Growing up
I was raised in an Indian culture that values personal responsibility. Systemic forces would often remain behind the scenes, out of the conscious discussion. Thus, results were attributed to individuals - less privately for successes, and more privately for failures.
Others have formed the belief of more collective (less individual) responsibility - especially in the case of failure where the system is to blame. If only the system were different then individuals could be their best selves. We all sense this to be true - the highest levers of change are to the system, not individuals.
As we experience life in the real world, it becomes evident that those positions in isolation are neither entirely correct nor practical. The world is murky, things are imperfect and both aspects are important. Individuals should take responsibility to act, be mindful of consequences, see the systemic forces that constrain behaviour and advocate for systemic change. Also, those who can influence the system should take responsibility to listen, have empathy and adapt system structures to generate positive effects.
Unbalance of responsibility
Not enough focus has been given to systemic responsibility in recent history. In individualistic cultures, success and failures are often attributed to the individual.
The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo details the events during the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib. It highlights a history of systemic failings and subsequent bias towards blaming individuals and protecting the system.
These stories, and more recent ones in the news, should convince us that more attention could be given to systemic failings, rather than solely pushing responsibility down to individuals operating within those systems.
A personal story
At the beginning of my career, I was a hopeful, high-energy, low-experience technologist eager to be useful - but undoubtedly needed support. One particular project architect thought I was not good enough, and sought it upon himself to ‘train’ me by looking over my shoulder whilst I updated a data model, waiting for mistakes and then proceeding to belittle me whilst aggressively banging his fists on the table to emphasise my failings. Raised believing in personal responsibility, I assumed it was my fault at the time. Many years later, I was able to reframe my understanding of this situation.
Here was a man with the right intentions (wanting the project to be a success) using ineffective methods. He created a system of fear and misery (not just for me but others), attributing failings to the individual whilst doing nothing to influence the system. Given his position at the top of the hierarchy, he could not see the system of his creation as the very thing working against his ambitions for success. His behaviour resulted from excessive ego, short-termism, authoritarianism, aggression and lack of empathy. But there was also a lack of action by those who could influence directly or escalate a systemic problem.
Sure, I had some things to improve as a young professional; however, despite trying, I was never good enough. The problem here skewed heavily towards the system - that I have no doubt. Should any one person have had so much power? What values and ethics were undefined or unsocialised? Why was no one able to report the problem of bullying? What kind of commitments and pressures resulted in such behaviours surfacing? Were people being trained adequately before starting critical projects?
Consequently, the word failure is triggering for me despite only one relatively minor negative experience in my career. Others have had a lifetime of being brutally called out for their failures without any responsibility attributed to the system and environment around them. There is no easy way to overcome these traumatic experiences - a slight recurrence triggers the Amygdala Hijack reflex resulting in a state of fight-or-flight arousal. A lot of mental energy is needed to bring calm and perspective once this happens. Simply using the word failure (even innocently) is enough to create a sustained emotional reaction meaning a greater likelihood of getting things wrong.
Reconciling
So how does one reconcile the sense of personal responsibility with that of the system? Often it is the system’s fault, but should I avoid acknowledging my mistakes? Should I avoid risk because I am fearful of failure?
Of course, the answer is No. Instead, this is about changing the system to reframe and embrace failure.
When it is safe to fail - the word failure is redundant and harsh. So why not simply remove it?
Here are some things to frame the design of a social system that is resilient and thus makes it safe to fail. Notice the language used.
- Define an ethical code & shared values
- Empower people to act without permission
- Create space to experiment
- Welcome expected and unexpected outcomes
- Add diverse perspectives for better decisions
- Monitor the system via transparency & feedback loops
- Adapt the system to nudge the positive and prevent the catastrophic
What does this do? - Well, it avoids the word failure and assignment to any individual, instead creating space for unexpected outcomes via safe experiments. It acknowledges that most failures are ones of the system, and creates transparency via regular feedback loops. It actively and continuously changes system structures to prevent any serious effects from occurring.
So do you, the individual, have any responsibility? - Yes! Take responsibility to act - enact your role(s), improve things, experiment, seek feedback, reflect and grow. If the environment does not help, or you notice unconstructive patterns, change the system or provide feedback to those that can. If you cannot do any of those things, it is worth a more introspective look at what is causing that.
Conclusion
When those with the power cannot find ways to change the system, a gentler form of bias towards individual responsibility emerges - normalising the word failure, encouraging individuals to share failures and little attribution of responsibility to the system. It is a form of maintaining the status quo in the system. Rarely does changing an individual’s behaviour (no matter how gently) result in changes to the underlying system that generated or supported those behaviours.
Instead, let’s assume failures start with the system and focus efforts on creating the system structures that encourage the behaviour wanted whilst preventing disastrous results. It avoids blaming narrowly to individuals or small groups. Once all options in the system are exhausted, identify things specific to individuals and handle them with directness, candidness and compassion.
As organisational leaders responsible for teams and people, it is our charge to keep cool heads and move the system forward towards positive effects. Though, we also need space to experiment, learn and adapt!