What’s Your System Improvement Index?

Donella Meadows (1941-2001) was an influential American environmental scientist known for being a pioneer of systems thinking. She helped author the groundbreaking book The Limits to Growth and became a leading voice on leveraging systems dynamics to address sustainability challenges.

Major Accomplishments

Meadows had a remarkable career as a scientist, author, teacher and lecturer:

• Co-authored the 1972 book The Limits to Growth, which used system dynamics computer models to argue exponential economic and population growth would lead to ecological overload. The book brought global computer modeling and systems thinking to the forefront.
• Authored and co-authored several other seminal books on systems, sustainability and environmental limits including Beyond the Limits and Thinking in Systems.
• Taught system dynamics and modelling at Dartmouth College for over 20 years.
• Led the Sustainability Institute to apply systems thinking towards sustainability education and solutions.
• Won numerous awards and honours including a MacArthur Fellowship “Genius Grant”.
• Lectured extensively on sustainable development, systems theory, agriculture and environmental issues around the world.

Everything Is Connected

Observations on Interconnectedness In her writings and lectures, Meadows emphasised that systems thinkers understand everything is interconnected. Some key observations she made:

• In systems, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Focusing only on parts loses emergent properties.
• Cause and effect is not straightforward – systems have complex chains of causality where changing one element affects others.
• We must recognise how our actions and decisions affect the larger system. Local changes have global impacts.
• System behaviour arises from its structure and interconnected feedback loops, not just individual elements. To change behaviour, change interconnections.
• Problems arise from the system structure, not deficiencies in individual parts. Fix the interrelationships rather than try to control parts.
• Leverage points in a system arise from its characteristics like goals, rules, delays and balancing loops. Understand interconnectivity to find leverage.

Meadows brought deep awareness to the dynamics within systems and how all things ultimately affect each other. She highlighted that to understand our challenges and create change, we must start by recognising that everything is connected.

Legacy and Impact

Donella Meadows left an immense legacy as a pioneer of systems thinking and its application to complex global issues. Her insights on leveraging interconnectivity and seeing issues holistically rather than through reductionism profoundly shaped the fields of system dynamics, environmental policy and sustainability.

Meadows’ prescient warnings about growth limits and her ability to illuminate systemic causes made her a visionary thinker. She brought complex systems concepts to wider audiences through her gifted storytelling and clarity.

Even decades later, Meadows’ observations continue to offer urgent lessons as humanity grapples with challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. Her writings uphold that we must understand interconnectivity and site our actions within the whole in order to transition to sustainability. Few conveyed the imperatives of systems thinking so eloquently yet accessibly as Meadows. Her wisdom serves as an enduring guide to mending troubled systems.

Russell L. Ackoff (1919-2009) was a prominent American organisational theorist, professor, and philosopher who helped pioneer the field of systems thinking. He advocated systemic, participative, and humanistic approaches to organisations and society.

Pioneering Systems Thinker

Ackoff was a professor at the Wharton School of Business for over 30 years and became one of the leading voices in systems theory. He focused on viewing organisations and problems as complex systems rather than isolated parts. Some of his major contributions include:

• Developing the concept of systems thinking and the shift towards holism rather than reductionism
• Co-founding the systems theory field and the systems view of organisations
• Creating “interactive planning” for participative organisational design
• Applying systems thinking to social issues like crime, education, and poverty
• Authoring definitive works on systems concepts like emergence, viability, hierarchy, and purposeful systems
• Bringing systems ideas to wider audiences in accessible books and lectures

Ackoff promoted a systemic worldview that revolutionised how businesses, societies, and people could be understood and how they should be organised.

A Humanistic Systems Worldview

While pioneering complex systems ideas, Ackoff remained focused on human potential and dignity. He criticised mechanistic views of humanity predominant in management theory and advocated for applying systems thinking to empower individuals. Some of his key humanistic beliefs included:

• Seeing people as purposeful agents capable of self-actualisation, not just as reactive parts.
• Believing human potential is largely unrealised in modern society.
• Blaming systemic issues, not people, for social problems and inadequacies.
• Arguing people should be treated as ends, not means-towards-imposed-goals.
• Advocating redesigning systems to allow self-determination, and realise creativity.
• Criticising reductionist views of people that ignore consciousness and choices.
• Promoting participative, democratic systems where people determine their own goals.

Ackoff wanted to promote freedom, ethics, and human flourishing through his systems worldview. He exemplified using systems thinking to empower, not dehumanise.

Legacy and Impact

Ackoff left behind profound and lasting impacts on systems theory, organisational development, and the application of systems ideas for positive change. His humanistic belief in human potential shone through his rigorous systems concepts. Ackoff successfully integrated the analytical and the humane. His systemic yet optimistic views of people and organisations continue to elevate discussions of how to understand and improve society.

