Chapter III
Getting from Here to There

If Excellence and High Performance are the objectives we seek, how do we get there from here? The short answer could be: Define the problem and fix it.

This simple approach has much to commend it. If nothing else it seems like the logical thing to do, and from this logical basis a rational approach to the achievement of High Performance surely emerges. So for example, if a business is suffering from diminished sales one would begin with a consideration of the relevant factors such as the general state of the market, the position of competitors, and eventually focusing on the sales mechanisms in the business itself. Should it turn out that the market is strong and that competing products have no special advantage, the problem is clearly internal. As pleasant and dedicated as our sales manager may appear, and even though the sales force is ever so energetic——a fix is required.

The fix could start with a simple upgrading of sales training, but if that does not bear immediate and positive results, the scalpel of change must cut deeper. Perhaps our friendly sales manager has passed her prime? And all those eager, energetic members of the sales force, could it be that they are mere sycophants playing out an old script, written in another age? If so the fix is clear: radical surgery and organ replacement.

On a clear and otherwise unremarkable day the organizational fabric is torn——and a profusion of pink slips decorate the landscape. The old order is ushered to the door, and a new sales department arises from the ashes. High hopes and expectations accompany the new sales people as they are welcomed——but the results were not quite as anticipated. It turns out that the old sales manager was effectively the corporate Soul, the repository of the history and traditions. She was also the person that newcomers turned to in times of need and confusion. Not that she possessed the latest in technical wizardry, but she had a warm heart. Now that was all gone. However, sales improved and the organization did better (for the moment), but felt a lot worse.

Of course this is just a story, and a made up one at that. But it is a story that has been told many times with variations. The problem was found and the fix initiated. And in terms of the identified problem, it was undeniable——the fix worked for a time. However, there were unintended consequences. We might also note in passing the leadership style usually associated with this approach to high performance: clear, decisive, command, and control. And in case of need, “Off with their heads.” A caricature for sure, but a character who appears in many management sagas: The Leader.

Unintended Consequences

Mother Nature has taught us some painful lessons through unintended consequences. Consider the matter of floods. Everybody knows that floods are destructive of performance at all levels. Clearly this represents a major problem, and fortunately the fix is obvious. Simply build dams and levees to control the floods. End of problem.

Well, it is the end of problem until that wonderful day when Mother Nature and Old Man River conspire to teach us a lesson. On such a day the rains fall and the river rises, we might even say rages——rages against the artificial barriers and constraints placed in its way. It turns out that floodplains have a purpose. In the ordinary course of events, that lovely flat land adjacent to the river sits high and dry, but when the rains come, as they will, that broad expanse of unencumbered real estate provides a safety valve for the torrent of waters. The added water spreads out gently (relatively speaking), minimizing destructive currents, except in the river gorge itself. And when the rains cease, as they always have, the flood waters percolate slowly through the land, leaving a gift of fresh soil and new seeds of all sorts. The land is renewed, and the flowers and grasses bloom. And so it has been as long as rivers have run——until we saw a problem and applied a fix!

To be fair, our fix seems to keep our feet dry under some circumstances——but definitely not all circumstances! And when those circumstances become extreme we no longer have a flood spreading out, renewing a floodplain, we have a disaster with a name we all remember, like Katrina or Johnstown. The fix becomes the problem, and worse yet, it generates a whole host of new problems. It is all about unintended consequences.

The ancient and honorable problem/solution approach to the troubling aspects of life can be effective, and the leaders who implement it appear equally effective——in the short term. However, its effectiveness is strictly limited to those situations where the variables are few, known, and controllable. Difficulty arises when the approach is generalized to all of life, or where life is downsized (at least in our thinking) to that which is observable and under our control. Which adds up to pretty much the same thing. It is fashionable these days to seek more sophisticated approaches, a positive step I am sure. But I think it worthwhile noting just how often the old synaptic response kicks in: Define the Problem and Fix it. And almost inevitably the synaptic response lands us in the tangled woods of unintended consequences. We might avoid some of the pain were we to pause for the thought that the superficial simplicity could well hide a monster of complexity.

