The Five Dimensions of SYSTHAT Pentalogy/Part1: Where do we come from – our history?
People as individuals themselves or work organisations as an association of individuals based on the division of labour are socially complex systems. Our DNA is already determined before we come into this world, our basic values in the first family system are shaped by the parental system in the first years of life. This is who we are, this is where we come from. Unchangeable. Work organizations basically function the same way. In the beginning, it was owners who had a vision, perhaps derived an idea and a possible business model from it, and set out to make that idea a reality. Have staked everything on it, perhaps even their personal destiny and personal fortune. And all this does not happen overnight. Entrepreneurs know how much time, effort, sweat, tears, fear, success and failure go into or are hidden behind most startups because for the most part we only see the success stories. The abysses remain hidden in the dark. Of course, it also depends to a certain extent on the legal form chosen, etc. Nevertheless, companies also have a kind of “DNA”, where it is difficult or even impossible to change this “DNA”, especially in the case of very traditionally grown companies or the classic small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the DACH region. More likely, they will be closed, sold or, in the worst case, legally wound up. “Nothing is forever”. We know the course of nature – and yet it is often difficult to accept.
Where do we come from – our history? Just as it is difficult for individuals to change, adapt or develop themselves, it is equally challenging for work organisations. Start-ups, for example, do not yet have structures that have grown over many years, but are characterised by visionary founders whose focus is on the marketability of an innovative idea. Transformation is not yet an issue here, because it is not about radically destroying something existing or grown and putting it together in a new/different way, but rather about creating something permanent in the first place. History must de facto be created in the first place. These start-ups must first gain a foothold in the market and take root, which requires staying power and time. Similar to the divisible life phases of people (e.g. 0-7 years toddler, 7-14 years child, 14-21 years adolescent, etc.), it is of course rather easy in the first cycles of work organizations – which often also show 7-year plans as longer-term strategies – to align themselves with current and future requirements of the market, and thus with the (potential) customers, and to adapt continuously. Companies that have grown for decades, and often have a certain size, have overcome crises, have conquered markets or left them again, etc., are usually deeply rooted and intertwined in their environment. At first glance, it is usually not even possible to see how far they are interwoven and how influential they are. They have developed a stability and routines, but these also make them inert in a certain way and less easily adaptable. Thus, a long history creates advantages as well as disadvantages – especially in very volatile and creative phases. However, once these primary rocks crumble or break away, you leave big holes. Temporarily very painful, of course, but at the long end also a large field of potential for new companies…
Core competenciesin transformation phases – a hindrance or essential? This is probably a legitimate question, especially since it must be clarified in advance what “core competencies” actually are. Starting with the smallest social-complex system “human being”, one would say that it is a matter of very special abilities that are difficult to imitate and that a human being has as a potential from an early age. This potential is raised by means of training, further development, perfection and usually makes an observable difference to other people. Perhaps a person plays the piano with particular virtuosity, is especially athletic, speaks many languages fluently, is especially good at working with people, etc.
Work organizations also build up special core competencies which distinguish them observably from competitors, which is why customers buy from these companies, e.g. because they derive a special benefit from the products or services. Here it is not about the price, but about a special sense/benefit, which satisfies a need or perhaps only a need of customers. This could be, for example, a special technical process which distinguishes a product observably from others of its kind, a service which no competitor can provide in this way, etc. This makes it easy to imagine that a technological or paradigm shift in the company is not so easy to implement for these companies. Sometimes you can use existing core competencies to open up completely new business areas, manufacture other products or provide services, but only sometimes. Because often owners cannot or do not even want to imagine this “new company” – the development of the previous core competencies or market position was too strenuous, a transformation often seems too risky at first glance and the advantages of what has been created are still too great. And sometimes it is simply the force of habit that causes inertia during periods of change. Partly helpful because you can’t/shouldn’t always seize every new opportunity, sometimes to the point of “fatal” for a company if it loses its competitiveness due to ownership differences or it disintegrates. And yes, there is a lot of “humanity” in organizations, and leaders and key personnel make every effort to maintain a good status quo, especially in structures that have grown successfully…which is, to some extent, simply human. Many different people work in work organisations, with very different motives and drivers, at very different stages of life and also with very different histories. This is most noticeable in phases of radical change, because in these phases a fact becomes transparent that is painful for many, and which the late economist Prof. Knut Bleicher formulated succinctly but aptly as follows:
“We work in structures of yesterday with methods of today on strategies for tomorrow predominantly with people who created yesterday’s structures and won’t live to see the day after tomorrow in the company.”
