There are three terms used in agile communities in various ways and they each carry different implications: system, people, and culture. Depending on a person’s perspective and experience, sometimes those terms overlap and sometimes they compete. That overlapping and competing dynamic can introduce misunderstanding and misaligned objectives when operating toward an objective of enterprise agility. Additionally, the use of the terms (system, people, and culture) may be based primarily on only superficial descriptions; while that may help simplify for apparent understanding, it may also mask some key dynamics for true comprehension. As a result, the terms’ corresponding connotations and constructs can sometimes inadvertently impose constraints on the insights which could be gained if a deeper level of consideration was pursued; one such deeper level to consider is that some superficial observations actually emerge from the interactions underneath what is visible on the surface.
To enable the deeper insights, it may become valuable to emphasize a holistic understanding of the fundamental interrelationships and dynamics between the respective terms (system, people, culture) and their corresponding constructs. This blog post frames some thoughts on how these terms fit together holistically from my own perspective. The objective of this post is to begin to address the terms in the context of holistic, enterprise-wide, near-optimal solutions.
As we begin to consider this holistic perspective, two notes of distinction are important to clarify:
- The term “system” and the concept of “process” are not identically equal (that’s a separate distinction we can pick up at another time). For this discussion, consider the “system” to be the options for specific practices and the set of principles that guide execution.
- In the context of an organizational enterprise, let’s initially acknowledge that an approach to a solution chosen for local effectiveness (within any part of an enterprise) may not be the optimal solution for effectiveness across the entire enterprise (as a whole). In scientific disciplines, this is the difference between the local optima and a global optimum for a system.
Now, let’s begin…
In practice, “culture” is often coupled with people rather than system. That however, segments the solution in what may become a locally effective approach but becomes a less than optimal approach when extended across an entire enterprise. To help address an objective of enterprise-wide, near-optimal solutions, five key points are captured here for consideration relative to culture, systems, and people.
First point: culture emerges from the interaction of people, within the system
Second point: the system shapes the people
Third point: the system should provide guardrails that may be influenced, but that are not shaped by the people.
Fourth point: the system includes the people, but the system also extends beyond the people.
Stated another way, people are part of the system, but the system is not contained within the people and it extends beyond the people. This distinction is of primarily importance from both a practical and theoretical perspective. A practical classic example is the change of culture created at NUMMI (Shook, 2010); the same people produced transformative results by first having the system in which they work transformed (rather than changing the people or culture directly). A classic theoretical example emerges relative to logical consistency when addressing consistency proofs, as expressed through Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (e.g., Panu, 2015).
Fifth point: as a recommendation… start with the system framework, and then adapt continuously through the people.
Many leaders primarily focus on one or the other (system or people), because of different talents. However, both are equally important; i.e., system “and” people, rather than system “or” people. That being said, the system must be accepted by the people for the effect to take hold; this can be voluntarily administered or less voluntarily administered based on corporate decisions.
A system that captures these characteristics and dynamics is embodied throughout the posts on the Adaptive Flow model.
References:
Shook, J. (2010). “How to Change a Culture: Lessons from NUMMI”. MIT Sloan Management Review. Winter 2010. Vol 51. No 2. pp 63 – 68.
Raatikainen, Panu. (2015). “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ retrieved 2017-03-19.