The Closed System Hoax

The simple problem/solution paradigm had its origin, I believe, in a day dominated by what I might call, the Closed System Hoax, yet another example of a good idea put to a bad use. The notion of a Closed System developed in the world of science as men and women of great integrity sought to tease out the “important” from the “variable,” all in the pursuit of fundamental knowledge. Thus in a scientific experiment, it is most important to know that the observed results (whatever they might be) were the product of the forces under study, and not some itinerant variable. To raise the odds of success, great effort is devoted to “closing the system” thereby guarding against such vagrant variables. If one is studying an atomic reaction, walls of lead and concrete are constructed to shield the field of study. But even with the best of intention and effort, it is always recognized that the system is never fully closed. One simply hoped that the disturbance wrought by uncontrolled variables lay beneath the level of significance——and if that weren’t the case——add more lead and concrete. But in any event, the system is never really closed. And in fact the idea of a “closed system” is purely a scientific conceit, useful in certain experimental circumstances, but never to be confused with reality.

Somewhere along the line, as the field of Management made an attempt to assume the mantle of Science, and thereby become Management Science, the notion of a Closed System came along with the baggage. And that baggage was welcomed with enthusiasm. It appeared to those who managed the corporate enterprise that, if they were able to effectively close the system, they could rid themselves of the gremlins of chance and uncertainty, thereby enabling extraordinary levels of efficiency, effectiveness, profitability——to say nothing of High Performance.

It must be acknowledged that the ideal (idol?) of Organization as a Closed System served us well, and the industrial power and accomplishments of the West are the apparent proof of the pudding. If nothing else, it seemed to work. And in areas of our world where turbulence and change are somehow constrained to minimal levels, it continues to work. However, those tranquil patches have dwindled to a precious few, typically found at the very margins of life. And even in those remaining areas of tranquility it is fair to ask whether the sense of protected security is a matter of perception or the condition of reality.

If we are to believe the growing conclusions of those scientists who make chaos and complexity their field of study, the world we live in is definitely a restless place with massive interconnections and constant turbulence. Such a world would never permit a closed space where total control of errant variables is a possibility. And those who presume such a possibility are suffering from some degree of delusion. There are few, if any certainties in our lives, but one would seem to come pretty close: There is no such thing as a closed system, and no matter how hard we try, there never will be. From the beginning, the notion of a Closed System was a scientific conceit, useful in certain experimental circumstances, but never to be confused with reality. And if that confusion occurs you end up with bad science. And should that confusion spread to life in general, or organizations in particular, we find ourselves treading on very shaky ground. Although it is definitely nice to feel that we are in charge, we are in fact victims of the Hoax of Closed Systems.

The Whole Systems Approach

As the limitations of the “Define the Problem and Fix it” approach became clearer, wise heads determined that the key difficulty lay in the narrowness of our view. By restricting our attention to a single problem, and a single solution, we overlooked the fact that our organizations were a mass of interconnected elements. And further, that to change any one element implicitly changed them all. It was therefore essential to expand our horizons to include the whole system. Ably led by Peter Senge and a host of others, we did our best to adopt what has become known as Systemic Thinking.

The thought is glorious, albeit overwhelming. As we approach the task of optimizing our systems (organizations) in pursuit of true High Performance, we must consider all the pieces, in addition to identifying and understanding the complex interrelationships between any and all. It turns out that the components of our organizations (sales, marketing, finance, etc.——and all their subsets) are not good or bad, effective or ineffective in some abstract sense——but always in a context, a context determined by all the other related elements. So, for example, an outstanding Sales Department in one business cannot simply be bolted on to another business with any particular expectation that it will continue to be outstanding. It all depends…

In a way, The Whole Systems Approach is merely the old problem/solution approach writ large. We now have a humongous problem (the whole system), and any solution will undoubtedly be very detailed and complex. But the way forward seems clear enough. We must now describe and understand the system in its entirety (elements and relationships) before any attempt at a “fix.” And the “fix” must be a paragon of elegance, taking into account an infinity of elements and connections. First step: Map the System.

Efforts at mapping the system(s) have been prodigious, producing dense diagrams of elements and connections all decorated with wondrous feedback and feedforward loops. As an academic exercise the enterprise has been more than worthwhile, for we have learned an enormous amount concerning the nature and complexity of our organizations and the operative dynamics. However, when it comes to the second step——the move from diagnosis to treatment, the results to date have been less than outstanding.

Process Re-Engineering

One of the major applications of Systems Thinking to the practical issue of fostering the development of high performance is Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR). Created by Michael Hammer and James Champy in the 90s, Process Re-Engineering proposed to map the total process of an organization and then carefully re-design it to create optimum efficiency.

There is no question that such a microscopic examination of current business practices was a valuable undertaking, but when it came to execution, the results very often did not seem to justify the effort expended. The fly in the ointment is our old friend, The Closed System Hoax. A tacit assumption of those involved seems to have been that while the lengthy, detailed analysis and design work was undertaken, the system under consideration could somehow be isolated from the larger world so that analysis performed at a given point in time would remain valid over time.