What Do Recruiters Know About Psychology?

When it comes to recruitment, the spotlight generally falls on skills, qualifications, and years of experience. But what about understanding human behaviour? Recruiters often talk about culture fit, team cohesion, and emotional intelligence, but how deep does their grasp of psychology go? It’s a mixed bag. A few recruiters invest time in learning behavioural cues and techniques derived from psychological research. Most stick to traditional stuff like CV screening and keyword matching.

What About Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking allows us to understand how individual components within an organisation interact with each other. Does a typical recruiter understand these nuances? Generally, the answer leans towards no. Recruiters often focus on filling a role rather than understanding how that role interacts with other parts of the organisation. This can lead to problematic hires that may fit a job description but disrupt a system.

How Important Are Group Dynamics?

Group dynamics explore how people interact within a group and how the group itself functions as a unit. Understanding this is key to fostering a harmonious work environment. A recruiter who appreciates group dynamics goes beyond placing a candidate based on skill set alone. They’ll look at how a new hire might impact the existing team culture and dynamics. However, recruiters often don’t delve deeply into this topic, as it’s usually considered the purview of internal HR teams or hiring managers (who, BTW, also rarely appreciate this topic).

Can Recruiters Improve?

Recruiters can certainly benefit from a broader understanding of psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. While a very few are already there, many could make strides by investing in study that delves into these areas. After all, the aim is to place candidates who don’t just fill a role but also contribute positively to the organisation as a whole.

Conclusion: Room for Growth

While it varies, recruiters generally have room to grow when it comes to understanding psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. Adopting a more holistic approach to recruitment can yield benefits for organisations and candidates alike. It’s difficult though, as dwelling on these areas risks alienating their hiring clients.

Are We Training People For the Wrong Skills?

In business and software development, we’ve got a misalignment. We’re so wrapped up in perfecting the technical, we lose sight of the human. Developers are trained to churn out code more quickly, code that’s faster, cheaper, and more reliable, but are they learning how to solve real-world problems? Testers are trained to find bugs, but not how to prevent them. The result: technically proficient software that either nobody wants or that arrives late and over budget, or both.

Technical Matters?

Yes, quality code is essential. Yet, it’s by no means the end-all and be-all. A developer isn’t just a code-writing machine; they’re attendants. The fixation on coding and computing skills above all else turns them into technicians rather than holistic thinkers capable of understanding and meeting folks’ needs. When developers are pigeonholed into this role, organisations miss out on the broader impact their expensive developers could be making.

What About Bugs?

Finding bugs is a red herring – what if we could prevent them in the first place? Testers are often pigeonholed into merely identifying issues rather than participating in a more proactive approach. This approach costs time, money, and may even reduce the software’s overall quality because the focus is on fixing, not preventing. The need for speed in bug-finding diverts attention from other valuable forms of contribution, like feature development and needs validation (making sure the product meets the real needs of all the Folks That Matter.

What’s the Cost?

When we narrow our focus to speed, efficiency, and defect detection, we end up inflating costs and extending delivery times. Software development isn’t just about churning out lines of code or ticking off a testing checklist. It’s a more nuanced art that blends technical skills with an understanding of the needs of all the Folks That Matter.

Where’s the User in All This?

In the chase for technical mastery, it’s easy to forget the end-user. Products, at their core, are intended to make lives easier, to attend to folks needs. When developers and testers are not trained to master these things, we end up with products that are high on features but low on utility.

So What’s the Solution?

If we’re to correct this misalignment, we need a cultural shift. We might choose to reorient our training and development programmes. For developers, this means less emphasis on speed and more on understanding who matters, and then discovering and meeting these folks’ needs. For testers, a shift from just finding bugs to a more holistic approach to quality via defect prevention (Cf. ZeeDee) would be transformative.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The technical aspects of software and product development are, without a doubt, essential. But they aren’t the whole story. By shifting our focus to include all the needs of all the Folks That Matter, we can create products that not only work but makes a difference. The first step? Acknowledging that we’ve been training for all the wrong skills.

Forget about blaming employees for every hiccup in the workplace; chances are, it’s not them—it’s the system (the way the work works). Enter Bill Deming, the overlooked genius who showed us where the real problem lies.

Who Was Bill Deming?

Bill Deming, formally known as W. Edwards Deming, was a statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and consultant. He’s particularly famous in Japan for teaching the country’s top management how to improve product quality. While highly influential in certain professional circles, he remains relatively unknown to the world of business, let alone to the general public.

What’s Deming’s 95/5 Rule?

The 95/5 rule proposes that 95% of the problems in an organisation are a consequence of the system, while only 5% are a consequence of the people within it. This revolutionary thought refocuses attention from blaming individual workers to considering the system they operate within.

The Red Bead Experiment?

