IEEE Software Magazine, May/June 1999
Manager Column, edited by Roger Pressman
Copyright © 1999 by IEEE. Posted by permission. All Rights Reserved.
"We win first prize when we are able to see not just the actions of others, but also the context out of which these actions come. We win second prize (and it is not an inconsequential prize) when we know that, for the most part, we don't."
Seeing Systems page 21
So what do you do for a living?
I never know what to say when I'm asked that question. I, like you, do many things. I'm a programmer. I write technical articles on subjects that the general public has never heard of. I'm a manager. I'm half-owner of a family business. Most of the time I end up saying I'm an office-manager. If I'm feeling particularly mischievous that day, I'll say "I'm a gofer. I 'go-fer' this and 'go-fer' that." Occasionally, I'll mention my degree in cultural anthropology, which always seems to make people think of Margaret Mead or Jane Goodall.
That's a pretty good connection, actually. Like Mead or Goodall, I've spent most of my adult life trying to figure people out. Every once in a while I run across a book that illuminates one of the murkier corners of human behavior. The most recent such book has been Seeing Systems, Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life, by Barry Oshry. (ISBN 1-881052-73-7) Oshry relies on the 25 years he has spent creating and observing experiential workshops to identify common patterns of dysfunction that plague the social systems we are embedded in. In so doing, he allows us both to understand the world around us and, to a certain extent, to transcend it.
Oshry is interested in the systems of our lives, the forms they take and the patterns they trace through time and space. Like water to a fish, we are usually blind to the systems that surround us, that shape us and mold our experience of the world. When we are blind to our systems, we are at their mercy. It is only when we learn to see them, to understand their strengths and their weaknesses, that we have any hope of surmounting them.
Oshry identifies four types of system blindness that we fall victim to: spatial blindness--where we see the part but not the whole, temporal blindness--where we see the present but not the past, relational blindness--where we miss the reoccurring patterns of relationship between groups, and process blindness--where we miss the common patterns of social behavior occurring within a group.
Spatial blindness is common in business relationships. As a middle manager, I see my world, but it's not easy for me to see the world as my Board of Directors experiences it. It's easy for me to feel the pulls and tasks that face me daily, but it's not easy for me to experience the world that my employees must survive in.
Temporal blindness allows me to see the way things are today, but I don't see how they got this way, the years of pressures and dangers and opportunities that shaped the present. It's easy for me to blame them for creating my current problems, but it's not easy for me to understand how each of the decisions that led to today actually made sense to someone, at some time.
Relational and Process blindness are similar, in that they both allow us to see the personalities, the individuals, that plague us and support us, but we don't see the systemic forces that shape their actions. So we blame the individuals when a problem arises between or within a group. This might be satisfying in the short term, but it's ultimately ineffective. Polarizing the world into good and bad, us and them, won't make things different in the future.
Oshry identifies several common roles that we fall into in relationships: Top and Bottom, Middle and End, Provider and Customer. Top groups live in a world full of complexity and responsibility. Bottom groups feel vulnerable and uncertain. Things are suddenly "done-to" them without their understanding or permission. Middle groups exist in a world full of diffusion and responsibility without authority. Middles are constantly torn between the demands coming from their Tops and the needs and concerns coming from their Bottoms. Ends are left hanging, always dependent on someone else for a product or a resource that they need to complete their work. Bottoms can end up as the End in a chain of supply, but then so can Tops--who constantly hunger for accurate information and feedback from their reports. Each group believes that their world is the world, "The Way Things Really Are". And the blaming and the finger-pointing starts...
Each of us plays many different roles in a day. You're a Top in one relationship, a Middle in another, a Bottom in yet another. You can identify the particular role you are playing at the moment by noticing how you feel deep inside. Are you burdened, weighed down by many and heavy responsibilities? That's the world of a Top. Do you feel oppressed, that you have no control over your fate? That's a Bottom world. A Middle, caught between conflicting demands, often feels 'Help! I can't please anyone!' Ends feel 'unsupported' by their Middles. A Provider feels 'unreasonably judged' and 'They want too much!' while a Customer feels 'done-to', taken advantage of...
Each group suffers a different type of internal breakdown. A typical group of Tops will be plagued by issues of Turf. They handle the complexity and responsibility that surrounds them by dividing it up. My partner handles the field and technical issues in our company, while I deal with the office--the accounting and the computers, dispatching and all of the other functions that support the technicians in the field. I used to bristle if he 'poked his nose into' my area. Before I understood how Top groups function, I took his interest personally. I was offended when he 'didn't trust me.' And, of course, he thought I was being 'unreasonable and secretive and...'
