Corante

In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Future Tense

« New bloggers on the future of work | Main

September 21, 2006

Bob Sutton on Crappy People versus Crappy Systems

Email This Entry

Posted by Jim McGee

I recently pointed to Bob Sutton's new blog as a good source of insight into the world of effective organizations.  One of his recent posts, Crappy People versus Crappy Systems, offers an excellent case in point. The entire post is well worth your time, but here is the essence:

 The worst part about focusing on keeping out crappy people, however, is that it reflects a belief system that “the people make the place.” The implication is that, once you hire great people and get rid of the bad ones, your work is pretty much done. Yet if you look at large scale studies in everything from automobile industry to the airline industry, or look at Diane Vaughn’s fantastic book on the space shuttle Challenger explosion and the well-crafted report written by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board , the evidence is clear: The “rule of law crappy systems” trumps the “rule of crappy people.”

Sure, people matter a lot, but as my colleague Jeff Pfeffer puts it, some systems are so badly designed that when smart people with a great track record join them, it seems as if a “brain vacuum” is applied, and they turn incompetent. Jeff often jokes that this is what happens to many business school deans, and indeed, these jobs have so many competing and conflicting demands that they are often impossible to do well.

Bob Sutton: Crappy People versus Crappy Systems.

I've worked in a number of organizations that do an excellent job of hiring great people, including successful startups. Sutton's post finally puts a finger on my central frustration in these organizations; they too often tolerate crappy systems that pull down the performance and potential of the great people they manage to attract.

I suspect this is partly a function of the wrong design emphasis. When you know in advance that your organizational systems must work regardless of your ability to attract the best and the brightest, you invest the time and energy to make those systems robust. If you go down the "hire the best" path, you give yourself license to under-invest in systems. Perhaps more harmfully, you don't take the time to design the organizational systems that might actually amplify the quality and capabilities of a superior workforce.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Workforce


COMMENTS

1. Arlan Dean on October 25, 2006 6:01 PM writes...

Building robust systems. Whatta concept! First you need a committee to reach a consensus on what a robust system is, then a task force to appoint another committee to discuss it further. Throw in a few systems consultants to make pretty diagrams and a few presentations. Let's not forget the project manager brought in from the outside (waaaay outside!) to take the blame when the "Robust Systems Initiative" flounders...

Actually I agree with you 200%. I'm a true believer in the power of replicatable systems/ organizational structures that can function optimally (or nearly so) no matter who sits in the seats.

But it's easier to spot and acquire "good people"--or those who appear to be. Hiring bodies requires a minimum of up-front conceptualization, creativity, innovation and planning.

Usually (usually!) by the time the typical organization even needs to consider rebuilding at a fundamental level, systems or otherwise, they're in trouble and looking for a quick fix in the form of shiny new people.

Maybe what we need to discuss at length is real-world examples of robust systems to use as models.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Bob Sutton on Crappy People versus Crappy Systems
New bloggers on the future of work
Circles of knowledge and boundaries of ignorance
Tool-and-Die Makers in a Knowledge Economy
Wikiwise 50: #45 -- Yahoo!
Knowledge management, reinvention, and innovation
Balancing diligence and laziness
Wikiwise 50: #46 -- Microsoft