Reflecting on the 11 Laws

Source

Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions

There is the issue of the quick fix that doesn’t address the symptom
There is a more profound realization that understandable solutions will lead to unforeseeable problems

3. Behavior grows better before it grows worse

Senge describes the concept of compensating feedback: “the more effort you expend trying to improve matters, the more effort seems to be required.”
The challenge with compensating feedback is that it’s largely invisible when it’s happening. What’s also challenging is that things actually look and feel better in the short term. Instead of recognizing the big picture, we celebrated the many new business wins, we were excited by the hiring of new talent, and we praised those who put in extra hours and worked around the clock to meet the deadlines of multiple projects. What was hard to spot was that we were merely playing right into the system of our own making, unable to see the trouble coming up ahead.

The easy way out usually leads back in

This approach is what Senge says is “pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions” and “a reliable indicator of nonsystemic thinking”…Their only way of succeeding was to know the ins-and-outs of our complex processes, but without proper training and no buffer to make mistakes, any slip-up would be scrutinized and seen as incompetence As we say to remind ourselves nowadays whenever we spot such systemic malfeasance on our part: Failed to set up, set up to fail.

The cure can be worse than the disease

Senge writes: “Sometimes the easy or familiar solution is not only ineffective; sometimes it is addictive and dangerous… The long-term, most insidious consequence of applying nonsystemic solutions is increased need for more and more of the solution.”
Having tasted the panacea of a competent hire, we’ve often fallen into the addictive pattern of hiring to solve rather than asking ourselves the tough question of why we need to hire, why we can’t rely on the existing team to step in, and why we can’t develop a pipeline of talent internally by nurturing juniors into more senior roles. In our better moments, we’ve even explored and instituted systems to ensure that work gets done regardless of who is tasked because we’ve put in better guidelines and processes that doesn’t depend on heroic efforts to achieve.

Faster is slower

If you don’t understand the lag between input and output (or even what the right output might be) then you’ll likely rush the response and over-invest in a remedy that you’re unsure of its efficacy

Cause & Effect are not closely related in time and space

We mistake visibility for culpability: But because these were harder to see, we tended to blame the most visible thing (losing a recent project bid) and also hanging our hopes that winning the next one would bail us out (more immediate cause and effect).

Small changes can produce big results–but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious.

Senge writes: “Tackling a difficult problem is often a matter of seeing where the high leverage lies, a change which–with a minimum of effort–would lead to lasting, significant improvement.”

Cake and eat, just not simultaneously

Senge illustrates this law by describing the example of American manufacturers and their dilemma of choosing between low cost and high quality. What they didn’t consider was that adhering to high quality could help avoid costly rework and reduce customer complaints, allowing brand loyalty to become greater while bringing down customer acquisition costs, which in turn could allow for products to be priced lower. However, going for quality requires upfront investment and costs may go up before they come down.

False binary, reject the premise, extend your temporal runway to understand how a point in time choice might not be the same when we consider the longer term

Dividing an elephant doesn’t create two elephants

Senge writes: “What makes this principle difficult to practice is the way organizations are designed to keep people from seeing important interactions.”

Who is not here? Why? What does their absence prevent us from seeing?

There is no blame

We’re all part of a single system and we all play a role in how things turn out. Once we accept this, it’s much easier to work in a manner where we continually find points of leverage and tweak the system to work in our favor.

Source

Today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions

There is the issue of the quick fix that doesn’t address the symptom
There is a more profound realization that understandable solutions will lead to unforeseeable problems

3. Behavior grows better before it grows worse

Senge describes the concept of compensating feedback: “the more effort you expend trying to improve matters, the more effort seems to be required.”
The challenge with compensating feedback is that it’s largely invisible when it’s happening. What’s also challenging is that things actually look and feel better in the short term. Instead of recognizing the big picture, we celebrated the many new business wins, we were excited by the hiring of new talent, and we praised those who put in extra hours and worked around the clock to meet the deadlines of multiple projects. What was hard to spot was that we were merely playing right into the system of our own making, unable to see the trouble coming up ahead.

The easy way out usually leads back in

This approach is what Senge says is “pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions” and “a reliable indicator of nonsystemic thinking”…Their only way of succeeding was to know the ins-and-outs of our complex processes, but without proper training and no buffer to make mistakes, any slip-up would be scrutinized and seen as incompetence As we say to remind ourselves nowadays whenever we spot such systemic malfeasance on our part: Failed to set up, set up to fail.

The cure can be worse than the disease

Senge writes: “Sometimes the easy or familiar solution is not only ineffective; sometimes it is addictive and dangerous… The long-term, most insidious consequence of applying nonsystemic solutions is increased need for more and more of the solution.”
Having tasted the panacea of a competent hire, we’ve often fallen into the addictive pattern of hiring to solve rather than asking ourselves the tough question of why we need to hire, why we can’t rely on the existing team to step in, and why we can’t develop a pipeline of talent internally by nurturing juniors into more senior roles. In our better moments, we’ve even explored and instituted systems to ensure that work gets done regardless of who is tasked because we’ve put in better guidelines and processes that doesn’t depend on heroic efforts to achieve.

Faster is slower

If you don’t understand the lag between input and output (or even what the right output might be) then you’ll likely rush the response and over-invest in a remedy that you’re unsure of its efficacy

Cause & Effect are not closely related in time and space

We mistake visibility for culpability: But because these were harder to see, we tended to blame the most visible thing (losing a recent project bid) and also hanging our hopes that winning the next one would bail us out (more immediate cause and effect).

Small changes can produce big results–but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious.

Senge writes: “Tackling a difficult problem is often a matter of seeing where the high leverage lies, a change which–with a minimum of effort–would lead to lasting, significant improvement.”

Cake and eat, just not simultaneously

Senge illustrates this law by describing the example of American manufacturers and their dilemma of choosing between low cost and high quality. What they didn’t consider was that adhering to high quality could help avoid costly rework and reduce customer complaints, allowing brand loyalty to become greater while bringing down customer acquisition costs, which in turn could allow for products to be priced lower. However, going for quality requires upfront investment and costs may go up before they come down.

False binary, reject the premise, extend your temporal runway to understand how a point in time choice might not be the same when we consider the longer term

Dividing an elephant doesn’t create two elephants

Senge writes: “What makes this principle difficult to practice is the way organizations are designed to keep people from seeing important interactions.”

Who is not here? Why? What does their absence prevent us from seeing?

There is no blame

We’re all part of a single system and we all play a role in how things turn out. Once we accept this, it’s much easier to work in a manner where we continually find points of leverage and tweak the system to work in our favor.