By Chetan Dhruve
In part 1 of this post, guest blogger Chetan Dhruve introduced the idea that, intentional or not, all organizations are “dictatorships.” In part 2, he explores how this structure can lead to crises such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and presents ideas for shifting this dynamic.
As you know, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster claimed 11 lives and resulted in one of the world’s worst-ever oil spills. What went wrong?
There were equipment failures, of course. But the truth is that subordinates who knew about the dangers were pressured into shutting up. An article in Propublica says, “[M]anagement flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured or harassed 
employees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections in order to reduce production costs. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.” The article adds, “A 2004 inquiry [BP’s own] found a pattern of intimidating workers who raised safety or environmental concerns.”
But how do workers feel intimidated? Who, exactly, intimidates them? The answer is, of course, their bosses. Here’s an example of how these pressures are exerted and play out in real life, on the ground.
In August 2006, Stuart Sneed, a pipeline safety technician, found a crack in a transit line just five months after a 200,000-gallon oil spill in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Because of dangerous sparks from work near the cracked line, Sneed ordered the work to stop. He assumed that his employer would be happy, given that he had flagged a safety issue so soon after a major spill. But rather than being praised, here’s what happened to Sneed:
“[I]nstead of receiving compliments for his prudence, Sneed—who had also complained that week that pipeline inspectors were faking their reports—was scolded by his supervisor for stopping the work. According to a report from BP’s internal employer arbitrators, Sneed’s supervisor, who hadn’t inspected the crack himself, said he believed it was superficial.
The next day, according to multiple witness accounts and the report, that supervisor singled out Sneed and harassed him at a morning staff briefing. Within a couple of hours, the supervisor sent emails to colleagues soliciting complaints or safety concerns that would justify Sneed’s firing. Two weeks later, after a trumped up safety infraction, he was gone.”
In other words, Sneed’s boss eliminated the messenger of bad news—precisely the fate of dissenters in dictatorships. Moreover, whistleblowers are usually shunned by the job market. It’s incredible: people who should be re-hired in a jiffy have doors slammed shut in their faces. Why is this? Because every organization is a dictatorship, and dictatorships do not like dissenters.
In May of this year, Sneed wrote in the comments section of a Propubica article: “I stood up and told the truth about BP and their fraudulent careless programs at Greater Prudhoe Bay. My intentions were not to attack BP as a company, only to expose safety issues that if not corrected would surely cost them and the people working for them much harm. Their way of thanking me on two separate occasions, years apart, was only to make sure I was blacklisted and that I would never work again in the Alaskan Oilfields.”
This July, an article in The New York Times stated, “A confidential survey of workers on the Deepwater Horizon in the weeks before the oil rig exploded showed that many of them were concerned about safety practices and feared reprisals if they reported mistakes or other problems.” A worker was quoted as saying, “The company is always using fear tactics. All these games and your mind gets tired.”
The reality is that fear is present in all organizations, not just BP. But we have a mistaken notion that a culture of fear is deliberately fostered by managers, when in fact fear is an emergent property of the workplace dictatorship system. As a result, tragedies have happened time and again. Often, these disasters are blamed on the lack of a “safety culture” in organizations, most notably NASA for the Challenger and Columbia accidents.
However, when you delve deep into the investigation reports of such cases, you inevitably find that a safety culture is absolutely not lacking. Far from it. Experts lower down the organization hierarchy always know when safety is being endangered. But their expertise is disregarded and trampled upon in pursuit of “higher” organizational goals such as profit or politics.
Redesigning Our Organizations for Freedom
It’s not that we’re unaware of these issues. Hence, all kinds of efforts are made at “empowering” employees—whistleblower legislation, leadership training, assertiveness training, seemingly flat hierarchies, and anything else you might care to throw at the problem. But all these efforts have failed and will continue to fail, because the system hasn’t changed. To change the behavior of people, we need to change the system.
