'Command
and Control' represents the traditional approach to management and operates
according to different sets of principles, and a different way of thinking from
Systems thinking. The application of new improvement ideas continue to be based
upon the same assumptions and therefore never get to the underlying root cause
of the problem. Many of the questions or problems that such thinking attempts
to solve are framed within the old ways of thinking. They do not question the
assumptions and principles which may, and usually are, at the heart of the
problem itself. This pattern of single as opposed to double loop (where the
basic principles upon which action or practice are based are returned to,
questioned and revised) is evident in the current prevailing management
thinking, and permeates deeply to the point that even when confronted with
logic, reason, or even clear evidence, there is a basic denial that the problem
is embedded in the very way of thinking of the current management hegemony. The
‘common sense’ assumptions are deeply ingrained and difficult to overcome.
Command
and Control fits is part of a management paradigm that can be traced back to
the beginning of the twentieth century. This management paradigm in turn is
part of a broader philosophical and scientific paradigm which can be traced
back to the thinking of Newton and Descartes which created what Capra calls the
mechanistic paradigm. This is the idea of a
mechanical system composed of elementary building blocks and hierarchical
structures which has shaped western thinking and our perception of nature, the
human organism, society and also business organisations. This leads to the
modern organisation being seen as “an
assemblage of precisely interlocking parts, functional departments, linked
together through clearly defined lines”[Capra]
of command and control.
A part of the hegemonic
values developed over the last century or so are the economic ideas that can be
traced back to Adam Smith who promulgated an early manifestation of the concept
of functional specialisation in his theory of the division of labour, in1776. He
stated: “The greatest improvement in the
productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity and
judgement with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the
effects of the division of labour”
Frederick
Winslow Taylor invented the management theory that is at the heart of command and
control thinking and has close connections with the broader paradigm alluded to
above. Taylor developed a theory of scientific management. His theory led to
the raft of ideas, assumptions, rules, and practice which is now so often taken
for granted as truth within modern management thinking. The belief in top down
command and control, hierarchy, people-measures, employee accountability, and
the view of the worker as an unthinking cog in the machine to be manipulated by
management have become the norm. The way in which it is presented and language
used may have changed to express an increased level of humanity but the basic
philosophy remains unchanged. Taylor’s scientific management and the Henry Ford
production line techniques were incredibly successful, and the fact they have
survive
d for so long is testament to this.
There
were many other scientists, philosophers, economists, sociologists, indeed
thinkers of all kinds who reinforced these prevailing ideas and hegemonic
values. The sociologist, Max Weber,
identified what he thought were the central key elements of an effective
bureaucracy and leadership. For Weber bureaucracy was rational action in an
institutional form and a system of control within hierarchical organisations where
‘superiors’ strictly control and discipline the activities of subordinates. For
Weber, an effective bureaucratic organisation should contain a clearly defined
division of labour, hierarchical structures, written guidelines or procedures
for performance, and functional specialisation among other things.
Implicit in this is
the notion that external motivation is required. People will only respond
positively to punishment or reward.
As John Seddon explains in
the opening chapter of “Systems Thinking in the Public Sector” these ideas of
rational self interest permeated and took their most extreme expression in the
ideas of the ‘new right’ and in Britain under the rule of Margaret Thatcher and
her government. Any notion of public employees acting in the public interest
out of a sense of duty to provide public value, were scorned. Humans acted in
their own interest and this meant they could be easily controlled with a
combination of punishments and rewards. Also the effect on public service was
to focus on citizens and users of service as “consumers” and all dealings
between citizens and the various manifestations of the state were to become
pseudo-market transactions, within a consumer –producer relationship and led to
a doctrine known as “public choice theory”.
One thinker who
held a quite different view of human nature was Marx who had a view of humans
as creative, social beings and what separated humans from other animals was the
drive to create or work. For Marx motivation was intrinsic, bound up in our
very nature. But it was the physical and social conditions within which humans
exist that create behaviours. According to Marx in the German Ideology, written
in 1844:
“It is not the consciousness of man that
determines his being but on the contrary it is his social being that determines
his consciousness”.
