In alcoholic families, where one or both parents misuse alcohol, the family organizes around maintaining the addiction. System rules are a key part of the family organization, and by necessity, are contradictory. Rules like “We don’t have a problem” coexist with “Justify the behavior” and the omnipresent “Don’t talk about it.”
To follow the “We don’t have a problem” rules, members deny there is a problem, and truly may not see it because the rule is so strong. Paradoxically, the rule “Justify the behavior” requires that a steady stream of excuses/reasons for the addiction, such as “Dad’s work stress”, “Mom’s back injury”, or “Brian’s ADHD.”
Additionally, family members take on roles such as “Primary Enabler”, “Scapegoat”, “Golden Child”, or “Lost Child”. These roles act in ways that enable the family system to both survive and maintain the addiction.
In short, “maintaining alcoholism” becomes the organizing principle in the family system.
Work systems at work
Work systems also have organizing principles and rules, most of which are unspoken, implicitly communicated, and long-lived. This isn’t bad, but because these principles and rules aren’t obvious, they can cause some problems.
For example, many PaaS/SaaS companies may adopt the organizing principle, “Always keep the platform running.” How could something like that get us into trouble?
Well, things might get dicey when a new executive joins who wants features to ship faster, is willing to move fast and break things, and doesn’t value the continual work needed to keep the platform running.
So, when the current system is organized around “Always keep the platform running” (an addiction to uptime?), there will be a lot of frustration on both sides when some people start trying to “move fast and break things.” Despite all the execs’ mandates, timelines, yelling, and threats, the system may not be able (or interested) in changing its organizing principle.
And, I’m guessing that people in the organization have adopted rules to maintain their organizing principle of “Always keep the platform running.” For example, I know engineers who regularly review SQL query performance to identify queries running longer than expected, or review every PR that comes into their code base to prevent platform bugs. Teams will also create informal rules to support their principle, expecting key people to perform the activities that keep things running. When you have only one person trusted to work on a key component, you might be seeing this in action.
This, of course, leads to the roles people play in organizational systems. Maybe some of these are “Cheerleader”, “Nay-sayer”, “Firefighter/Hero”, “Scapegoat”, and “Along for the ride”. Each of these people contributes, in their own way, to maintaining the organizing principle of the system and resisting change. Speaking of resisting change…
Homeostasis is real
When a system is successfully maintaining its organizing principle, it is in homeostasis and will resist change. It’s true of all systems and is part of the quality of resilience. We often desire resilient systems because they continue to operate when things “go wrong.”
But what happens when the alcoholic stops drinking? Or, when the new exec wants to ship features faster to compete in the market? Well, the system resists those changes too. After all, resilient doesn’t just mean “resilient to bad things”, it means “resilient to change”. And, like beauty, the value of a change is in the eye of the beholder.
This is why, so often at work, we utter these paradoxical statements such as, “Change is the only constant”, and “Nothing changes very much around here.”
Yet, change is always possible.
Identifying the organizing principles of systems and the rules and roles that hold them in place is a first step to change. This is “Awareness,” the first “A” in McLendon’s “8 A’s of Change.” If you aren’t aware of them, you won’t understand much about the system.
The next “A” is “Acceptance”, and is fundamental to organizational change. Acceptance doesn’t mean change isn’t needed, but “we need to accept ourselves for who we are, appreciate our successes, and acknowledge that our copings arose as survival strategies.” (McLendon, 2005.)
Did you see the shift that just happened? Most of the time, we “start with judgment”, making a change because we feel a system is bad, broken, or outdated. In short, it’s not meeting our goals.
But when we step into Acceptance, we appreciate our successes (such as “keeping the platform running”) and acknowledge that the rules and roles we established were “survival strategies” - things we did to stay alive and safe. In short, to survive.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Imagine if the next time your Executive rolled out a change, they started by describing their awareness of the system, organizing principles, rules, and roles. They then accepted and appreciated that the current system had upheld the organizing principle, kept the company alive, and was the result of smart people who cared about the company and customers. Imagine if they publicly talked, repeatedly and in depth, about the A’s of “Awareness” and “Acceptance” before considering any changes.
Imagine if they understood not just the org chart, but the systemic interactions between the roles and rules that supported homeostasis. And, they actually appreciated how resilient the system was, rather than becoming frustrated and labeling people as “resistant to change,” “difficult,” or “stuck in their old ways.”
It would make a tremendous difference, and by making the implicit more explicit, it would allow people to discuss, debate, and dream, and invite them to participate in changes.
Tactically, for Engineering Leaders, I suggest that when taking over a new organization or team, leaders spend the first 90 days closely observing without making any changes. No matter if the perceived performance of the system is “terrible” or “great”, your first job is to identify the organizing principles, unspoken rules, and roles that are maintaining homeostasis.
What do you see?
See if you can tap into your curiosity about principles, rules, and roles where you work.
What organizing principles do you see at work? Are they implicit or explicit? If you ask five people, would they all list the same organizing principle?
What rules support the system to maintain these organizing principles? What is not allowed to be discussed, questioned, or challenged? What is so obvious that no one thinks about it?
What roles do people play that maintain homestasis and keep everyone safe?
Keep looking, I promise they exist.
I’d love to hear from you, so write me back. 😊
Marcus