I don't think of systems thinking as either of those you mentioned, though they are great cases and examples. By systems thinking I meant an individual contributor can see the bigger picture in which they operate, so that they can better see how they're specific objectives fit in.
The primary challenge in setting up a thriving organizational culture like this... with a drive for increased transparency and unprompted cross-functional collaboration... is the question of incentives.
Practically, how do you incentivize employees to hit their own KPIs as well as care about the global mission and vision as well? The best approach I've see to answering this question is in Fred Kofman's The Meaning Revolution https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35734858-the-meaning-revolution. Kofman (Leadership Development at Google) proposes the solution to be both team-level and individual-level incentives.
By the way, I don't understand what you wrote "...outcomes as more important than than process...". Are you sourcing that from somewhere specific? I would argue that process drives outcomes.
Great post! How do you think about systems thinking playing into this concept? Would systems thinking be a cultural principle, a way to define the cultural principles, or both?
To be honest I am never sure how to define "systems thinking." If we think of systems thinking as a preference for understanding the full extent of any given decision's knock-on effects -- outcomes as more important than than process -- then maybe a focus on values as cultural APIs is a way to standardize these individual decision-making processes so that the outcomes tend to be predictable. It's very company-first thinking and you have to absolutely nail the mission, vision, and values. Amazon did.
Contrast that with Bus Factor 1 thinking (https://applieddivinitystudies.com/2020/10/15/bus-factor/), where every individual contribution is necessary. You get the same focus on outcomes but absolutely no preference for explainability or process. And yet this might be a necessary state of affairs for certain unique problems.
I don't think of systems thinking as either of those you mentioned, though they are great cases and examples. By systems thinking I meant an individual contributor can see the bigger picture in which they operate, so that they can better see how they're specific objectives fit in.
The primary challenge in setting up a thriving organizational culture like this... with a drive for increased transparency and unprompted cross-functional collaboration... is the question of incentives.
Practically, how do you incentivize employees to hit their own KPIs as well as care about the global mission and vision as well? The best approach I've see to answering this question is in Fred Kofman's The Meaning Revolution https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35734858-the-meaning-revolution. Kofman (Leadership Development at Google) proposes the solution to be both team-level and individual-level incentives.
By the way, I don't understand what you wrote "...outcomes as more important than than process...". Are you sourcing that from somewhere specific? I would argue that process drives outcomes.
Great post! How do you think about systems thinking playing into this concept? Would systems thinking be a cultural principle, a way to define the cultural principles, or both?
To be honest I am never sure how to define "systems thinking." If we think of systems thinking as a preference for understanding the full extent of any given decision's knock-on effects -- outcomes as more important than than process -- then maybe a focus on values as cultural APIs is a way to standardize these individual decision-making processes so that the outcomes tend to be predictable. It's very company-first thinking and you have to absolutely nail the mission, vision, and values. Amazon did.
Contrast that with Bus Factor 1 thinking (https://applieddivinitystudies.com/2020/10/15/bus-factor/), where every individual contribution is necessary. You get the same focus on outcomes but absolutely no preference for explainability or process. And yet this might be a necessary state of affairs for certain unique problems.