For example, in the 90s I had occasion to work with the American telephone company then known as USWEST. For several years they had been engaged in a massive BSR effort, and by the time I made their acquaintance, they were at that magical point of “throwing the switch”——turning on the new creation. However things were not going as predicted. Actually, it looked like imminent disaster, a fact made clear by a visit to their central control room in Denver, Colorado.

The function of that control room was to monitor and manage the whole system. And like many other such control rooms, system status was indicated by a series of color codes: Green—OK, Yellow—Caution, Red—Danger. On my visit the ambient lighting was massively Red! The danger of the situation was reflected in some painful facts: at that point it was taking 6–9 months for the installation of a single telephone line. Even so-called Emergency Lines were taking a month or more. One engineer told me that if one more phone were plugged in, the whole system could crash. Somehow or another the re-engineered business was not doing too well.

The explanation that I was given for the critical situation had to do with earthquakes in California. In the mid 90s the San Andreas Fault slipped massively, producing catastrophic results from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Probably most Californians took the chaos in their stride or did not have any options, but a significant number found the shaking of their real estate not to their liking and decided to move. Those who took that decision were not without financial resources, and their destinations were anywhere but California, just not too far away. And so the contiguous states of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington became the objectives of their flight. And these states just happened to be the service area of USWEST.

Upon arrival the Californians settled in accommodations matching their lifestyles and they wanted phones——lots of phones. A main line, a children’s line, a computer line, a fax line, and spare lines as well——and they had the financial resources to pay for their desires. Unfortunately USWEST did not have the added capacity to meet those desires. That was not part of the plan, and hence the imminent disaster. It became apparent that the world had changed once again, and the system was anything but closed.

The example of USWEST may be an extreme one, and for sure a “whole system’s approach” has much to commend it, but it is an open question as to whether we actually have the capacity to map the system in sufficient detail to picture the finer components and their inner working. Should we seek to better the odds of our success by cutting the system down to a size, we might reasonably handle by tacitly assuming a closed system, we leave ourselves vulnerable to a changing world which has the nasty habit of voiding our best laid plans. Lastly, if the chaos/complexity researchers are correct, that very minimal changes within, or adjacent to, the system can have massive impact (a butterfly changing the weather patterns in California with a wing flap, for example), the odds for a successful outcome in our enterprise grow exceedingly long. The concept, however, is marvelous even though its execution may be flawed. And of course, there is a nagging question——Have we really thought of the WHOLE system?

Have We Really Thought About the WHOLE System?

Ken Wilber, American psychologist, philosopher, and some would say mystic, would say no. Wilber is prone to making disarmingly simple and alarmingly profound observations. One of his best is, Every inside has an outside and vice versa. The point may be obvious, but we forget it to our detriment. In reference to human beings as individuals and as systems, Wilber reminds us that in addition to the exterior attributes, that which we can see touch, taste, or smell——there is a lot going on inside. An individual may be 5’2”, eyes of blue, and skin of whatever shade. That information, however, tells us nothing about how they are feeling, how they see the world, how they see themselves, or what their hopes or aspirations might be. The situation is similar with an organization. We may see the plant and facilities, count the products produced, and employees on the payroll, but we remain in the dark when it comes to the organization’s mythology, ritual, culture, shared but secret values, or the spirit of the place, be that soaring or sour.

Based upon his simple observation, Wilber proposes that when thinking about a system and its constituent individuals, we should use what he calls the Four Quadrants (see figure) as a template to direct our attention to all that lies beneath the surface. Admittedly, following the Four Quadrants significantly increases the difficulty of thinking systemically if only because the nature and scope of the system have been radically expanded. But it strikes me that Wilber’s logic is impeccable. For example, if we see 100 individuals hard at work in a munitions factory, we can certainly measure the square footage of the shop floor, identify the available machinery, count the bullets as they come off the assembly line, calculate the potential profit, and thereby make some judgment about the nature and effectiveness of the system. However, until we have some reasonable understanding of what is going on inside——how they feel about their work, what is their ideology, culture, special stories, or myths——we are largely in the dark about the true nature of this “system.” The fact that feelings, culture, myth, and ideology are not easily quantifiable constitutes a genuine problem for our systems analysis, but detracts not a whit from their importance to systems function.

Apparently we do very well with the hard, countable facts, however, our level of performance leaves something to be desired when it comes to what might be called the “warm fuzzies.” And if we are serious about thinking and working systemically we must take the whole system into consideration. And it gets worse.