If we don't understand how Top groups function, we might forget to notice the areas, the issues, that fall between his Turf and my Turf. Those issues won't get addressed. If we assume such divisions are 'the way things are', we may forget to think about other ways of being. What would happen if we consciously choose to work together on an issue, to share our world, to 'walk in the other's shoes' for a day or a week? What would happen if, instead of blaming him for sticking his nose into my 'stuff', I remembered that he really has no idea what I do every day? And he needs to know! He really should understand how the money flows and who does what in the office before we can dispatch each job to a technician. Dividing the labor allows us to get a lot done. But it becomes a weakness when it is the only way we know how to operate, when we have no other choice.
Middles live in a diffuse world, torn between the people that they work for and the people and the work that they are responsible for. They rarely have any energy left for each other, and thus end up alienated from each other. They forget to notice that they can work together sometimes, that when they function as a unit they can provide useful support for each other. I've seen this often in middle managers. They all work for one VP, but they compete instead of cooperating. They won't share resources unless the VP orders them to. They won't share problems, because to admit weakness might make them vulnerable. They won't share solutions, because that might help a competitor. This is a systemic problem, and the fix must be a systemic one as well. When Middles learn to share responsibilities and rewards (and when they are allowed to do so), problems and answers are shared as well.
Bottoms live in a vulnerable world, where things are done to them out-of-the-blue, with no warning, without their permission or understanding. In such a world it is very important for them to stick together, to help each other, to speak as one voice. The union movement began in Bottom groups and even today it is strongest there. But Bottoms forget that diversity can be a strength as well as a weakness. That my way and your way can complement each other instead of always forcing us to choose one or the other. And they lose the strength that diversity could provide them.
Oshry's systems exist in a three-dimensional world, tracing their common patterns of function and dysfunction through time and space. In what he calls The Dance of Blind Reflex, Oshry shows us how responsibility in a dysfunctional system flows toward certain poles and away from others. The Dance begins when our system blindness interacts with the roles we play. When Tops and Bottoms dance, the responsibility flows toward the Tops and away from the Bottoms. When Unsupported Ends dance with Torn Middles, the responsibility for resolving issues shifts toward the Middle and away from the Ends. When Providers dance with Customers, the provider becomes more and more responsible for product delivery while the customer relinquishes responsibility--and his last, best chance to influence the product. Watch the sense of responsibility as it flows around you and through you. Do issues seem to slow down and stick to you as they pass over your desk? Are you a responsibility magnet?
When we are blind to our systems, we fall victim to the dance. But this is not our only choice. When a Top consciously chooses to share power and responsibility with Bottoms, and when the Bottoms choose to accept that responsibility, everybody wins. The Bottoms gain insight into the process. They become aware of what is approaching from the future, and they are better able to shape that future. At the same time, the Tops free up their world. Since they are no longer responsible for everything, they have time to think about the road ahead, about opportunities and challenges that are just blips on the horizon today. Likewise, when Middles learn to recognize and to counter the systemic pressures that keep them apart, their options expand. When they work together within their group, they benefit from extra experience and extra eyes that can attack each problem. Outside the group, when a Middle shifts from doing to facilitating he is able to bring his unique perspective and resources to the table. When he helps them to solve their problems, he is no longer solely responsible for the result. The responsibility shifts back to the Ends, where the real authority is, and the entire system is better balanced. When a Customer becomes involved in the delivery process, he knows what he is going to get before he gets it. He can influence the end result, he is better prepared for it when it does arrive, and he understands the constraints that went into creating it. When the Provider allows the Customer into the process, he loses privacy but gains a partner. His chances of creating a happy customer and a satisfactory product are much higher.
The real beauty of Oshry's insight is that it explains the systemic ills that plague us, and it gives us clues to a solution. When we see the systems that surround us, we no longer have to blame individuals for a problem. When we understand that my world is not always the same as your world, issues no longer have to be personalized. It's no longer always a matter of 'the Reasonable We' versus 'the Evil Them'. When we dance the Dance Of Blind Reflex, we lose the possibility of connection, of wholeness, of what we could create in the future. But when we see the dance for what it is, we have alternatives. We become more than dancers, we become choreographers. And that's what I do all day.
Copyright © 1999 by IEEE. Posted by permission. All Rights Reserved.