So how do we get subordinates to behave freely, and bosses to behave as real leaders, not dictators? The answer is quite simple: We need to redesign our organizations so that the emergent property of the system is freedom. And the way to do that is to give subordinates the right to vote for their bosses.
If you have all kinds of reservations about this apparently insane idea, let me end by asking: Would you like to have the right to vote for your boss? Would it change the way you conduct yourself in the workplace?
Chetan Dhruve is the author of Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator: A Book for Anyone Who Has a Boss or Is a Boss (Marshall Cavendish, 2007). He has worked for IBM, Cisco Systems, and the Department for International Development. He is also the cofounder of several Internet start-ups. Chetan has an MBA from Cass Business School (London), an MA in international journalism from City University (London), and a BSc in Mathematics, Physics, and Electronics from St. Joseph’s College, Bangalore University.
Photo of oil on water by Creativity103
By Chetan Dhruve
If you’ve worked for any length of time, you’ve almost certainly 
had a bad boss. A bad boss can blight our existence in a way that no one else can.
The thing is, although bad bosses are a common phenomenon the world over, we still react the same way when we have one. We say, “My boss is bad.” The implication is that it’s the fault of the individual boss. But since bad bosses are everywhere and have been around practically forever, it’s time to address the issue in a radically different manner. We need to ask: “Rather than bosses being individually bad, is there something about the system that automatically produces bad bosses?”
So instead of blaming individuals, let’s examine the system. As a reader of the Leverage Points blog, you’re already familiar with systems thinking (ST). But ST has many variants, offshoots, and philosophies. Hence please bear with me while I describe the version of ST I’m going to be using—the version developed by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy.
The Bertalanffian System
In this version of ST, a system is defined as an entity that maintains its existence due to the mutual interaction of its parts. The critical part of this definition is the word “interaction”—without the interaction, the entity cannot exist.
Take water as an example. Water is a system—without the interaction between hydrogen and oxygen, water cannot exist. A property of water—liquidity—is termed an “emergent property.” This is because water emerges from the interaction of its parts (hydrogen and oxygen). The emergent property of liquidity cannot be found in the constituent parts, which are gases. It’s quite incredible, when you think about it, that a gas interacting with another gas produces a liquid.
What does this have to do with you and your boss? Well, every human relationship is a system, because the existence of a relationship depends on the interaction of its parts (human beings). Since all human relationships are systems, the relationship between you and your boss is also a system. What kind of system is it? To answer this question, let’s look at what bosses are called in the workplace.
Bosses in today’s organizations are labeled “leaders”—team leader, group leader, project leader, and so on. Presumably this is done so that bosses behave as leaders. But are bosses really leaders? To find out, we first need to define the word “leader.”
In the context of interpersonal relationships, there’s only one objective definition: A leader is someone’s who’s elected to lead by those s/he is leading. You can be a tremendous orator, a great visionary, an inspiring figure, a consensus-builder, or whatever. But if you’ve not been elected, you’re not a leader.
Similarly, let’s define “dictator.” A dictator is someone with power over you, over whom you have no voting rights. Hence, your boss is a dictator by definition. It’s important to understand that this is true of all bosses—not just the nasty ones. Further, because your boss is a dictator, you are a subject. And the relationship between you and your boss is a dictatorship system.
What are the emergent properties of a dictatorship system? For the subjects, it’s fear. For the dictator, it’s the abuse of power. At the workplace, fear doesn’t have to be body-shaking terror. It could be something as simple as someone not speaking up in a meeting. Remember this is an emergent property of the boss-subordinate relationship—the subordinate could be a very assertive person outside of work. Power abuse doesn’t mean being nasty; it could be your boss stating, “Any questions?” in a way that means, “I don’t want any.” Again, this lack of openness is an emergent property—this boss could be perfectly nice and approachable outside of work.