Systems Thinking – a paradigm shift
Scientific understanding has
changed enormously in the last one hundred years, some of the basic tenets of
science have developed out of recognition and yet the theory of scientific
management, based in a scientific view of the world which has been superseded,
remains. If this was true of other branches of science, we would still be
promoting smoking as a health-giving activity. There is a branch of scientific thinking
which has led to many great improvements in our scientific understanding of the
world and this branch derives from some of the great advances. The idea of
Systems Thinking has had much add to understanding of the world, for example James
lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis is based on the idea that to understand our planet
it is best to view it as a complex self sustaining system, to view it as if it
were a living being.
Fritjof Capra
the physicist has written many books on the changing paradigm of western
thinking towards a “systemic view of life” – one of which, the Turning Point,
identifies that we are at a point in western civilisation where our paradigm
for thinking has taken us as far as it can and a new paradigm is emerging. This
paradigm is based on viewing the world in a different way, as a system, and it
leads to the need for different questions to be asked about the nature of
reality.
Others that have espoused systems thinking
specifically in relation to organisations are ‘soft’ systems thinkers such as
Peter Checkland and Peter Senge who applied a systems view to complex social
aspects of work. Senge described systems thinking as the fifth discipline which
tied the other four disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, building
shared vision and team learning) together.
Above I have referred to views of
human nature as being fundamental to the differences between systems and
command and control thinking in particular with reference to motivation. Alfie
Kohn in his book Punished by Rewards defines this area with clarity. His basic
message is that motivation is primarily intrinsic not extrinsic. Humans are
motivated by doing a good job, by the creative act. Punishments and rewards
drive behaviours, which in an organisational setting will sub optimise the
system and reduce its capability of meeting demand. Within a Command and
Control context rewards and punishment are built in to the organisational
fabric through appraisals and with the use of bonuses and competency frameworks
with targets linked to performance related pay. This is thought to motivate
workers to do a better job. Vanguard’s systems thinking methodology is based on
a view of human nature that derives satisfaction and motivation from work.
John Seddon was the
originator of the Vanguard method which is based on some of the examples given
above and he began by asking, “Why do customer service programmes fail? Why do
managers think service is a people problem?” They are both answered by the fact
that modern management thinking and practices have become a prison. The
paradigm cannot generate solutions to the problem because it is
the problem. The Vanguard method combines systems theory with intervention theory
to produce a method, based on systems thinking, which creates sustainable
change by changing thinking. Key systems thinking principles that are the
opposite of command and control thinking are:
·
The parts of a system must be understood in the
context of the whole
·
Optimise the parts and sub-optimise the whole
·
Systems have emergent properties
·
Cause & effect can be distant in time and
place
The consequences of this
thinking are that organisations are managed as systems not as functional
hierarchies.
Command and Control
Characteristics
Command and Control
organisations are characterised by top-down hierarchies with work designed in
functions, where managers decide and workers work. Managers make their
decisions based on budgets, targets, performance indicators, standards,
procedures and specifications, in places separated from the work or ‘management
factories’ as Seddon refers to them. It is based on a belief that organisations
should be arranged into functional parts with people given directions through
procedures and targets about what is done and how it is reported. People work
in functional roles designed by management with set behaviours, also designed
by management. This is as a consequence of what Seddon(2008) calls the Core
Management Paradigm. Managers concern themselves with three main questions:
·
How much work is there to do?
·
How many people do I have?
·
How long do they take to do things?
Managers are largely
concerned with resource management and the focus is often cost. There is a
belief that economies of scale creating mass production in service (call
centres are the prime example) in the belief that the job of the manager is to
manage cost and activity. So the price for achieving lower transaction costs in
call centres is that the number of transactions is driven up. But all demand is
treated as work to do and people are rewarded for handling more calls, wrapping
up quicker, and managers point to increased productivity as more calls are
answered and call handling activity targets are hit. Failure demand makes up a
large part of the increased transactions. The modern management approach does
not allow managers to see this waste and the dysfunctional consequences of their
actions. John Seddon states: “Understanding
how poor service design creates more demand into the front end is the beginning
of understanding the organisation as a system.”