The Red Bead Experiment was a powerful illustration of the 95/5 rule. In this experiment, workers would scoop beads from a bowl filled with a mix of white and red beads. Despite their best efforts, they couldn’t avoid scooping up red beads, which were considered ‘defects’. The point? The workers had no control over the system, represented by the bowl and the mix of beads. The defects were a consequence of the system, not the people.

Why Isn’t Deming More Famous?

Deming’s lack of mainstream recognition can be attributed to a few factors:

1. Cultural Differences: Deming’s principles took root in Japan, not his home country of the United States.
2. Complex Ideas: His theories aren’t beginner-friendly and demand a paradigm shift in managerial thinking.
3. Crowded Thought Space: Newer methods and more contemporary “thought leaders” often take the limelight.
4. Systemic Focus: His emphasis on systems over individuals is somewhat at odds with endemic Western management assumptions and beliefs.

Why Take Notice?

Understanding Deming’s 95/5 rule can significantly alter how you approach problem-solving in your organisation. It places importance on changing systems, not just people, to solve persistent issues.

How to Implement the 95/5 Rule?

1. Examine Systems, Not People: Before jumping to blame individuals, look at the systems in which they operate.
2. Prioritise Systemic Solutions: Focus on fixing the system rather than tackling individual performance issues.
3. Educate the Workforce: Ensure your team understands their role within the broader system and the shared responsibility for improvement.
4. Assess and Refine: After systemic changes, evaluate their effectiveness to ensure they resolve the problems you identified.

In Summary

Bill Deming and his 95/5 rule, illuminated through the Red Bead Experiment, offer a critical lens for assessing organisational issues. It’s not merely about identifying what’s wrong but understanding where the root cause lies—usually in the system rather than individual actions. Isn’t it time we acknowledged the value of this overlooked genius?

Feel Like You’re Running in Place? Surface And Reflect On The System Conditions You Didn’t Know Were Holding You Back

What Are System Conditions?

“System conditions” is a term frequently tossed around in management and business literature. The term borrows from systems theory, a branch of interdisciplinary study that seeks to understand complex systems in various domains. The word “system” itself is derived from the Latin ‘systēma’, from the Greek ‘sustēma’, both of which mean ‘a whole compounded of several parts or members’. The term “condition” traces its roots to the Latin ‘condicere’, meaning ‘to speak with, talk together’. Put these together and you’ve got “system conditions”, signifying the various factors that communicate and interact to make a system what it is.

In simpler terms, think of a system condition as a rule or setup within an organisation that dictates how things operate. It could be an unwritten policy, a piece of software, or even the physical layout of your office.

Why Aren’t We Progressing?

The issue often is not that people don’t want to advance or grow; it’s that the system conditions they’re embedded in won’t allow it. Employees might find that despite their best efforts, there’s a cap on what they can achieve. This could be due to outdated software, a bureaucratic hierarchy that stifles innovation, or a corporate culture that doesn’t value collaboration.

Who’s Responsible?

There’s no easy answer to this. While management tends to have the most influence over system conditions, it’s a shared responsibility that goes up and down the organisational ladder. For real change to occur, everyone needs to be engaged in identifying and altering the problematic conditions.

What Can We Do About It?

If you find yourself stuck in a limiting environment, it’s not a hopeless situation. Here are some actionable steps:

1. Identify the Problem: The first step in solving any problem is recognising that it exists. Hold workshops or meetings to discuss the system conditions that are holding you back. IOW Identify the system conditions that are preventing you from effectively attending to folks’ needs.
2. Consult the Teams: Gather insights from team members who interact with these conditions on a day-to-day basis.
3. Develop a Plan: Once you’ve identified the system conditions and gained team insights, it’s time to strategise. Consider altering workflows, updating technology, or changing team dynamics. Consider the Toyota Kata approach here.
4. Test and Tweak: Implement your plan on a small scale first. Observe the results and tweak as necessary before a full-scale implementation.
5. Review: Once changes have been made, it’s vital to review their impact. If things have improved, great. If not, it might be time to revisit your approach.

So What’s Next?

We’ve established that system conditions significantly influence an organisation’s efficacy and the well-being of its employees. While they’re often overlooked or taken for granted, addressing these conditions is essential for real progress. So if you find your team is stuck in a rut, maybe it’s not the people that are the problem. Perhaps it’s time to look at the system conditions and make the necessary changes.

Further Reading

If you’re interested in diving deeper into the topic of system conditions and their impact on businesses, the following resources might be of interest:

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday.

This book explores the concept of systems thinking and how it can transform organizations.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Sage Publications.

Morgan discusses various metaphors to understand organizations, which include system conditions as a framework.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.

This book discusses the limitations of single-loop learning in organisations and the need for changing system conditions to achieve double-loop learning.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Meadows presents an introduction to systems theory and its applications, including a discussion on system conditions.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.