There’s more to this dynamic. Sometimes, subordinates do muster up the courage to speak, only to be labeled “whistleblowers.” They lose their jobs and have their careers ruined because the dictatorship system hits back with a vengeance. The consequences, while terrible for the individual whistleblower, can be disastrous for organizations too. Take, for example, the recent BP oil spill.
(Check here for the second part of this post, in which Chetan explores how this organizational structure can lead to crises such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and presents ideas for shifting this counterproductive dynamic.)
Chetan Dhruve is the author of Why Your Boss Is Programmed to Be a Dictator: A Book for Anyone Who Has a Boss or Is a Boss (Marshall Cavendish, 2007). He has worked for IBM, Cisco Systems, and the Department for International Development. He is also the cofounder of several Internet start-ups. Chetan has an MBA from Cass Business School (London), an MA in international journalism from City University (London), and a BSc in Mathematics, Physics, and Electronics from St. Joseph’s College, Bangalore University.
Chain photo by Toni Lozano
by Colleen Ponto
I went to see the movie Avatar Sunday night with my husband--a rare event for me on two counts: (1) seeing a movie, and (2) being with my husband without our kids. According to my three children,
this was a "Mom, you have to see this movie" movie. So I went.
Even though I am not an appreciative fan of science fiction, violence, or special effects, Avatar may just be one of those transformational films, a film that shifts human consciousness. There were so many systems principles embedded in Avatar. Concepts such as "everything is interconnected," "every solution creates new problems," "nothing exists independent of its relationships," "waste = food," "there is no 'away,'" and "information (or feedback) is the fuel of life" were key messages of this film. And one final systems principle came to mind as I left the theater--"you can never direct a living system to change, you can only disturb it." Avatar certainly was a "disturbing" movie.
During the car ride home, I asked my husband lots of questions about James Cameron, the director of the film (since I am not a moviegoer, I know very little about anyone in the film industry)--about who he is, his character, his political views, etc. He didn't know. And then in yesterday's Seattle Times, I found the following quote from James Cameron, a statement he made at the Annual Golden Globes Awards that addressed some of my questions:
"Avatar asks us to see that everything is connected, all human beings to each other, and us to the Earth. And if you have to go four and a half light years to another made-up planet to appreciate this miracle of the world that we have right here, well, you know what, that's the wonder of cinema right there, that's the magic."
Another systems thinking educator has successfully landed on center stage. Bravo, James Cameron, Bravo!
Colleen Ponto, Ed.D., teaches at Seattle University, where she is a core faculty member of the Organization Systems Renewal Graduate Program, which specializes in helping adult learners to become designers and leaders of systemic organizational change. Colleen is also an independent educational and organizational consultant. One of her current passions is teaching systems thinking to learners of all ages.
By Janice Molloy
Was Russell Ackoff the "Einstein of Problem Solving"? An article published in "The Huffington Post" in the wake of Russ's death in November made this provocative proposition. If this analogy is 
appropriate, then Ackoff may yet have an enormous impact on the way we address longstanding organizational and social challenges.
One of the world's preeminent systems thinkers, Russ was Professor Emeritus of Management Science at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and a pioneer in the field of operations research. Described by The Economist as "one of the most influential management gurus of the 20th century," he was the author of more than 25 provocative books and hundreds of influential articles. Click here for other details of his remarkable life.
In a tribute to Ackoff, sustainable development researcher and theorist Steven G. Brant proposes that he "transformed the world of problem solving just as Albert Einstein transformed the world of science." Brant makes the case that, just as Einstein's discoveries irrevocably refuted the mechanical view of the universe, Ackoff's contributions to the development of systems thinking as a management tool upended the traditional, analytical approach to improvement.
Brant goes on to urge us to apply a systems-level approach to the societal problems we currently face. He says, "There is no more critical thing 'we, the people' can do for the long-term health of our nation than to reorient how we approach solving our problems. . . . It is possible to solve the many crises America faces. It is possible to not just solve but dissolve our crises in education, health care, job creation, etc. But we won't do so if we keep trying to solve them the way we have... separately. We must solve them in the context of redesigning the larger sociological system in which they all reside."
