Systems Thinking-Point

I'm reading through Farnam Street  past articles, when I come across this piece, interviewing Risky Business: James Bagian—NASA astronaut turned patient safety expert—on Being Wrong .

What catches my attention is the opening question and his answer:

How does the healthcare industry compare to engineering and aeronautics when it comes to dealing with human error?
Not favorably. Much of my background is in what's called high-reliability industries—the ones that operate under conditions of high hazard yet seldom have a bad event—and people in those fields tend to have a systems perspective. We're not terribly interested in what some individual did. We want to know what led up to a bad event and what changes we need to make to reduce the likelihood of that event ever happening again.
When I got into healthcare, I felt like I'd stepped into an entirely different world. It was all about, "Let's figure out who screwed up and blame them and punish them and explain to them why they're stupid." To me, it's almost like whistling past the grave. When we demonize the person associated with a bad event, it makes us feel better. It's like saying, "We're not stupid so it won't happen to us." Whereas in fact it could happen to us tomorrow.
...

The key point here of course is "systems perspective". Systems perspective doesn't look to blame the individual. People can not work to their full potential if they're worried about mistakes, and being the scape goat. It fosters a poison culture.
Systems perspective is about improvement, not blame. It's a process that will over time produce better, more consistent results. Talent prospers in such a system.

Purpose and Drive=Opportunity

I have spoken a lot about opportunity here. Opportunity for organizations, opportunity for people, opportunity for you.
Daniel Pink in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About Motivates Us compiles impressive evidence that beyond a certain measure, it is not money that motivates us. What does motivate and drive us, is a sense of purpose, a sense of mastering something, a sense of autonomy in how we approach our work and lives.

Where then, is the opportunity?

With new philosophies for organization based on living systems, instead of the outdated philosophies based on mechanical systems. With an ever broadening of scientific understanding of how we function as individuals, and as groups and organizations. With new tools for communicating and collaboration. With new mediums for connecting people and ideas--all coupled with an economy that is based more on knowledge than on physical objects* in a recessionary economic environment presents enormous opportunity for individuals and organizations alike to transform themselves.
There is opportunity for harnessing the full potential of an organizational workforce like never before. There is opportunity for harnessing the loyalty of customers like never before. Opportunity for harnessing both of those forces into innovative new products and services. For increasing productivity, while finding cost savings. There is opportunity for creating the kind of sustainable organizations and business practices that can build the kind of sustainable communities and cities which we'll need to cope with the mega trends of the 21st century.

Organizations that take the lead in being the kinds of public and private enterprises that society will need to cope with these mega trends can harness that sense of purpose as vision for themselves, and for the people that make up the organization.
Organizations that take the lead in adapting the new philosophies and practices of living systems during periods of stagnant economic conditions--think of this as re-tooling--can not only find business opportunity that others may be blinded to, but can also hit the ground running as economic conditions improve. Great organizations will be the ones that lead society from out of the muck of the economic crash.

With fresher organizational mindsets and culture, all manners of public and private enterprise can re-invent themselves and become the dynamos that lead not only their respective industries, but also set the new standards for all business practices.
These will be the kinds of organizations that attract not just the top talent out there, but better still get more out of the talent they have.

The almost unlimited array of opportunities that exist today lie well outside the means of a simple blogpost, and, of course, of the singular mind of a consultant writing a blog.  The opportunities will not likely fall from the sky. There will be more than a few organizations that are already positioned, and those that find opportunity by luck. For almost every other organization, they'll have to re-invent and find it for themselves.
And that will take open mindedness, diverse collaboration, with cultural change and broad organizational buy in.
It will be hard work.


Tom Peters, with his seminal work Thriving on Chaos (1987) and Peter Senge with his seminal work The Fifth Discipline (1990) laid the direction and groundwork for creating these kinds of organizations. The theory and practice is not that new. Yet the standard mechanical model of hierarchy, structure and control, and our seemingly affinity for the comfort it provides is still the dominant paradigm that resists the kind of change needed to take advantage of benefits those kinds of organizational models bring with them.
Breaking free of the bonds of outdated organizational models and mindsets isn't easy. But the path is not a jungle, the theories are not fads.

We have to not only want to take the lead of our own organizations, but also open our minds to how these kinds of models can lead the way for a broader, healthier, sustainable economic society that can cope with the challenges, the change and the complexity. And harness the myriad opportunities.

We all win if we do.

* Even if making physical objects is the backbone of your business, it is the intrinsic knowledge around the making, manufacturing, and marketing of that product that makes the difference. As I say in my talks, anybody can make a widget these days, it is the value and knowledge of your work force that is the competitive advantage.

