The Columbo Theory
I repeatedly find myself in discussions with individuals who
seem most frustrated by their apparent inability to effect change
they believe is so dearly needed. Only too well can I relate to
their frustration. For years I experienced the same frustration.
And, in the midst of this frustration, I continued to berate the
ignorance of those who refused to take action to effect change
that seemed so necessary and logical. In time I finally came to
understand that it was my own ignorance that was the source of
the frustration, not the ignorance of those around me. What follows
is an attempt to elaborate what I now think I understand, which
is really only a new level of ignorance yet unrealized.
Systems are perfectly designed and operated to get the results
they get, yet do they get the results they want, or they could
potentially get? Not hardly! Systems operate the way they do,
not because of what we understand, but because of what we don't
understand. We are for the most part consistently victims of our
own ignorance. When Buddha was asked what he was, he replied,
"I am awake." Most of us are not. We just continue to
deceive ourselves into believing we are awake, because to admit
we were so ignorant would be more injurious to our own self-concept
than we could tolerate. Verily we have become amazingly adept
at self-deception to protect our own self-concept, while we remain
asleep and ignorant, and accuse most everything else of ignorance
and ineptitude. So, how did I arrive at this perspective and what's
to do about it?
A system is an entity which maintains its existence through
the interaction of its parts. This is Bertalanffy's definition,
with which I have become most comfortable because of its simplicity
and its implications. The key element of this definition is "interaction,"
rather than "parts." A systems is more a jumble of relations
rather than a pile or a lump. A system is composed of subsystems
and at the same time a subsystem of one or more other systems.
And, it is the interaction of the parts of a system which is responsible
for its emergent characteristics. Emergent meaning that the system
as a whole has properties one can not find by studying the parts,
like wetness emerging from the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen
in a system called water. And, as turns out, there are fundamental
principles of systems, which, although they may sometimes be violated
in the short term, eventually come to pass. So what does all this
have to do with change management?
Organizations are systems, and they are subject to the principles
of systems. For the most part, because we don't understand the
laws of systems, we continually attempt to violate them and are
frustrated when the laws assert themselves and negate our efforts.
As a result we curse the system for its ignorance, as we are unable,
or unwilling, to curse ourselves as it would be far too injurious
to our own self-concept. I have found that with an understanding
of systems has come an understanding of the operation of organizations,
and they are most amusing, to say the least. So what are the principles
of systems, and how do they apply?
Draper Kauffman, in "Systems 1: An Introduction to Systems
Thinking," provides a list of 10 characteristics of, and
22 rules of thumb for the operation of complex systems. These
I have listed at the end. At this point I will simply elaborate
a few characteristics and their role in change, or non-change,
Systems are not stable or unstable, but rather exhibit a characteristic
of dynamic equilibrium. Systems are goal-seeking, having their
own agenda based on the interaction of their parts. An agenda
which is seldom, if ever, completely understood. Consider the
following diagram for some hypothetical system.
The points "A" through "J" represent parts
of the system, and the lines between the point represent interactions
between the parts. The Points "A", "B", "C",
"D", and "H" represent external effects of
some nature and are actually also parts of some other system.
Now, if you will, imagine that the lines are actually springs,
or maybe Slinkys if you wish, with different elasticity coefficients,
each stretched to a different extent. The system as depicted exists
in a state of dynamic equilibrium, not going anywhere, but maybe
vibrating a bit. I know, it's a stretch--pun intended! Now suppose
that you decide you want to move "H" up and to the right
with some effort from a new part "T".
I don't care if you push it or pull it, the relations between
"A .. H", "E .. H", "F .. H", and
"D .. H" are stretched. And the further you move "H"
the greater the tension, or impetus, for "H" to return
to where it was. As long as you apply effort from "T"
the part "H" will stay where you have moved it to. Yet,
not understanding the other interactions at play, once we get
"H" to where we think we want it we remove the effort
from "T" and are shocked when "H" goes back
to where it was before we moved it.
If you really want to move "H," with little effort,
first figure out what's keeping it where it is. If you remove
the constraints there will be little resistance to moving "H,"
and once you get it somewhere else it will stay there. Yet, please
note that if you remove the constraint's on "H" everything
that "H" was constraining will move accordingly. This
is why you can never do just one thing!
