The cat died, the tail peeled off

The cat died, the tail peeled off - whoever says a word will eat it. Everyone knows this child's count.

But today, it’s not about books, but about systems thinking and its application for understanding business processes of an enterprise.

As a programmer and CIO, I often had to attend various meetings of executives, operatives, strategic sessions of top management, etc.

There, everyone says something, argues, curses, offers his own and slanders other people's ideas, attacks and defends himself, cries and laughs. It looks funny, sometimes scary, in most cases boring, but, most importantly, almost always - to no avail.
')
The purpose of meetings, as a rule, is to make decisions on some issues: operational, tactical, strategic. Solutions are the results, the products of the meeting.

But bad luck - in most cases, there are no solutions at all, they just get worn out, pometed, poured bile and went their separate ways. If decisions are made, they are usually of poor quality.

What is interesting - at the time of the decision at the meeting, it seems to be excellent. The understanding that the solution sucks comes after. Sometimes right after the meeting, in a smoking room, for example, sometimes at the moment when the decision is announced to the team, sometimes when drawing up an implementation plan, but almost always such a moment comes. Why the solution seems different at the meeting, it became clear pretty quickly. Three scripts work here.

The first script

If the meeting is limited in time, and the moderator is not sleeping, then the purpose of the decision is to have time to make a decision. This is a criterion of success - managed or not. The quality of the decision, even its normal discussion is not on the agenda. The decision was made - hoo, no wonder we are called leaders, we have done our work. Yes, so fast. Some even use this technique to speed up - to hold meetings standing. I used to think that this is the specifics of our company, it turned out - no, even some of the newly-made governors use this technique.

Second script

If the meeting is not limited in time, then the purpose of the decision is to make this meeting end as soon as possible. Everyone wants to return to their comfort zone - to the office, or home, and nobody wants to sit and chew snot for hours. In such a situation, a decision of any quality will come down, just to hear the cherished "friends, we did a great job, made a decision, thank you all." And then at least the grass does not grow.

Third scenario

The human brain is so constituted that it appreciates its inventions very much. If a manager who has significant weight at this meeting came up with a decision, then he will no longer refuse him - most likely because he has invented it. The quality of the solution is also not important, the main thing - I invented it. There are many ways to overcome such a situation - the devil’s advocate, Genghis Khan’s method, brainstorming, etc., I’ll tell you about them another time.

In all scenarios, the same thing happens - the substitution of the result by a surrogate. A high-quality, well-thought-out solution is a product. The fact of making a decision is a surrogate.

You can see a lot of surrogate examples around - both in your company and in government. Usually, surrogates begin with the phrases “a road map has been formed”, “steps are outlined”, “points of contact are found”, “a decision has been made to work out a solution”, etc.

I decided to use this state of affairs in my favor. The programmer's mind understood that there was a way out, and it was simple. In addition, if you find the right approach, you can use it as a career steroid - a key advantage compared with fellow managers.

Freymork, the most appropriate to this situation, I thought of systemic thinking. In a nutshell, I will explain. Systems thinking is an abstract philosophy that examines the world, in all its manifestations, and business in particular, as systems — complex aggregates of people, processes, relationships (formal and informal), explicit and hidden leaders, material objects, information systems, customers, suppliers , equipment, etc., to infinity.

If you have all the elements in front of you, you know them, or even see ¬– for example, you have collected all this in one place - then you are not in a system, but a set of elements. Just a bunch of details.
How to make a system out of this heap? That's right, you need to turn it on - start it up.

This is well understood by programmers, or engineers. Here is the program code, here is the computer or server, here is the input for processing. You press ON - the system has earned. Well, or not earned, if there is an error.

In systems consisting of people, usually the opposite is true, and this difference is key. Systems of people worked before you, and will work after you. But they will not work with you, in your presence. Actually, in your presence they cease to be systems, and again turn into a set of elements. Returning to the example above, when you have collected all and all elements of the system in one place. What did you do? That's right, you turned off the system.

What is the difference between the system in the on and off states? People seem to be the same, positions are the same, processes are the same, the head is the same - everything is in place. The difference in the properties of the system, which manifest themselves only when it is "turned on", i.e. when the system works. Examples of such properties of systems - everywhere, you will find them without difficulty.

A TV without electricity is a turned off system that does not show us its main feature - to show an image. Turn on the TV - see the image, the property will manifest. Splash water on a working TV - you will see a new feature of the system, which, perhaps, was unaware.