This book explores how organisational culture can act as a system condition, affecting all other aspects of a business.

Kim, D. H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communications.

Daniel Kim provides an accessible guide to systems thinking, making it relevant for those interested in understanding system conditions in a business context.

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1984). The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. North River Press.

This book, set as a business novel, discusses constraints and system conditions within the context of production and operations management.

Rother, M. (2009). Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior Results. McGraw-Hill.

This book delves into the management techniques used by Toyota to adapt to changing system conditions, focusing on continuous improvement and adaptability.

These resources provide a well-rounded understanding of system conditions and their role in business management and organisational behaviour.

The Mirage of Measuring Productivity

Most organisations regard metrics as the Holy Grail of productivity. But what if we’re wasting our time, trapped in a Sisyphean cycle of measuring, adapting, and then measuring again, without achieving improvement? Metrics often mislead us. The more relevant question is: How do we truly make a difference?

The Complexity of Social Systems in Software Development

To get to the heart of the issue, we have to confront the chaos that comes with human beings working together. People aren’t variables in an equation; they’re living, breathing agents of unpredictability. In such an environment, even if we find a metric that looks promising, the inherent complexity could render it meaningless.

Deming’s Caveat: “The Most Important Figures are Unknown or Unknowable”

Before we take another step down the rabbit hole of productivity metrics, let’s pause to reflect on a pertinent insight from W. Edwards Deming, the father of modern quality management. He stated,

The most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable.

If one of the most influential minds in quality management and productivity warns us against an over-reliance on metrics, it’s worth taking note.

Why Metrics Often Fail in Social Systems

Metrics tend to misfire when applied to the inherently chaotic world of human interaction. It’s not a mechanical system with predictable outcomes; it’s more of an organic entity with complex, non-linear interactions. So, when metrics disappoint, it’s not the numbers that are at fault but our misplaced expectations of their ability to capture reality.

Turning to Systemic Improvements: The Untold Chapter

If we heed Deming’s advice, our focus shifts from trying to measure the immeasurable to creating conditions for productivity to flourish. When we step back from the Sisyphean task of trying to pin down productivity with metrics, as per Deming’s counsel, we make room for a paradigm shift.

Instead of fixating on measured outcomes, the focus turns towards the fertile ground from which these outcomes naturally emerge. Here’s how this shift fundamentally changes our approach to productivity. (Cf. Quintessence).

Systems Thinking: The Big Picture

Deming was a strong advocate for systems thinking. This perspective urges us to see the workplace not as a collection of isolated variables but as a holistic system. Individual performances are interrelated, affected by the entire system, including leadership styles, workplace culture, communication pathways and a host of other memes. By optimising the system as a whole, we inherently create conditions for better productivity.

Quality of Interactions Over Quantity of Output

If we’re not bogged down by the numbers, we can invest time and energy into what really matters, such as the quality of interactions among team members. High-quality interactions naturally lead to high-quality output. Team members who communicate clearly, collaborate effectively, and feel psychologically safe are more likely to be productive.

By heeding Deming’s advice, we engage in a more holistic, humane, and, ironically, effective approach to boosting productivity. We may not have a neat vanity metric to showcase in the next board meeting, but the signs will be everywhere—in the engagement of the team, the quality of the work, and the satisfaction of your clients.

Improving Without Measuring: Sounds Like Heresy, Doesn’t It?

Here’s the part where some people might think we’re heading into taboo territory. How do we know we’re making progress if we’re not measuring it? The key is to focus on systemic improvements that are intuitively beneficial, such as:

• Surfacing and reflecting on collective assumptions and beliefs
• Attending to folks’ needs
• Enhancing communication channels
• Making things visible
• Reducing work-in-progress
• Emphasising learning and personal development
• Promoting psychological safety

By attending to these areas, we’re likely moving in the right direction, even if we can’t quantify it.

Feedback Loops: Your New Best Friend

Feedback loops provide insights without the narrow focus of traditional metrics. They allow teams to observe patterns, adapt, and continuously learn. These can range from daily stand-ups to sprint reviews, to customer feedback sessions. The idea is to keep the feedback continuous and actionable.

Holistic Approaches: Taking a Cue from Organisational Psychotherapy

Improving productivity in complex systems requires less of a mechanical approach and more of a therapeutic one. Techniques like organisational psychotherapy aim to uncover underlying issues at the collective subconscious level. By addressing these foundational aspects, we’re more likely to see a genuine shift in productivity.

So, Are We Moving the Needle?

The perennial question still stands: How do we know we’re improving? But maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question. The more relevant question is: Are we creating an environment where improvement is not just possible but inevitable? And what does that environment look like?

So, let’s leave behind the vanity of metrics and embrace the nuanced, often messy journey of actual improvement. The numbers may not make it to a glitzy PowerPoint presentation, but the positive change will be palpable. And isn’t that what really matters?

