"System" Vs "People"
Discussion with Cyberspace friends on above.
A system is made up of various components and activities carried out by different people with different relevant experience and knowledge. When is there a TIME an organisation can have all the activities carried out by ADEQUATE level of experience and know-how by all personnel concerned, that will not result in failure or incidents?
Likewise, there is no GUARANTEE that an organisation with fully qualified personnel by all measures in performing various activities will not result in failure or incidents also.
Hence, in Cause & Effect analysis, it does not help to identify people as causes, e.g. inexperienced, incompetent, careless, etc., but to identify weakness in the present "process" or "sub-system" to bring about a more informed, knowledgeable level of awareness. This will open up exploration opportunities to look for continuous improvement on the system to avoid other failures.
From Andrew Wong, Organisation Observer and Thinker, 21st March, 97
Andrew:
In organizations or human systems, the people ARE the system. Structures, functions, and processes are designed as guides or blueprints for people to act within that system; but the actions per se are actions of people. In this sense, some people are proficient; some are not. It is, therefore, legitimate to target the actions, skill/knowledge sets, etc of people as somehow falling short of the mark. They should be identified for purposes of IMPROVEMENT or GROWTH.
The "system" as such can ALSO be at fault, if ineffective or inefficient processes are designed for people to perform, or if the system is not integrated as it should be. Still, the major ingredients of organizations are people (without people there would be no processes and no work would get accomplished).
I can identify with your SENTIMENT of not wanting to focus on people as incompetent, etc; but as a reality, you have to make people grow or improve. In that way the system will improve.
From a Cyberspace friend, eMail-P. Bruce
24th Oct. 97
Dear Cyberspace friend, P. Bruce
Greeting from Sarawak, Malaysia
Thank you for your response to my post on "System Vs People".
You have expressed elegantly.
Another way of looking at it is :
"System and People" are ONE and only ONE.
There is no separation, but continuous interaction of cause and effect dynamic : for e.g.- system causes people behavior
- people causes system reinforcement
- imperfect system affect negatively even with competent and sincere people behavior
- likewise good intention people without collective teamwork effort produces serious system disability
- etc. etc.
The original post of mine on "System Vs People" targets on those supervisors, managers, or management who "detach" or "divorce" themselves from the "system", acting as judges, constantly blaming on staff shortcoming, and not realizing they themselves contribute to the overall system performance, negatively or positively. As the notion that they are also "part" of the system never occurs to them, there are more negative consequences produced by their judgemental behaviour.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Regards
Andrew Wong, Organisation observer and thinker, 26th Oct. 97
On 25th Feb. 98, a Cyberspace friend wrote eMail: John Wurl
I read your article entitled "System" versus "People" and had a question. Is your philosophy built around the assumption that a competent culture is in place or are you saying that it is the processes alone?
I like the fact that you say systems are made up of various components, but realistically, processes only focus on functionality where as you need an effective culture to pull together or point the direction that the functionality is aiming.
Thanks for your feedback
I read your note in a few focus areas :
[Culture] [Process]
with [Culture] playing a dominant role in infuencing / pulling / directing etc.
Whereas in my article "System Vs People":
[System] encompasses [Process] and [Poeple] touches on [Culture]
In my views, all these "domains" affect, influence, reinforce, relate, .. each other i.e. with cause and effect relationship. It does not help to isolate any of them, as that will be mere academic and theoretical exercise. It is also futile to isolate any of them for treatment e.g. do something about [Culture] (say with some improvement methodology or training) and expect a desired outcome.
Fragmenting a part with patch-up treatment does not produce WHOLE.
Refer "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", which says
We can focus on the position or the momentum of a particle, but never on both.- a) When we focus on one aspect of a situation, we abstract that aspect out from the whole, and we lose its associated possibilities.
- b) When we interfere with a quantum system, we change it.
Andrew Wong, Personal Coach & Organisation Coach, 2nd March, 98
Reply from John Wurl: I couldn't agree with you more on your comment that the domains do work in concert. Physics relates to , in a peverted sense, to the military - - in order for the whole to work the sum of its parts must as well. Your response is also an indictment of an even more abstract management question - what is the correct way to implement a process change or a culture change in an organization that is not familar to that way of life without causing chaos and destruction.
End.
| Inspired to read some more books? Buy from Amazon .... | Want to search for title, author, or random search starting from a concept ..? |
By Andrew Wong, 26th Oct. 1997
COPYRIGHT @ 1997
Go to