Such properties of the system are called emergent, or arising.

They arise when the system is assembled and switched on from a set of elements. Both conditions are important - both assembled and activated. In our case - when it does not turn off.

If the task is to understand the system in order to change it later, then the solution is simple - watch it without shutting down.

So, the System Thinking framework says to me - watch the system in action, understand its properties, especially the emergent ones, and find the point of application of force to improve this system.

Of course, I could not and did not intend to turn off the meetings. But I did not observe, because I was part of the system, since actively participated in the meeting. The key approach of the framework, which gives an understanding of the system, is to observe it, and not to participate in it.

I thought - how exactly do I participate in the system of meetings and decision-making? The answer came from where they did not expect - from the movie “Fight Club”. There is a scene there that discusses the differences between support groups (alcoholics, cancer patients, etc.) from ordinary communication. And the key phrase sounds: “when people think that you are dying, you are seriously listened to. And not just waiting for their turn to speak. "

My participation in meetings lasted continuously, and not only when I said something - because I was constantly waiting for my turn to speak. I waited until it was my turn to say something - my own solution, my own opinion about someone else’s decision, “say at least something.”

Waiting for their turn to speak made not so much to listen and delve as to invent an answer, arguments and counter arguments on the go. The time and resources of the brain simply did not remain productive reflection on the solution of the problem.

In order, nevertheless, to proceed to the observation, I came up with a simple method for myself - to be silent. Consciously, uncompromisingly and, most importantly, with the permission of the authorities.

It is impossible to introduce silence at once and for all meetings - they simply won’t understand, and instead of a career steroid you’ll get career poison. Therefore, I introduced silence gradually.

There is such a category - problem meetings, when managers gather to discuss a not very important, or a problem that has not yet come. It is from these I started.

When the queue reached me, I said: “I will listen for now, and I will express my opinion a little after the meeting, by e-mail”. As an option - at the next meeting on the same topic. The head was surprised, but he agreed, and I began to keep quiet and listen carefully.

The usual tension of waiting is gone. The subject of discussion - the problem - has become really interesting to me. Opinions of people have ceased to be hostile. When you know that you have the right not to say anything at all, not to argue, not to attack and not to defend yourself, you just start listening and understanding, collecting information.

The key condition - in the promised time, after the meeting, really need to write or say something. But it turned out that it is quite easy, even interesting. You know how the brain of a programmer likes to solve problems of changing systems, and business is the system, with the same laws as the information system.

Then it became more interesting. The decisions that I formulated after the meetings were an order of magnitude better, more thoughtful, taking into account the realities, resources and capabilities of the company. This is not because I am so well done, but because I have made decisions in the right place at the right time.

Of course, the manager noticed the quality of the proposed solutions. Especially after their implementation, which I often took upon myself. He realized that this was the result of silence at meetings, and he maintained my silence, sometimes even urged me to keep quiet.

So it was even at meetings where only he and I were present. The head told the problem, looked at me, recalled and said - “but you don’t answer right away, waiting for a letter”.

I began to use this approach more and more often, and one problem emerged. Colleagues who noticed my "special" position at meetings began to sabotage meetings. When asked for their opinion, they said: “what can I say, then he will leave and come up with a solution, I’m here why.”

It was impossible to leave a place for sabotage, because the colleagues-leaders are carriers of valuable information about the problems of business processes. Collecting such information on my own would be too costly for me, and the whole effect would have disappeared.

Therefore, we had to balance between silence and trolling. If I saw that the meeting and its problem are not essential, do not play a big role for the business, then I did not remain silent, but spoke, moreover, more than anyone. Troll colleagues, provoked them (in a good way) to the disclosure of all knowledge about the problem, quarreled and reconciled, supported and inspired. In general, I did everything so that they did not think that I always keep quiet.

And this reception worked - they stopped paying attention to silence. Some even began to take advantage of - brought their own problem, received an email with the proposed solution. Or the decision itself, if it was in the competence of IT.

This is how a career steroid appeared and worked - the competence, capabilities and sphere of influence of IT in the company grew. Since IT can offer non-IT solutions — for example, reengineering business processes, developing motivation systems, choosing and implementing procurement, production, or project management techniques — why not?

Of course, there is nothing new in the reception of “keeping silent at meetings” - it is just a practical implementation of the phraseological unit “good thought comes after.” But it works, this is the main thing.