Many software folks pay lip service to Bill Deming and his work. Few if any pay any attention to the implications. Let’s break the mould and dive into how the great man himself might look at software developer productivity (a subset of collaborative knowledge worker productivity more generally).

This isn’t just a thought experiment; it’s an invitation to rethink our existing assumptions and beliefs about productivity.

Why Traditional Metrics Don’t Cut It

If Deming could peer over our shoulders, he’d likely be aghast at our fascination with shallow metrics. Lines of code? Bugs fixed? DORA? SPACE? These are mere surface ripples that fail to delve into the depths of what truly constitutes productivity. Deming was a systems thinker, and he’d want us to look at productivity as an outcome of a complex system. It’s influenced by everything from the quality of management practices to the clarity of project goals, and yes, even the standard of the coffee in the break room.

Aside 1

Let’s not get too hung up on staff productivity and the measurement thereof.

Deming’s First Theorem states that:

“Nobody gives a hoot about profits.”

A corollary might be:

“Nobody gives a hoot about software developer productivity.”

Which, drawing on my 50+ years experience in the software business, rings exceedingly true. Despite all the regular hoo-hah about productivity. Cf. Argyris and espoused theory vs theory in action.

Aside 2

While we’ve on the subject of measurment, let’s recognise that measuments will only be valid and useful when specified by and collected by the folks doing the work. I’ve written about this before, for example in my 2012 post “Just Two Questions“.

Aside 3

Let’s remember that the system (the way the work works) accounts for some 95% of an individual’s productivity. Leaving just 5% that’s a consequence of an individual’s talents and efforts. This makes it clear that attempting to measure individual productivity, or even team productivity, is a fool’s errand of the first order.

Here’s the Deming Approach

So, how would the statistician go about this? Hold on to your hats, because we’re diving into an eight-step process that marries statistical rigour with psychology and humanistic care.

1. Understand the System

First things first, get to grips with the holistic view. Understand how a line of code travels from a developer’s brain to the customer. This involves understanding the various elements in the software development lifecycle and how they interact.

2. Define Objectives

Random metrics serve no one. Deming would urge us to link productivity measurements to broader business objectives. What’s the end game? Is it faster delivery, better quality, or increased customer satisfaction?

3. Involve the Team

The people on the ‘shop floor’ have valuable insights. Deming would never neglect the developer’s perspective on productivity. Involving them in defining productivity criteria ensures buy-in and better data accuracy.

4. Data Collection

We’ve got our objectives and our team’s perspective. Now it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on data collection. But this is Deming we’re talking about, so not just any data will do. The focus will be on meaningful metrics that align with the objectives we’ve set.

5. PDSA Cycle

Implementing the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, any changes aimed at boosting productivity would be introduced in small, incremental phases. These phases would be assessed for their effectiveness before either full implementation or going back to the drawing board.

6. Feedback Loops

You’ve made changes; now listen. Feedback from developers, who can offer a real-time response to whether the changes are working, is invaluable.

7. Regular Reviews

Productivity isn’t a static entity. It’s a dynamic component of a system that’s always in flux. Regular reviews help recalibrate the process and ensure it aligns with the ever-changing landscape.

8. Leadership Commitment

Finally, if you think increasing productivity is solely a developer’s job, think again. The leadership team must be as committed to this journey as the developers themselves. It’s a collective journey toward a common goal.

The Long Game

Deming never promised a quick fix. His was a long-term commitment to systemic improvement. But the fruits of such a commitment aren’t just increased productivity. You’re looking at more value for your business and greater satisfaction for both your developers and customers. So, let’s stop paying lip service to Deming and start actually embracing his philosophy. After all, a system is only as good as the assumptions and beliefs that shape it.

Navigating the complex world of software and product development is a journey filled with twists and turns. When it comes to retrospectives, reflection and adaptation are more than just buzzwords; they’re essential tools. But there’s a hidden secret: reflecting without digging deeper into shared beliefs and assumptions is like trying to read a book with 90% of the the pages missing.

The Reflection Trap

Reflecting on what we’ve done is a vital step. Reflection, and acting upon those reflections, is how we learn from our mistakes and our successes. But if we stop at the surface, if we don’t ask ourselves why things happened the way they did, we’re missing a crucial part of the story.

The Missing Piece: Assumptions and Beliefs

Beneath the surface of every decision, every action, and every outcome, there are hidden assumptions and beliefs. These are the unseen forces guiding our choices. They can be our best allies or our worst enemies, depending on whether we recognise them or not.

Why We Need to Adapt

Adapting is more than just changing our actions; it’s about changing our assumptions and beliefs. To truly grow, we need to understand the why behind what we do. We must question our underlying beliefs and confront our assumptions.

