The Real Talent: Think and Act Systemically

I'm sure that using the word "systemically" in the title won't thrill the search engines. But I do think it's the truth, so I'm going with it.

Does your organization know the difference between "systems" and "thinking systemically?"

So I'm invited to a meeting because of my systemic approach to organization and talent development. The leader does the intro and closes it with, "Here's Steve to tell us what system to use to get the most out of our people."

Between my seat and the front of the room (and the desire to barf), I realize that the many conversations with this guy were rife with misunderstanding. So I've got to own part of it. But this is a well-educated man who I just assumed knew the difference between "a system" and "thinking systemically." I was wrong. Now I'm figuring others may be in the same boat as well and not know it.

So let's try this with some help from Dictionary.com:

System–noun

1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.

Systemic-adjective

1. of or pertaining to a system.

2.    Physiology, Pathology.
a.     pertaining to or affecting the body as a whole.
b.     pertaining to or affecting a particular body system.

Here is a way to help people at work think about the organization:

First: There are (hopefully) systems in place to make things happen.

Second: When thinking about talent (or changes), think systemically by connecting all of the systems and looking at how they impact and relate to each other.

I want to use this to set the stage for this unfolding conversation.

As you think about your own organization or perhaps that of a client, where do you see decisions being made in ways that tend to overlook the systemic--or connected--nature of all organisms?

Putting Lipstick on A Pig is one common example noted today by Michelle Malay Carter.

Comments

[Jo]

Hi Steve,

Hope the hard drive is OK.

Are we talking about "closing the loop"?

A lot of so called systems are one of two things: something inefficient if not corrupt (don't fight the system) or a set of procedures that don't bear much relation to reality

The first time I "got it" was when I was 8 and a teacher showed us how to add up across, down and then across. Much nicer than adding up twice.

Another question as you are more likely to be interested in situations where it is unclear what we have to do. Can we have systemic thinking without a goal? Without bounding the system in some way? I like the idea of wicked questions which don't give the answer but focus the mind on a domain of some sort. What's your opinion of that?

[Tom Haskins]

Go for it Steve! This is one of my all-time favorite distinctions. I'm looking forward to see what evolves here. For starters, here's my take on WHY most managers get hung up on systems and miss out on systemic thinking, approaches, awareness, etc.

Systems are things that appear objective and can be taken literally. Focusing on systems is a match to fear-based analysis. When we're afraid of rivals, losses, changes or betrayals, we feel the urge to take things literally. We want nothing to do with idle speculation, conjecture or imagination. We also cannot handle everything coming back around, haunting us and implicating us in nearly every dynamic interaction.

Systemic awareness is inferential, intuitive and imaginative. The cycles, loops and feedback patterns are invisible. The ways the system functions is emergent from the complexity, not evident in the structure of components. It takes being clear of fear, feeling safe and trusting the situation -- to tune into the inner source of these kinds of insights. We need the kind of confidence that lets us take responsibility without feeling blamed. We need to get creative about diagnoses and definitions of the problem. The challenge is very similar to cultivating emotional intelligence or effectiveness in change leadership.

[Steve Roesler]

Well, Jo, thanks for thinking of the now-defunct hard drive. $427 later, the laptop is back with a bigger hard drive , more memory, and a poorer owner.

I think we're talking about different things here, if I'm reading your questions correctly. When we talk about systemic thinking in organization development, we are--in a very real way--talking about being holistic diagnosticians whose antennae are always up. It's our job to "see" and surface the ways in which different systems need to be connected, or more connected. Tom Haskins at http://growchangelearn.blogspot.com/ has a great deal of experience in this area as well, and his comment adds more definition to the issue.

Now, regarding your first question: "Are we talking about 'closing the loop'?" That might be one of the outcomes of diagnosing systemically. If you think about every connection in an organization being like wires in an electrical circuit, then you will see that you need a completed circuit in order for "the light to go on."

When you think about the systemic nature of organizations, an easy way to remember the concept is: "How do we make sure all of the circuits are wired, connected, and keeping the lights glowing?

Thanks, Jo...

[Steve Roesler]

Tom,

Gee, I had hoped that you would stop by for this one:-)

You mention: "The cycles, loops and feedback patterns are invisible. The ways the system functions is emergent from the complexity, not evident in the structure of components."

Isn't that often so true?

My experience has been similar to yours; those who trust their well-developed intuition and who are effective in the realm of emotional intelligence appear to be more astute at dealing with organizations systemically.

Maybe we can get Galba in on this one, too. . .

[Dean Fuhrman]

Steve -

Excellent topic. Thinking about individual systems is much easier but does not yield the results that thinking about the whole does. Most of the time systems are cobbled together much the way the US Tax Code is and that becomes the system and that is the end of it.

You can see it in something as simple as handing off a client project where there are multiple functions involved. My end point is someone else's beginning point and so on. It all fits together for the whole, and it can be difficult to get everyone to think about the flow of the whole project. Thinking and talking about the flow of the whole project ... for everyone involved ... can really elevate performance in my judgment.

Sense making and having a feel for how things flow and come together as a whole ... the intuitive feel that is mentioned is crucial. It is truly something that one can feel.

