker as he is.

I'll bet that was a good conversation - hopefully we'll learn how it develops!

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: When I've taught systemic HR to college students, I framed the issue as "being part of the problem or being integral to the solution". When we're feeding the problem, we don't realize the effects of the system that's in place. Some talent development systems backfire: inducing arrested development, bureaucratic stagnation, loss of initiative, etc. Other systems exaggerate the desired result, yielding individuals who are over-ambitious, ladder climbing fanatics, short-sighted achievers and highly political kiss-ups. I view these systems as the creations of HR professionals lacking in systemic awareness.

Talent development systems that effectively cultivate individuals allow for greater diversity, deviance from norms and tolerance of erratic growth processes. They utilize feedback from individuals about "how it's going for them", "what issues are coming up" and "what appears to be missing in their experience of getting nurtured, supported, challenged, etc". The HR pros expect the talent development system will evolve and become more responsive as it continually responds to it's clients. The system monitors the effects of the system that others claim are problems with people, not the system. Those with systemic awarenes connect the dots between what happened and what set that up to happen.

[Jo]

@ Tom, may I ask, what is the basic framework or source of your view? I must apologize I am reading through a fog of fatigue through long days and nights watching the Zim elections, but I think I am missing something here. Possibly in the thought process of my north American colleagues is something you take for granted and I don't know, or vice versa.

[Tom Haskins]

Jo:
One source of my systems view is ecosystems. For instance, hardwood forests appear where meadows once stood because of the harmful effects that meadows have on their own soil acidity, and suitability for fast growing species. The meadow ecosystem backfires, or is "part of the problem" of its own sustainability.

Another source is dysfunctional family systems. Families maintain the behavior of a substance abuser or other toxic behavior rather than solve their shared problems. They unconsciously choose to live with their problem rather than disrupt the costly stability with a systems view of their problem.

A third source is informal communication systems in organizations where malicious rumors are spread, divisive issues are escalated,and individuals get scapegoated. These systems maintain internal political battles rather than resolve the issues and reconcile the misunderstandings that are perpetuated by vicious cycles.

In all three cases, what happens is usually blamed on isolated components rather than the entire system. The effects of the system on it's constituencies is not widely regarded as "effects of the entire system", rather as some deviation that can be fixed.

I hope this helps. Thanks for asking!

[Ed Brenegar]

Steve,
I'm hearing two pressure points from the CEO's and General Mangers that I know.
1. What do you do when your sales force needs to change their approach, and you don't think they have the capacity to do it.

2. How to get direct reports to take on responsibilities that you've been doing, but don't have time to do now.

These challenges provide us a great opportunity to make a difference.
thanks, Steve.

[Jo]

@ Tom, OK that does not seem very different from what I know. Getting people to apply the ideas in the midst of frustration and conflict is the difficult part.

You may be interested in this. There is a radio station that transmits to Zimbabwe out of London - ducking and diving the jammers, etc. At the very minute we are waiting (again) for the High Court to rule, but at an earlier point, when we were more confident, the station started a debate on what should happen to people who have abused their office.

Eventually, people worked their way round to the point of view that we are all part of the problem. People understood that we did this to each other.

From a professional point of view, the process is very interesting. Some people tend to weigh-in in ways that are clumsy if not offensive! Who am I, who is anyone, to decide the stance that another person should take over what has happened to their homes and families? All we can do is to communicate that their views are valid. We can't jump ahead to step 2 - it will be better for you and for us all . . . We have to begin at step one and be prepared to stay there. To prejudge the outcome of that step is to deny it.

Am I drifting off-topic? What I am suggesting is that systemic thinking follows a sense of belonging. I am suggesting the requirement for mediators (and HR people) is to have sufficient sense of belonging and personal integrity for them to "hold" step one. And that systemic thinking only occurs when step 1 is completed properly. In plain language, we start to see high levels of creativity, flexibility and cooperation when people feel they belong. All our recruitment, selection, etc. etc. are just scaffolds to help us in the demanding task of 'holding' step one.

Thoughts Tom? And not just Tom?

@ Ed, after finding out more about the manager and his/her dreams, needs etc. etc, I might work with him or her on an appreciative inquiry exercise. What is working well, what does s/he want to keep, what could s/he do more of? If I had access to the person's superior, I would try to extend the inquiry at that level because the lack of appreciation might begin there. And I would look for ways to extend the inquiry downwards and sideways too. I would want to see the manager regain his/her confidence in his/her team before any irreversible decisions are considered let alone made.

And why can't English have one gender for people!

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Ed,

Those are sure two burning questions right now.

The first hits home, being a former sales manager. What comes to me right away is:

1. Have they identified, specifically, what the steps/approach of the "new" vs. "old" are?

2. Are they also looking at the support systems? In other words, are their CRM, sales management, compensation, etc., lined up to reinforce and encourage whatever that "new" way is?

As for "sharing" work, that seems to be a tough one right now. People for the most part are already feeling overwhelmed by doing more with less and all that that entails. I wouldn't say that, in a pretty healthy organization, a reluctance to take more work is necessarily an indication of anything other than being maxed out already. Having said that, the one approach that works better right now is:

"Here's a list of what I've got going on. I can't handle it all because (state a darned truthful reason). Instead of dishing this out, have a look at the "overflow" and tell me first what you'd like to help out with. Then we'll divide up the rest."

Very busy time, eh, Ed?!

[Tom Haskins]

Jo: I agree with you -- that belonging helps create the trust in the mediator if there's a lot of "inside info" to be "in the know" about. It also works in the example you gave us because it creates a safe space for everyone to take responsibility. Belonging can also backfire if the insiders are polarized or if it takes an outside perspective to "break the spell" of collusion, groupthink etc. . BTW I suspect we have gotten off the original topic of "talent development systems"