The “Worse”—Every System Has a Context

Unless we are to remain hostage to what I have called The Closed System Hoax we will have to confront the fact that no system, no matter what we do, is hermetically sealed. Every system, regardless of size, design, or purpose has a context, which is quite simply the planet on which we all live——all 6.5 billion of us. It is nice, perhaps comforting, to think that there are boundaries and barriers, but in truth they are largely arbitrary and always permeable. The fact that much of the interchange between the system and its context/surroundings occurs beneath our capacity to notice changes nothing in terms of impact.

None of this is exactly news. Our morning newspapers teach us these lessons on a daily basis at the breakfast table, and all but the most myopic must understand the incredible permeability of our world and its people. Every element relates to all other elements, if not immediately, then soon. But what is common knowledge at the breakfast table is seemingly laid to one side when it comes to the truly important business of understanding our systems and enhancing their effectiveness in pursuit of High Performance.

The Final Straw—Everything Is Moving!

The complex interrelationships that exist between any of our Human Systems and the world surrounding them are mind-boggling in their detail, however, it is at least conceivable that given sufficient time we might track them down. And if we could, the possibility exists that we could create an adequate map of the territory, sufficient to initiate the design or redesign process. We would at least know where we are starting. But there is an additional fly in the ointment. Not only is everything radically connected, but it is all moving, and with every move the nature and impact of the interrelationships can change. Worse yet, the rate of movement is random and differential. The final picture looks like something straight out of Alice in Wonderland, viewed in a carnival mirror. In recent time, the speed of movement is increasing at quantum rates. What once appeared as a rock of stability is now seen to be a firestorm of largely unpredictable activity. Whatever the cause, we are experiencing what I call “raplexity”——a neologism created from the words “rapid” and “complexity.” We might deal with one or the other, but both together are productive of a headache of infinite proportions. Alvin Toffler, who gave us Future Shock, would be proud.

We Need Some Help

It might be assumed that I am dismissive of the systems approach in general, and Systems Thinking in particular. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our new awareness of systems, their complexity, and modes of operations is a major advance. Those who have pursued this particular adventure should be praised for their skill, fortitude, and persistence. However, to the extent that this massive effort was undertaken with the expectation that we might design, and sustain, effective High Performing Systems, I think the results to date are not encouraging. If anything our search for solutions of the sort anticipated has demonstrated the futility of search itself. In short, we can’t quite get there from here, at least going the way we are going. We are, however, gaining a much clearer understanding of the sorts of attitudes and skills that are necessary if we are going to perform the task we have undertaken. With some degree of tongue in cheek, I offer the following job description of that person who would create, on a sustained and sustainable basis, true High Performing Systems, usually called The Leader.

Job Description: The Leader
Deals easily with massive diversity
Comprehends mind-bending complexity
Works simultaneously on multiple levels
Rises above chaos, confusion, and conflict
Tolerates tidal waves of change
Never loses their cool
Always in control
Mixes all of the above to produce wholeness, health, and harmony

To the extent that this job description accurately reflects the task at hand it is the job description from Hell. Given our current abilities and the resources at hand, adequate performance is an exercise in futility. Great idea, but simply off the charts! Of course we might gain some traction were it possible to cut the task down to our size, which is what the Closed System Hoax purports to do. However, if we look honestly at the scope and complexity of the systems of our world, even very small ones, the proposed task makes putting Humpty Dumpty together again seem like a piece of cake. And for those of you who may not remember the children’s ode to the fractured egg, it goes like this:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
And all the King’s horses
And all the King’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

What all the King’s horses and all the King’s men failed to accomplish is viewed by some of us as the central task of leadership, and most particularly The Great Man as leader. And the job description from Hell becomes effectively the short list of qualifications sought in our leaders. Is it any wonder that those who claim to possess such qualification, and even worse, seek to demonstrate them, burn out very quickly? Executive exhaustion, measured by exceedingly short half lives is not surprising. What is surprising is that any sane individual would make the attempt. If we are currently experiencing a shortage of leadership in the mold of The Great Man, it could be that a breath of sanity has crossed our organizations. Fewer people are rushing to accept the mission——which is clearly a Mission Impossible.

We are dealing with something of such magnitude, complexity, and changeability that even thinking about it creates massive overload. And of course, what you can’t even think about renders the task of doing something useful all but impossible, and tight control is out of the question. Obviously many people have tried, and in fact the fruits of their labors, in terms of a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and magnitude of our systems, have been substantial. But when it comes to the task of putting all the pieces together to design, create, and sustain truly High Performing Systems, I believe it safe to say that we could use some serious help.