Imagine you’re part of a team that keeps missing deadlines. You could tweak your schedules, but if you don’t question why it keeps happening, you might never address the root cause. It could be a belief that everything must be perfect, even if it takes longer. Without confronting that belief, you’ll keep missing those deadlines.

The Road Ahead: Surfacing then Reflecting. Understanding then Adapting

As you explore the world of software and product development, or any path you choose, remember that reflecting is only the first step. Go deeper. Ask why. Understand your assumptions, challenge your beliefs, and then adapt.

The process might be more complex, but the rewards are greater. By engaging with these deeper levels of understanding, you’ll find yourself more aligned with your goals, more resilient in the face of challenges, and more capable of innovative thinking.

Reflecting without understanding what’s beneath is like seeing only part of the picture. Embrace the full journey of reflect and adapt, and you’ll unlock doors to a more fulfilling and successful career in software development or whatever path you choose. It’s not about following a set path; it’s about understanding your path and shaping it as you go. Are you ready for the adventure?

Whether it’s in the realm of marketing, leadership, or everyday life, we sometimes stumble upon generalisations that, while audacious, serve to make us think deeply about inherent human behaviours and prejudices. One such claim was popularised by Seth Godin in his provocative book title, “All Marketers are Liars”. Borrowing a leaf from his book, let’s explore the argument: All managers are morons. And yes, I’m serious.

Definitions First

Managers: When we speak of managers, we aren’t just talking about middle-management or those who supervise a small team. The term ‘manager’ here covers a broad spectrum, from team leaders to high-level executives. Anyone with responsibility for directing or overseeing the work of others, setting objectives, and ensuring goals are met falls under this definition.

Morons: Rather than referring to the derogatory term rooted in early 20th-century psychology, we’re defining a ‘moron’ as someone with little to zero self-awareness and self-knowledge. It’s a reflection of our inability to introspect, evolve, and comprehend our impact on the world around us.

Argument 1: All People are Morons, All Managers are People. Therefore…

It might be hard to digest, but we’ve all displayed ‘moronic’ behaviour at some point. Each one of us has found ourselves in situations where we’ve lacked self-awareness or understanding about our actions and their repercussions. It’s a part of the human experience.

1. Cognitive Biases: We humans are wired with a host of cognitive biases that skew our perspective. For instance, the Dunning-Kruger effect makes people believe they’re more skilled than they truly are. This lack of self-awareness can lead to overestimation and underperformance.
2. The Blind Spot: Everyone knows someone who can’t see their flaws but can easily point out others’. That’s because, inherently, we all have a blind spot when it comes to self-perception. And this is compounded when lack of curiousity perpetuates this blindness.
3. Emotional Hijacking: Emotions often cloud our judgement. Whether it’s anger, sadness, or immense joy, strong emotions can lead us to act without considering the consequences, a definitive sign of lack of self-awareness.

Argument 2: Following Fads

Managers, being humans, are susceptible to getting lured by the latest trends and fads. Without critical evaluation, they might adopt methods or tools that aren’t beneficial in the long run, just because they’re currently popular.

Argument 3: Ignorance, Compounded by Indolence

A manager’s ignorance, when coupled with laziness, lack of curiosity, or failure to study and ground decisions and actions in proven theory, will have detrimental effects. It can lead to missed opportunities, wrong decisions, and inefficiencies. We might call this “seat-of-pants” management.

Argument 4: Accepting Things at Face Value

Managers, like any other individual, generally take things at face value. Instead of delving deeper, asking probing questions, or experimenting to discover underlying truths, they accept the presented information, leading to potential misconceptions or errors. Cf. William Kingdon Clifford on “The Ethics of Belief”.

Argument 5: Driven by Self-Interest

Self-interest generally overshadows all managers’ decision-making. While it’s natural to have personal ambitions and guard one’s own well-being, it becomes problematic when those interests conflict with the team or company’s greater good.

Argument 6: The Fundamental Attribution Error

This cognitive bias, widely prevalent, involves attributing someone’s actions more to their character than the situation they’re in. For managers, this can result in misjudgements about team members’ intentions or capabilities whilst holding their own decisions and behaviours to an entirely different standard.

All Managers are People

Managers, be it at the basic or executive level, are humans first. Their rank doesn’t exempt them from the human condition. Hence, if all people have moments of being ‘morons’, so do all managers.

Drawing the Analogy: Marketing and Management

Seth Godin’s claim that “All Marketers are Liars” wasn’t intended to insult every marketer. Instead, he explained that stories sell, and marketers are essentially storytellers who might sometimes stretch the truth for a narrative.

Likewise, “All Managers are Morons” isn’t a sweeping statement of their incompetency. It’s an acknowledgment of their humanity and fallibility, a call for introspection and growth.

The Call to Self-Awareness

The goal of this post isn’t to undermine managers – although I have serious issues with the whole idea of management – but to highlight the human tendencies they, like all of us, might exhibit. Recognising these tendencies is the first step to growth. Managers may choose, especially those in influential positions, to understand these inclinations and continuously strive for self-awareness.