The Medium is Not The Message

I am reading through Richard Koch and Greg Lockwood's SuperConnect: Harnessing The Power of Networks and The Strength of Weak Ties, specifically right now, the chapter "Cyberspace--Brave New World".
The authors are exploring where the internet--cyberspace--fits in with shaping who and what we are, with an additional perspective of how this is changing are ability to connect via 'hubs'. After all, language and the ability to communicate have been shaping who we are as groups and individuals for 50,000 years, give or take. The difference, the authors are saying, is not in an increased ability to communicate messages, rather an increased ability to connect.
This is interesting to me on numerous levels. Many of the points of their book are not new, not novel, or earth shattering for those that have followed the whole 'internet phenomenon' over the last 15-20 years. One point of the Cyberspace chapter being that the internet is not another communication medium, but rather another dimension of existing forms of communication. The other, is that online relations cannot supplant those of face-to-face relations.
I don't overly disagree with either point. They argue that cyberspace can be as much about escapism than it is about exploring new knowledge, new connections. Again, I agree.
The world online does not have the rich texture of life in our physical world, nor does it have the rich degree of social cues necessary for connected relationships. However, these are not black and white, either one or the other options.
What the authors, and myself, are getting at, is how well we blend the two worlds is where the greatest gains are going to be had.

Without reviewing the entire book, I do want to use these points as a jumping off point to perhaps something more subtle that I continually want to bring closer to the surface.

My purpose as a consultant is to increase the abilities to adapt and thrive in these ever changing conditions of the 21st century for you and the organizations of which you are reliant upon . That means being not only being able to make us better aware of our environment, it means not only being able to shape our environment, it means being aware of and shaping our environment in a sustainable way.

The internet or cyberspace is another layer of complexity over an already existing environment. It can make us passive (escapism) or active (growth), both perhaps in the same moment. We can broadcast messages, we can receive messages. We can connect those messages.

We can do this in a manner and to a degree that is unprecedented in human history. In 1964, communication theorist Marshal McLuhan famously remarked, "the medium is the message". He was speaking in a time of the rise of television, and commenting that the medium--TV--was the "message". That is, it is the ability to mass broadcast messages that is the message, rather than being what message said.
The question than is, is the internet just an extension of that? Is the medium the message? Is it more important that you and I can broadcast messages rather than what message we broadcast?
The answer is maybe. The answer should be; "Yes, it does matter."

The point I continually try to raise, to bring awareness to, is that we are the medium, we are the message. We have the tools to both extend and increase our knowledge of our environment, of our social systems, and share that knowledge in ways that makes us better people, makes our organizations better at what they do and better to be associated with and to work within.
That power, that ability lies within each and every one of us. But we have to take leadership, we have to take ownership and responsibility of that power.

It is that ability to take the lead, to learn to share what we have to give, learn to grow from what is being given back that can shape a prosperous economic and social environment where more people 'win'.
We are that medium, we are that message.

More Evidence

Every day, the blogosphere increases it's distributed information and knowledge. On any given day I can find or stumble upon high value knowledge that in my case offers more evidence to support what I want to do to help transform your organization for the better.
Today was another case in point. I started by reading Peter Miller's "The Smart Swarm", which lead me to becoming aware of the U.S. intelligence community's "Intellipedia", a Google search in turn lead me to Radar O'Reilly's technology site, from which a blog post there lead me to this terrific post by Andrew McAfee's blogpost called Enterprise 2.0 Is a Crock: Discuss.

McAfee is responding to a piece by Dennis Howlett titled Enterprise 2.0 What a Crock.

Howlett raises what I often talk about here, but what also is a false dichotomy: the self organizing nature of social media and Web 2.0 tools are a threat to the existing hierarchy and bureaucratic order of organizations. They can  be, yes. That is a long ways away from them having to be. Howlett also raises another excellent point: companies and 'corporate America' are far more engaged with trying to deal with the worst recession since the great depression. Engaging with new social media tools may not be high on their to do lists.
That is a point. But it is also a point one would expect from the old guard.
He also misses that it was a lot of the old guard mentality, lack of foresight, lack of social intelligence and greed for short term gains over that of long term organizational and society health that brought on the worse recession since that 1930's.

It was herd mentality the lead America and many others over that cliff. Your organization could have separated itself from that herd. Your organization, your corporation can still separate itself from that herd.

Howlett is wailing the loser's cry. Leaders and winners look ahead, look for the new tools, the new science that can take them there, and forge the paths America and the world needs to create the kind of sustainable future where society benefits, and private and public organizations benefit.

