Traditional Wisdom... LO9099

Cherry Vanderbeke (CKV@wang.co.nz)
Wed, 14 Aug 1996 18:35:49 +1200

Replying to LO9028 --

(This discussion has been going on a while now - Rick, should we start
using a different title? Anyway...)

[Host's Note: I encourage writers to consider the Subject line of the msg
and change it if they feel it should be changed. Whether you change the
subject line or keep it the same, leave the LO### in there. My software
does all the rest to link msgs together. ...Rick]

Someone earlier said:

>If one believes the problem is the system, or poor management, then
>one is less likely to attribute problems to the individual,
>preferring to see them as something "done to".
-- snip --
>Was it bad management? the system? the person? In some
>measure, the causes would come from all of these.

To me, the whole point about "the system" (Senge's definition, not a
process that evolved or was designed) is that it cannot be separated from
"the individual's behaviour" or "management's behaviour". They are not
three different things.... "the system" results (partly) from the other
two, often combined with other elements. Looking at the system is
_inclusive_ of all contributing elements, it does not mean that you are
ignoring the other things such as personal responsibility and
accountability. It's not an "or" choice, it's an "and"... because it has
to be!

Mary Apodaca quoted Senge: "The causes of the behavior must lie beyond
individuals" and Robert Bacal replied:

>ONE cause must lie beyond the individuals...not
>necessarily THE cause. Systems imply inter-relationships, so it would
>be unlikely to find ONE cause for almost anything, methinks.

I agree! but this is exactly how I interpreted Senge's original statement.
When you look "beyond" something you can still see the original object, it
doesn't go away or move out of your vision. So when Senge said "beyond
individuals", I took it as meaning "don't ONLY focus on individuals...
there's something else there too".

Robert also said in something in LO9030 which I violently reacted to:

>The issue for me is one of responsibility. Nobody on the list seems
>to have responded to this issue. Focusing on the system can encourage
>staff to use that as an out, and abdicate their own responsibility,
>and the same can be said to focusing on management causation.
>Likewise management focus on employee causation of problems leaves
>THEM an out.
-- snip --
>I see little difference between looking only at systems and looking only
>at staff (the old school)...both allow total abdication, and
organizational
>blindness.
>Is looking at the system, the same old process of segmenting
>everything, but with a different target?

In my experience, helping people to understand the systems they're part of
does the exact _opposite_ of giving them an "out".

Some of the most powerful effects I see, again and again, from introducing
people to the concept of systems thinking/dynamics in problem-solving, is
that they finally start to understand:

- how they are part of the system in question
- how their own behaviour contributes to the overall effect
- that they can't blame anyone or anything else any more
- that they have to take _responsibility_ for their actions and the effect
they have
- that they have a choice about continuing to act that way or not
- where the solutions to perceived problems might lie.

(Now whether those results are the power of systems thinking or the power
of my absolutely brilliant consulting approach, who knows ;-? (winking,
with tongue in cheek!!!)

Cherry

--

Cherry Vanderbeke, Wang New Zealand Limited Email: ckv@wang.co.nz "The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do"

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>