In conclusion, while “All Managers are Morons” is designed to provoke thought, its underlying message is clear: it serves as a reminder of our shared human frailties. Managers, at all levels, might choose to be conscious of these pitfalls, striving always for improvement and betterment, whilst maybe considereing alternatives to the whole idea od “management”.

Further Reading

Hamel, Gary. (2011). First, Let’s Fire All The Managers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

In the realms of leadership and management, coaching has often been synonymous with developing individuals, honing skills, and helping others overcome their challenges. However, this understanding of coaching focuses primarily on the individual – the proverbial “5 percent” of the entire organisational system.

Building on the profound teachings of quality management gurus like W. Edwards Deming and Peter Scholtes, we’ll explore a more holistic approach – one that extends beyond mere individual improvement to effect systemic change.

The 95/5 Principle

Deming, a trailblazer in the field of quality management, and Scholtes, a disciple of his methodologies, both advocated for the principle of the 95/5 rule. The rule posits that 95 percent of an organisation’s performance problems are rooted in the system (processes, structures, practices, culture, assumptions and beliefs), not in the people who work within it. This counters the conventional approach of focusing primarily on individual skill enhancement.

As coaches, we often get drawn into the 5 percent, focusing on individual behaviors and attitudes. But what if we shift our attention to the remaining 95 percent, the system itself? This implies that coaching individuals is relatively trivial and unimportant, compared to the potential for significant and lasting change on offer in altering the systemic factors that influence behavior.

Embracing Organisational Psychotherapy

One way of addressing the system instead of solely the individual is through organisational psychotherapy. This field, an amalgamation of systems thinking, organisational development, social dynamics, and psychotherapy, aims to address the collective mindset of an organisation – a.k.a. the Group Mind – rather than focusing on individuals.

Organisational psychotherapy operates under the principle that the shared beliefs and assumptions underpinning an organisation’s culture have a profound influence on its performance. By diagnosing and treating dysfunctional patterns at the organisational and even keiretsu level, it is possible to effect deep-seated transformation.

Imagine an organisation where trust is lacking. Traditional coaching may try to build trust skills at the individual level. Organisational psychotherapy, on the other hand, will explore the systemic issues that contribute to the absence of trust, perhaps uncovering a culture of blame, or a lack of transparency in decision-making processes.

The Organisational Therapist’s Role

Organisational therapy fits perfectly into this new paradigm. An organisational therapist, in true spirit, does not merely impart useful techniques but instead facilitates a cultural shift, making the organisation as a whole more adaptive, responsive, and effective. The focus expands from individual teams to the organisational culture, shared assumptions, beliefs, and structure – the 95 percent.

Organisational therapists delve into the hidden pain points, communication gaps, unasked questions, and cultural challenges within the organisation. It is their role to create a safe environment for learning and growth, fostering a culture of continuous improvement that permeates beyond the individual to the system itself.

By integrating the 95/5 principle with the support of organisational psychotherapy, organisations can effect systemic change that amplifies the effectiveness of the organisation, leading to long-term sustainability and success.

Do-It-Yourself Help

In the sphere of organisational psychotherapy, one resource stands out for its novel perspective and practical insights: the self-help book “Memeology.” This transformative work delves into the intricate dynamics of organisational culture, likening ingrained practices and beliefs to ‘memes’ that propagate within a company. It serves as a valuable guide for those looking to understand and influence these ‘memes’ or cultural elements in their own organisations. “Memeology” provides a holistic approach to recognising systemic issues and addressing them effectively, thereby facilitating a healthier, more productive workplace. The book is a potent tool for organisational therapists, coaches, leaders, and anyone aspiring to invoke systemic change, offering a blend of practical knowledge and actionable strategies to drive organisational transformation.

Summary

In conclusion, coaching is not just about improving the 5 percent, it’s about transforming the 95 percent. As coaches, let us commit to the profound impact we can make by shifting our focus from the individual to the system, creating a nurturing environment for growth, and fostering an Agile culture that drives systemic improvement.

The business world is captivated by talent – an intoxicating attribute that often eclipses other factors. Many leaders believe that by hiring the most talented individuals, they will invariably achieve superior results. This notion, however, can be more delusional than it appears, particularly when viewed through the lens of W. Edwards Deming’s principles and systems thinking.

Deming, a renowned statistician, professor, author, and consultant, is best known for his groundbreaking work in improving production in Japan after World War II. His philosophy champions a systems perspective, emphasising processes, statistical variability, and the importance of culture in an organisation’s performance.

Talent – A Double-Edged Sword

As Deming and systems thinkers would argue, the excessive focus on talent can be misleading, obscuring the importance of organisational systems and culture.