You can read the complete blog post here. What do you think of Brant's contention that Ackoff is the "Einstein of Problem Solving"?
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications, managing editor of The Systems Thinker newsletter, and program director of the annual Systems Thinking in Action conference.
By Vicky Schubert
As you read the many "decade in review" lists that have popped up like mushrooms across the media, do you see what I see? The theme that jumps out from story after story is that complexity and interdependence have rightly come to dominate our understanding of life on earth.
From the tsunami in Southeast Asia to Hurricane Katrina; from extremist aggression and war in Iraq and Afghanistan to internecine conflict in Rwanda, Darfur, Burma, Georgia, and beyond; from global climate change to the spread of the H1N1 virus; from financial meltdown to the reshaping of world markets--we are growing more adept at recognizing the extensive systems that link our actions and experiences with those of others, both near and far. There is no denying that complexity is here to stay all around our shrinking planet and in the problems we encounter at work every day.
Here's a little perspective on complex challenges from three great systems thinkers, lost over the past 10 years, whose wisdom will be with us forever. They encourage us to increase our potential for effective action by broadening the ways in which we see and learn.
From Barry Richmond
"The easiest problems to solve are 'local' both in space and time. If you tip over a glass of milk, there really is no need to cry. The spill will confine itself to a relatively small area. And, spilled milk doesn't stain. So, you simply fetch something absorbent, plop it down, soak up and then discard the errant booty. No traces. No remorse. No problem.
Now consider spilling either radioactive waste, 'the beans,' or 'your heart out.' Each of these 'spills' will have far broader and long-lasting consequences than spilled milk. And, in each case, the consequences ramify far from their point of origin in both space and time. They affect not just the 'spiller' and the immediate area. The impact no longer is 'local.' Indeed, applying local solutions to far-reaching spills usually only serves to make things worse both locally and distally.
As our personal relationships, technologies, jobs, institutions and communities continue to grow increasingly complex and interdependent, the occurrence of 'spills' will increase. At the same time, the chances of any spill remaining 'local' diminish. Almost any 'fix' that we implement reverberates through a web of interconnections, producing a wave of counter-reactions that are widely distributed in both space and time. Only by increasing our appreciation for the growing 'systemicness' of our reality, can we begin to function as responsible web-mates, and can our social institutions (from families, to corporations, to governments) achieve some modicum of effectiveness and stability. As interdependency increases, we must learn to learn in a new way."
From Russ Ackoff
"The only problems that have simple solutions are simple problems. The only managers that have simple problems have simple minds. Problems that arise in organizations are almost always the product of interactions of parts, never the action of a single part. Complex problems do not have simple solutions."
And . . .
"All of our problems arise out of doing the wrong thing righter. The more efficient you are at doing the wrong thing, the wronger you become. It is much better to do the right thing wronger than the wrong thing righter. If you do the right thing wrong and correct it, you get better."
From Donella Meadows
"For those who stake their identity on the role of omniscient conqueror, the uncertainty exposed by systems thinking is hard to take. If you can't understand, predict, and control, what is there to do? Systems thinking leads to a conclusion [that becomes] obvious as soon as we stop being blinded by the illusion of control. It says that there is plenty to do, of a different sort of 'doing.' The future can't be predicted, but it can be envisioned and brought lovingly into being. Systems can't be controlled, but they can be designed and redesigned. We can't surge forward with certainty into a world of no surprises, but we can expect surprises and learn from them and even profit from them. We can't impose our will upon a system. We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone. We can't control systems or figure them out. But we can dance with them."
Learning to learn in new ways, doing the right thing, dancing with systems--aren't these bracing ideas to reach for when we find ourselves wishing things were simpler and knowing that they can't be?
Vicky Schubert is marketing director at Pegasus Communications.