“All is well in the end, and if it is not yet well, it is not the end.” This well-known saying also certainly has a certain correctness in the holistic view. The dog in the matter is the three-dimensionality and thus the space/time factor. Every single person writes his personal story from the first day of life, every company since its foundation. If one would like to connect at this point to the above quotation of Professor Bleicher, then it is little surprising that straight e.g. in family businesses or also farms or in agricultural enterprises the handing over to the next generation is particularly difficult, and often very hesitantly up to late takes place. Of course, if you created something successful “yesterday”, it’s hard for anyone to let go and release it to a natural transformation. It is often easier for the next generation to let go and build something new. For the generation in office, there is often no need to change anything massively or even to transform in a new direction. This often overlooks the meaning of the word “necessity” – that is, a recognition of the need to be (averted)!
Moreover, systems (such as the human/organism system, work organizations, etc.) have the property of being autopoietic in the sense of being self-sustaining. In this way they also act to a certain extent in a self-directed and to a certain extent “forgiving” manner. Especially in phases of success before an imminent stagnation, one wants to enjoy the success after the long and risky idea-finding or development phase and lean back as long as everything is going well. But this would be just the optimal phase to prepare the next further development or a transformation into a next sphere, before one gets into an emergency and has to initiate a radical transformation. Comparable images in medicine would be a prepared, planned operation versus an emergency operation for survival. Unfortunately, one usually only realizes this when one has just barely survived an “emergency operation/radical transformation”. “Adversity is the school of wisdom.”
Why we often don’t change anything as long as everything is still “going well” is due to our history, the basic characteristics of systems, but also due to the lack of necessity and orientation of a new direction. We are seeing/hearing this very clearly in our pandemic phase. “One should have done it long ago…”, “it’s five to twelve”, etc. True, but as long as the SOLUTION in the sense of a “beautiful, new future” does not clearly appear on the horizon, initiating the maneuver of transformation is often inconceivable or at least very risky. Rightly so from the point of view of many entrepreneurs, who are trying to deliver profitable years of company history based on the previous history and core competencies, to maintain jobs, to bring existing resources and competencies to the customers in a beneficial way…but also knowing about the ticking clock. It is certainly humanly understandably easier to look back on a successful history than to stare into a perhaps still dark, invisible future on the horizon and wait for the fat end to come, which seems more threatening and bad than “the good old days”. But here is the mistake in thinking: A timely prepared transformation is not the end, as it is certainly not good for everyone, but it is also the chance for a new chapter, so that at our personal end everything will be good somehow!
Getting on the dog – all beginnings are difficult. We are certainly not all in the same boat, as is so often quoted, but we are currently sailing through many similar storms worldwide and have rough seas. Every person, every organization and every system is affected. We have triggered but not caused by the global pandemic a new transformation phase based on the developments of the information and communication technology age. This phase is new to everyone, but the fact that these phases recur about every 70 years was already explained in detail by Nikolai Kondratjew as a Soviet economist and pioneer in the field of business cycle theories with his theory of “long waves”. Accordingly, we have to struggle with such historically comprehensible transformation phases about every 70 years, be it world wars, industrial revolutions, etc.. We cannot choose in which historical time period we are born and where, and thus also not in which phase of life these worldwide transformations affect us and to what extent. However, history helps us to understand modes of operation that are encountered in a different way or driven differently in all phases of change. For example, something existing must always be “destroyed” and reassembled in a different way with new elements. “One man’s joy is another man’s sorrow.” We are at the beginning of this transformation phase and are thus partly experiencing the painful period when we can look back on a good old time – although certainly not everything was always good – which now seems to be coming to an end. Others, who are just starting out with life, will be excited about the potential that awaits them at the end of the transformation phase – in whatever form. What we all have in common is that this transformation is novel. Thus it is difficult to estimate what the “end of the transformation” will look like, and whether everything will be good then. It is clear that we are only at the beginning, and at the moment there is certainly a lot that is not good, but a lot that is quite difficult.
As SYSTHAT, we are therefore engaged in the research and development of models and methods that can help individuals or organizations of any kind to cope as well as possible with their particular transformation challenges. Sometimes it simply takes an external perspective and a joint dialogue to identify necessary transformation steps in a timely manner and to implement them in a planned manner in order to avoid “tugging at the wheel at the last second”. Other times, you’re stuck in the “transformation loop” and it takes a new drive and input from the outside to dive through the loop and emerge in the desired new direction. In many cases, it is also the executives, who are in particular demand during transformation phases, who seek exchange and discourse – especially as this group is in danger of decimating itself by means of modern processes.
We therefore ask you in particular, as managers, to take part in our ongoing survey on the topic of “Opportunities and limits of agility and lateral leadership in work organizations with associated potential for conflict” as part of my Master’s thesis, so that we can better understand your challenges and perspectives – thank you in advance!
Find out more at www.systhat.com or by participating directly via Survey Monkey:
German:
https://de.surveymonkey.com/r/Umfrage_Transformation
English: https://www.surveymonkey.de/r/Survey_Transformation_EN
In our next blog with Part 2 of Pentalogy, we ask the question: where are we going?
Let’s SYSTHAT!