Read the entire posts by both Howlett and McAfee. One is progressive and forward looking, the other rooted in an increasingly outmoded mentality, one more concerned with accounting principles than that of forging better bonds between the producer and consumer.

Howlett does not offer up any argument against being better connected, better informed, better decisions, whereas McAfee does offer up more evidence supporting that being better informed, better connected can lead to better decisions.
How well your organization can do that depends on the culture that can be fostered to harness the knowledge and human capital within.

Better Informed, Better Connected, Better Decisions 202

I'm reading through Peter Miller's The Smart Swarm : How Understanding Flocks, Schools and Colonies Can Make Us Better at Communicating, Decision Making, and Getting Things Done and was pleasantly surprised to read that the U.S. intelligence community has for four years used it's own Intellipedia!
Why? Intelligence is essentially about gathering information. What Miller does so well in his book, is look at how things like bee colonies, termite mounds, and ants produce complex behaviour with simple rules. Rules that can and do work for our complex societies and organizations. The basic principles are: Seek a diversity of knowledge; Encourage a friendly competition of ideas; Use effective mechanisms to narrow your choices.
What the intelligence community in the U.S. found in the wiki software format was a way to get closer to those principles.
What we also see here is another layer to what a process such as my three pillar approach of "systems thinking"; "organizational and personal learning" and "rich social media networks" can bring to your organization--being better informed, be better connected, making better decisions.

What is remarkable here is this is the intelligence community, which is traditionally notorious for being secretive, hoarding of information and not sharing, started it's own wiki site to do just that--share information voluntarily across a highly distributed network. Yes, it is going through the natural struggles of escaping the gravitational pull of the old guard culture.On his site on " Insight, analysis, and research about emerging technologies"  Alex Howard at Radar O'Reilly does a great job in a blog post Connecting the dots with intellipedia of gathering several insights and opinions about how well this is working, along with the challenges.

What does this mean for your organization? This is yet another example of how a very complex organization with a deep rooted culture is extending itself to broad benefits of the tools of Web 2.0, and doing so so they can be "better informed, better connected, better decisions".

Check out the Daniel Pink youtube link in the post that precedes this one. There are very likely people within your organization that perhaps already have the motivation to increase your organizational intelligence through the vast array of Web2.0 tools, creating a "rich social media network" that can be a vital source of innovation and knowledge sharing that will boost your organizational performance. This already exists within your organization. The question is do you have the leadership within to tap into this vast resource of knowledge and talent that lies dormant within?

"What Motivates Us"

I highly recommend checking this RSA Animate, from Daniel Pink's "Drive" and posted on youtube.


The surprising truth on what motivates us.

The New Science of Organization.

I say "new science" in the headline to draw attention, but really the theory behind the science isn't that new,  more and more studies are backing up the theory. What the studies and the science continually show is a growing gap between our perceptional "reality" and the "reality" of how people and organizations function. With that reality lies enormous opportunity for growth, efficiencies, innovation and healthier organizations. This means improvement in the bottom line. Better productivity, cost savings, and taking a decisive lead in the market place.

Two recent books bring this science closer to the surface. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel H. Pink, and The Smart Swarm by Peter Miller cover different but overlapping topics.
Of the two, "Drive" gets more to the specifics--what motivates us--while "The Smart Swarm" by it's very nature covers the generalities social intelligence.

While two very different books, both give plenty of direction for how we can think and act differently as organizations.
With "The Smart Swarm", we get better acquainted with the pros and cons of the herd mentality I have written about here often before. There are times where following the herd is the smart thing to do, investing being one example. The trick being is having enough understanding of where that herd is leading, what it is that is protective or smart about it, and when to leave the pack and follow your own path.
Within your own organization, you can harness your own swarm, your own herd with it's own group intelligence to make better decisions on where your organization fits into the larger market conditions.
The other trick is for managerial actors to let go of ego so they can harness the intelligence within their team.

"Drive" helps us get there. The one main take away from Daniel Pink's work is that after a certain level, money is not what motivates us. A deeper sense of purpose is what really engages our abilities, creativity and desire to excel. That purpose can be with the organizations in which we work, that can be your organization.

What these two books also underscore again, is the need for fostering the right culture to let our 'drive', our 'swarm intelligence' flourish to the point where it's getting more out of the latent talent and abilities the lie within all organizations and within society itself.

The science and studies are there and growing. The question that also grows is does your organization have enough leadership within it to harness it's 'drive' and 'swarm intelligence'?