Understanding
the organisation as a system
Manufacturing cars
The fact that demand
is central to understanding the system was learnt from Deming and the Toyota
experience. Toyota designed a pull-system. The system produced cars at the rate
of demand. In the traditional Fordist approach Cars were mass produced in
batches focusing on lowering the cost per unit. Whereas manufacturing cars at
the rate of demand requires the whole system to be oriented towards creating
value and lowering the total cost and time to produce.
The Toyota
Production System has spawned many service improvement techniques and lean
tools. But most have been the utilisation of tools and techniques, out of
context, without understanding within a Command and Control organisation.
Jeffrey Liker in his book The Toyota Way states, “The Toyota Production system is not the Toyota Way. TPS is the most
systematic and highly developed example of what the principles of the Toyota
Way can accomplish.”
It is the
principles that are important, not the tools.
The
insight that Toyota applies underlying principles rather than specific tools
and processes explains why the company continues to outperform its competitors.
Many companies have tried to imitate Toyota‟s tools as opposed to its
principles; as a result, many have ended up with rigid, inflexible production
systems that worked well in the short term but didn‟t stand the test of time.
Steven J. Spear. Harvard
Business Review May 2004.
The man credited with teaching Toyota
about quality, performance and introducing his cycle of PDCA
(Plan-Do-Check-Act) William Edwards Deming is also a greatly important
influence on the Vanguard Method.
Service Systems
Within
service organisations the same principles apply but within a system that has to
cope with much greater demand variation. So many of the problems the system
encounters are of a different nature and therefore require different solutions.
This is why it is so important to systems thinkers to work with principles not
tools. Tools can be developed and used, but not before the application of
appropriate thinking to understand the problem, and this thinking is guided by
principles. So the benefits of standardisation on a car production line do not
translate to a service organisation. Indeed standardisation usually restricts
the system’s ability to absorb variety.
It is also essential to have
the right measures to understand the performance of the system. But as Deming
said you have to understand the organisation as a system, as a prerequisite for
choosing measures. The first thing to understand is the purpose of the system.
As explained above, studying demand
enables an understanding of the actual purpose of the system. Once purpose is
established then measures can be applied. The key measure should be to
determine if the system is meeting its purpose. Once purpose and measures are
established, a method is required. It is not the same as manufacturing because
the purpose is different, and “different
purpose leads to different methods, because there different problems to solve.”
A service system needs to be
designed to meet the customer’s nominal value, and enable them to ‘pull’ value
to get exactly what they want. This leads to creating processes with perfect
flow in value steps, with no or minimal waste, creating value for customers.
The systems thinking perspective is “outside in” rather than “top down”. Work
is designed against demand, with workers doing the value work, and only the
value work and also being involved in making decisions to improve the work,
rather than decisions only being made in isolation by separated managers.
Managers within systems thinking organisations act on the system. This is in
contrast to the command and control organisations.
People versus system
Deming
stated that managers who focused on managing people were acting on the 5%.
People accounted for about 5% and the system for 95% of systems issues.
Command
and Control organisations often feel the response to a need to improve is to
institute a training programme or a culture change initiative in the belief
that the problem is the people and all that is required is to train them
better.
The systems thinking
approach is to study the system. Understand demand, and if training is needed,
train against demand.
Implications for practice of
moving to systems thinking approach
One
of the problems with paradigm shifts is that those who think within the new
paradigm find it hard to communicate to those in the old paradigm and those in
the old paradigm can make no sense of the new paradigm. Ways of communicating
in order to precipitate change are required for change to be possible.
The problem any
interventionist has to deal with is Leon Festinger’s concept of cognitive
dissonance. People in the face of reason and even, sometimes, evidence will not
believe something if it contradicts the basic and tacit assumptions they hold
about reality. The Vanguard approach to changing management
thinking requires involving managers in the check process to enable them to see
the system in action, understand value from the customer perspective and see
the waste created by command and control management methods. This way managers
go through a normative learning process and make the decision to change based
on an internal commitment.
To make change to
systems thinking truly sustainable an organisation would need to commit to it
entirely, not just as a service improvement project. Then use the Toyota
principle of: Grow leaders who thoroughly
understand the work, live the philosophy and teach it to others.