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve, you say..."My experience has been similar to yours; those who trust their well-developed intuition ...'

me: it's about learning to hear with the eyes and see with the ears....

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

If you haven't copyrighted that line, I'd get on it right now. I think you'll see it again someplace around here:-)

[Ellen Weber]

What a wonderful distinction you make here Steve, and I really am intrigued by the way intrapersonal intelligence is used to move change along here.

Great post and terrific discussion on a key topic. But I am curious, Steve.

If you were to change that one flawed intro line you highlighted - that did not work -- and if you were to create a brilliant one-liner to replace it - what would that line say? You have me wondering...?

[Steve Roesler]

Ellen,

Thanks for the encouragement on the topic. Your question is certainly provocative and, if I could figure out an answer, very practical! :-)

Let's face it, we all try to come up with something that is attention-grabbing and good for SEO. So let me share what the choices were in my mind and why I went with this one:

1. The first one was Real Talent = People + Systems. "Systems" is a better SEO word than "systemically". The title still gets at the topic.

2. The one that I went with I believe addresses the topic as well but uses the "S" word; not a big draw.

The decision-kicker and why I still would go with what's up there:

1. My readers/conversation buddies, and intended audience. Anyone who really is involved in this kind of work or the related issues will "get it" straight away.

2. The readers here--and the hoped-for conversations--aren't inhabited by sound-bite types who want life to be dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator. They are clear-thinking and deep-thinking people who contribute on that level as well.

My goal is to build people up, build the conversation up, and raise awareness in ways that can lead to practical actions in organizations and in one's life.

So, I guess after hearing my own mini-rant, I'd just stick with the original.

Now I'd be curious to know if my thinking is off-base and impractical, given the nature of online reading preferences; or, if I should stick to my guns.

As always, thank you. . .

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

I like what you're doing, here, with the word "systematic" as applied to organizations - particularly to managers. Most people think of the word as referring to something that is inherent in the way an organization operates, such as instinctive reactions to perceived threats or opportunities.

But if I understand your second point at the end of the post correctly, you are looking to find a way to view it as thinking consciously about the systemic influences in an organization - and, moreover, to encompass the concept of causing them to work functionally together toward corporate goals.

That is, a systemic phenomenon may be a problem, or even an organizational strength, in that it is inherent in organizational culture and procedure. But a systemically thinking manager is one who seeks out information about all the systems in an organization - whether ad hoc experiments, controlled procedures, or systemic processes - and tries to find ways to integrate them functionally.

There's a generalist approach for you. Something to encourage even in specialists - to take this sort of proactive systemic view to insist that the inputs to their departments, and ensure that the outputs from them, integrate functionally with larger corporate goals and systems.

Is that somewhere along the lines of your thinking, here?

[Steve Roesler]

Yes Jim, that is exactly the line of thinking here.

Some people inherently watch a situation unfold and see it as a spider web, if you will. Someone mentions a specific customer service issue and the listener sees immediately how it touches CRM, sales, accounts receivable, contracting, etc., and begins to follow through with an integrated approach.

It is really no different than models used by family therapists. A family member faces a problem but the counselor knows that things don't happen--or resolve--in isolation. Families are systems that can make individual members grow and become healthy, or silently--and often unconsciously, without malice aforethought-- collude to perpetuate the appearance that one person has, and is causing, all of the problems.

When I'm looking at a talent "issue", an individual's capabilities and giftedness is only part of the equation. The systems in which they have to work can nurture or stifle the ability to be productive. Likewise, if a talented individual ignores the system--or is unable to see the connectedness across the functions--chances are pretty darned good that that person's potential won't be realized.

Maybe your choice of language gives us a clue here: When it comes to having organizational impact, specialists need to act specifically after thinking about the general implications.

The "Think globally, act locally" mantra applied to organizations.. .

[Wally Bock]

The challenge, it seems to me, is to use both system and intuition. The best medical diagnosticians do this. The military trains leaders to develop intuition by being exposed to many situations but to apply specific algorithms to check their intuition. Combining systematic process with leaps of insight allows for a reality check but also prevents becoming mired in process.

[Steve Roesler]

Well, yeah, Wally, that's the punch line.

Our discussions often lead back to two things:

1. The effectiveness of military training

2. The effectiveness of learning by doing when it comes to leadership

When I did my stint as a drill sergeant and then instructor at the Leadership Academy, I had the chance of a lifetime to get a good look at how the military designed its training and why it worked so well.The specific combination of system + intuition is a good example.

About 30% of the general population trusts its intuition; the other +/- 70% trusts what is concrete, proven, and somehow verifiable in the moment. So the idea of taking an "intuitive leap" isn't seen as "real", or even "valid" for the folks in the second group.

As you point out, the military exposes people to many situations (providing concrete experiences). This is the mental equivalent of creating "muscle memory." Additionally, as you are well aware, no experience happens without a full-debrief and lessons learned.

The result: When faced with a leadership decision in real-life, there is a data bank of situational experience that can be recalled instantly and which will confirm or disaffirm a "hunch".

Corporations seem to refuse to do that which has proven to work in the most challenging of leadership situations. Instead, the posture is "we can't let them lead until they are ready," thus ensuring an absence of the experiences that will make them "ready."

I guess that for many, profit and loss is a much more serious business than life and death. . .