There is a propensity in business to attribute success or failure solely to individual effort and capability, neglecting the critical role of the system within which these individuals operate. When an employee underperforms, it is easy to lay the blame on their lack of talent, rather than investigate systemic issues that may have caused the underperformance. Conversely, when an individual excels, it is tempting to credit their talent alone, ignoring how the system may have enabled their success.

This overemphasis on talent perpetuates what Deming dubbed the “prevailing style of management,” which involves managing by results or objectives, rather than focusing on improving the system. Such an approach can lead to short-term gains but overlooks long-term stability and sustainable growth.

The Power of Systems Thinking

Deming’s philosophy and systems thinking suggest a more holistic approach to understanding performance within organisations. It shifts the focus from individuals (and their talent) to the interconnectedness of components within an organisation, and to the power of interpersonal relationships.

Under this perspective, businesses are viewed as systems composed of interconnected processes. Here, a team’s performance isn’t merely the sum of individual talents; instead, it’s the result of interactions among team members, internal procedures, management practices, and the overall corporate culture.

A systems thinking approach emphasises that most problems and most possibilities for improvement lie in the system, not the individual parts (or talent). It’s estimated that about 94% of performance results from the system, leaving only about 6% attributable to individuals. This insight is a paradigm shift away from our intuitive, but delusional, individual-focused view of performance.

Building Better Business Systems

Recognising the power of systems over individual talent, how should businesses adapt?

Firstly, it’s critical to identify, understand, and improve the systems within which employees work. Rather than overemphasising talent recruitment, focus on the environment that enables or hinders their success.

Secondly, invest in training and development. In Deming’s view, education and continual training are critical to building better systems. Encourage an organisational culture where employees understand and appreciate the systems within which they operate.

Lastly, maintain a focus on continual improvement. Remember that most of the room for improvement lies within the system itself. Foster an environment that encourages questioning, rethinking, and overhauling systems as needed.

Conclusion

Obsession with talent should not distract businesses from the fundamental truth that systems and processes are the primary drivers of performance. Embracing Deming’s philosophy and systems thinking offers a more comprehensive, accurate, and ultimately effective path to long-term business success. Remember, a superstar employee might bring temporary success, but a superb system will bring sustainable growth.

Listen up, folks! There’s a whole lot of you out there in the business world who just don’t get it. You’re missing the point, and it’s costing you. Big time.

Unheard truths echo,
In business, losses follow,
Insight, hard to swallow.

Culture Rocks

First up, let’s talk about culture. Not the kind you find in a yogurt, but the kind that permeates every corner of your organization. Culture isn’t just about casual Fridays or the company picnic. It’s about shared values, beliefs, and attitudes. It’s the glue that holds your team together and drives them towards a common goal. Ignore it at your peril.

Culture’s silent pulse,
Invisible yet potent,
Shapes the firm’s heartbeat.

It’s the System, Stupid

Next, you need to understand how the work works. It’s not enough to just do your job. You need to understand the processes, the systems, the mechanics of how things get done. That’s how you find efficiencies, eliminate waste, and improve productivity.

Work’s rhythm, unseen,
In its flow, wisdom gleaned,
In details, truth’s gleaned.

Auftragstaktik

Ever heard of Auftragstaktik? It’s a German military term that means “mission command.” In business, it’s about moving decision-making real close to the front line. It’s about empowering your people to make decisions and take action. It’s about trust and accountability. It’s about getting out of the way and letting your people do what they do best. Some call this self-organising teams, but it’s more, much more, than that.

Auftragstaktik reigns,
Decisions like scattered grains,
Empowerment gains.

Find the Demand

Next: product-market fit. It’s not just a buzzword. It’s about finding the sweet spot where your product meets a market need. If you’re not there, you’re just throwing your time and money into the wind.

Product-market fit,
In the sweet spot, we commit,
Success, bit by bit.

Radical Pivots

And then there’s the pivot. Not the kind you do in basketball, but the kind that can save your business. Markets change. Customers change. If you’re not willing to change with them and go where the demand is, you’re going to rapidly become irrelevant. And out of business.

Pivot, change your stance,
In market’s fickle dance,
Adaptance is chance.

Wake Up!

So wake up, folks! Pay attention to these things. They’re not just buzzwords. They’re the keys to success in business. And if you don’t get that, well, you’re just not getting it.

Awake, heed these words,
Not mere buzz, but success’ birds,
Ignorance affords.

Further Reading

Gerber, M. E. (1995). The E-Myth revisited: Why most small businesses don’t work and what to do about it. HarperBusiness.
Winget, L. (2008). People are idiots and I can prove it!: The 10 ways you are sabotaging yourself and how you can overcome them. Gotham Books.
Winget, L. (2007). It’s called work for a reason!: Your success is your own damn fault. Gotham Books.
Bungay, S. (2011). The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.