80% of what goes on in an organisation is determined by its systems, while only 20% is determined by people’s preferences, talents, and skills. By systems, it means the cultures, strategies, structures, reward systems, procedures, roles, and work process that guide organisational behaviour and results.
Self — separate from the system
With this background, one would observe that we typically define our sense of self as being separate from our surrounding systems.
And so one must ponder: What are the consequences of keeping our sense of self (some integration of ego, soul, and self-worth) separate from our surrounding systems?
In sharp contrast, what would life be like if we developed a radically different solution, whereby our sense of self explicitly INCLUDES all our surrounding systems?
Naturally, we can avoid the whole topic and continue living the premise that our systems are out there somewhere (outside of us). If we engage in a discussion (either an inner dialogue and/or with other people), however, we can then begin the debate on (a) if our surrounding systems should be kept on the outside or (b) if our surrounding systems must be fully incorporated into our definition of selfhood.
We tend to pick one extreme view over the other to remove this conflict (by using either the competing mode or the accommodating mode). Or we can even compromise by suggesting when it is useful to consider our systems separate from ourselves and when it is best to incorporate them (only while we are at work, for example).
Any derived solution, however, will only partially satisfy the challenges of living as a separate self OR an embedded self.
If a particular set of situational attributes can be developed for this dialogue (including moderate or low stress, high levels of trust, ample time to thoroughly examine these issues, etc., while recognising that this subject IS complex and does not have to be viewed exclusively in either/or terms), it is then possible to move up the integrative dimension and, thereby, attempt to develop a creative synthesis that incorporates BOTH sides of the debate.
Such a collaborative solution (among all the fragmented pieces that are inside AND outside of our ‘self’) would offer the possibility of merging systems and self into one whole human being.
It is fair to surmise that such a collaborative solution is more likely to generate the self-responsibility to work with others to successfully self-design and self-manage our complex organisations—including our families, communities, organisations, institutions, and nations.
Otherwise it must be of grave concern that most people are waiting for others (out there somewhere) to finally take responsibility for improving and transforming the systems that underlie our most challenging societal ills (especially those escalating conflicts and problems that seem so intractable).
Stated differently, if most people define their inner essence as separate from their outer systems, then who is responsible for and taking care of our organisations and society?
