Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

thesystemsthinker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#41

Post by Nowado »

ethanbond wrote: post #39
znpy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So maximize for worker Uh, the article explicitly mentions "those who manage the corporation" not "those who work for the corporation". You're thinking of regular workers, but i would bet 10$ that the author is thinking about upper management (not even team-leaders or middle-managers).

All the way down to the person managing a single grill on the kitchen line, everyone is managing something. Their ability to steer the org toward their own quality of life improvements is dependent upon the scope of their management, but indeed everyone holds the exact same objective.

Surely that was the intended meaning. When one says 'managerial class' it's clearly referring to those managing grills.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#42

Post by ethanbond »

Nowado wrote: post #41
ethanbond wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the way down to the person managing a single grill on the kitchen line, everyone is managing something. Their ability to steer the org toward their own quality of life improvements is dependent upon the scope of their management, but indeed everyone holds the exact same objective.

Surely that was the intended meaning. When one says 'managerial class' it's clearly referring to those managing grills.

Where does the author say managerial class in relation to this statement?

When one says “social system,” as this author actually does, do you think he arbitrarily excludes people below a certain pay grade?

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#43

Post by Nowado »

ethanbond wrote: post #42
Nowado wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely that was the intended meaning. When one says 'managerial class' it's clearly referring to those managing grills.

Where does the author say managerial class in relation to this statement? When one says “social system,” as this author actually does, do you think he arbitrarily excludes people below a certain pay grade?

Huh.

I did reread that part and I was clearly wrong. You are absolutely correct, it refers to a wider category.

Now I kinda want to take person up the comment chain on their bet.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#44

Post by ethanbond »

Nowado wrote: post #43
ethanbond wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the author say managerial class in relation to this statement? When one says “social system,” as this author actually does, do you think he arbitrarily excludes people below a certain pay grade?

Huh. I did reread that part and I was clearly wrong. You are absolutely correct, it refers to a wider category. Now I kinda want to take person up the comment chain on their bet.

I haven’t read any Ackoff but I’ve read a decent bit that is clearly in the intellectual orbit (e.g. Weick) and you would win that bet.

The entire basis of their analysis is that these arbitrary distinctions people propagate in common parlance are not real.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#45

Post by jhayward »

trixie_ wrote: post #17
ryanschneider wrote: post #4

> The principal function of most corporations is not to maximize shareholder value, but to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation. Providing the shareholders with a return on their investments is a requirement, not an objective. I love this quote. At first it sounds very critical, but thinking about it more it reveals something deeper: companies are a collection o…

I'm not a huge fan of this quote because it's an opinion presented as a fact.

The entire article is basically "conclusions from a lifetime of systems thinking". Of course it is opinion (a conclusion), explicitly so.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#46

Post by ItsMonkk »

throwawayboise wrote: post #32

> The interactive manager plans backward from where he wants to be ideally, right now, not forward to where he wants to be in the future. I'm having trouble understanding this point. Is he saying the interactive manager looks backwards at what he might have done differently in the past, to be in a better place today? Would a better term for this be a "retrospective manager"? Or does this mean something else?

There was a recent Chess topic[0] that should help explain better.

Basically all the engines in Chess start with the present position, and try to look into the future move by move. To be able to find the winning position like that is almost impossible for the position they were looking at. And yet, if you give the idea to an average Chess player, they will work out how to get a Checkmate. They will do so by finding Mate, then working back on how to get the board to that state. They will find the winning position when they reach the current state.

He's simply taken this idea and generalized it further to more than Chess.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27188854

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#47

Post by kqr2 »

The Six Revelations from the article:

    Improving the performance of the parts of a system taken separately will not necessarily improve the performance of the whole; in fact, it may harm the whole.

    Problems are not disciplinary in nature but are holistic.

    The best thing that can be done to a problem is not to solve it but to dissolve it.

    The healthcare system of the United States is not a healthcare system; it is a sickness and disability-care system.

    The educational system is not dedicated to produce learning by students, but teaching by teachers—and teaching is a major obstruction to learning.

    The principal function of most corporations is not to maximize shareholder value, but to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#48

Post by tomasdore »

heymijo wrote: post #34
shoto_io wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your favorite resource on Drucker? I love re-reading his book “The Effective Executive”.

His 1973 tome Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, The Essential Drucker, and Managing for Results are three I find myself opening regularly. The Effective Executive is great as well. It's hard to narrow down because he was such a prolific writer. Recommendations are also hard because you've got to meet the reader where they are. I picked up and put down Drucker early in my career. Years later, the same pa…

"You've got to meet the reader where they are....Years later, the same pages burst with insight when I read them. " - Thanks for this, I find it is a great way of phrasing it, and gets to the heart of much about both education and communication.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#49

Post by mrfredward »

Somewhat buried, but this my favorite takeaway

>Errors of omission are generally much more serious than errors of commission, but errors of commission are the only ones picked up by most accounting systems. Since mistakes are a no-no in most corporations, and the only mistakes identified and measured are ones involving doing something that should not have been done, the best strategy for managers is to do as little as possible. No wonder managerial paralysis prevails in American organizations.

I've seen bright forward thinking leaders who delivered results get canned when one reasonable bet doesn't pay off, but mostly I've watched decision-makers stall when action is badly needed. This explains very succinctly what is wrong with so many places I've worked.

Re: A Lifetime of Systems Thinking

#50

Post by bsder »

kqr2 wrote: post #47

The Six Revelations from the article: Improving the performance of the parts of a system taken separately will not necessarily improve the performance of the whole; in fact, it may harm the whole. Problems are not disciplinary in nature but are holistic. The best thing that can be done to a problem is not to solve it but to dissolve it. The healthcare system of the United States is not a healthcare system; it is a si…

> The educational system is not dedicated to produce learning by students, but teaching by teachers—and teaching is a major obstruction to learning.

1) The education system is designed to corral children for working hours so their parents can be cogs in the machine.

2) The education system is designed to produce a minimum competence so that the students can eventually become cogs in the machine.

At no point was the public education system designed for anything significantly different from "average".

Any effective excursions from average are a result of some exceptional teacher bucking the system rather than being helped by it.

Post reply on HN