What I find to be a continual source of amusement is that the
constraints are quite often intangible mental models which are
so deeply ingrained that no one is even aware of them. Consequently,
the constraints operate without anyone's awareness, and the organization
operates as though fast asleep, and deeply confused by its dreams.
Discounting the Concept of Self
This is the part of the article I started out to write 3 hours
ago before the words took over and decided they knew more about
what ought to be written than I did. So where was I!
There seems to be nothing more frustrating than people who
won't listen to reason. My reason of course. I preach, and plead,
and beg, and cajole, and threaten, and reason, and, and, and,
and they still won't be reasonable, or so the mental model deludes
me, or us, to believe. There are several systems principles at
work here which, over time, have shed a great deal of light on
the apparent dilemma.
We learn oh so well. Sometimes we learn new things, and sometimes
we just reinforce things we already know. We learn from every
experience in our lives, whether we are aware that we are learning
or not. And what all this learning essentially does is develop
our own individual sense of self. A sense of self that we are
seldom really aware of, yet which ultimately affects all our actions.
Although I may deride myself to no end, I am completely unwilling
to allow anyone else to do so, as it threatens my sense of self.
And, by our actions, we attempt to do so to each other, quite
unconsciously, all the time, with quite predictable consequences.
Have you ever been out shopping and had someone come up to
you and say, "May I help you?" The most predictable
response is, "No. I'm just looking." What this well
intentioned person has just done is discount your own personal
sense of self by implying that you are not competent enough to
help yourself, and the reaction is an automatic defense of self.
What's more, your automatic defense discounts the other persons
sense of self by an implication of how could they be so presumptuous
as to even think that you needed help. So the well intentioned
person learns through experience that people don't want to be
This same scenario is carried out anytime one person attempts
to convince another person of anything. By my attempt to convince
you that my idea is the right one, I am discounting your concept
of self by the implication that you are wrong. And then you defend
your sense of self, and we establish defensible positions, debate
the situation endlessly, and never move from our positions. We
expend great amounts of energy going nowhere. Am I not doing it
now? Am I not discounting your sense of self by being presumptuous
enough to imply that I know something that you don't? Well, I'm
not sure I know anything! Amazing isn't it! So, is there an answer?
You guessed it, "It Depends!"
It depends on whether one can integrate self and other to create
selfless. It depends on whether one can integrate dependent and
independent to create interdependent. It depends on whether one
can develop a sense of self and self-awareness which is independent
of the event, and establish an intent, as Senge and Fritz put
it, for the pursuit of truth. Not my truth, or your truth, but
more of an appropriate truth.
I have finally come to understand that I can't convince you,
or anyone else, of anything. We each choose what we believe, and
then we believe what we choose, and one reinforces the other.
The best that I could possibly hope for is to provoke thought,
which I can never do if I discount you, because you become deaf
to my words. Finally we get to why I titled this paper The Columbo
For any of you who ever watched Columbo, the series, you may
recall that Columbo never really tried to tell anyone anything.
All he ever did was ask questions. And he asked questions in a
rather unique fashion. Columbo asked questions from a position
of self-discounting, pausing, scratching his head, always offering
other people an opportunity to be helpful in relieving or removing
his lack of understanding. This is just another instance of the
principle that people hate to be sold, but they love to buy. Columbo
essentially allowed other people to convince themselves of things.
As I understand it, this is essentially the Socratic method, which
means it is nothing new by any means. And still, there is care
to be taken, for it is still essentially manipulation.
Regarding manipulation, I wrote this long ago.
- You can attempt to get blood out of a stone.
- You can attempt to motivate a stone to give blood.
- You can empower a stone to motivate itself to give blood.
- You can inspire a stone to empower itself to motivate itself
to give blood.
- You can embolden a stone to inspire itself to empower itself
to motivate itself to give blood.
- You can ennoble a stone to embolden itself to inspire itself
to empower itself to motivate itself to give blood.
What you have is simply varying degrees of subtle manipulation.
And people don't like to be manipulated, even when its in their
own best interest. Which gets us around to the concept of freedom,
but that's another article, yet very closely related and quite
systemic in its implications.
Copyright © 2004 Gene Bellinger
Complex System Characteristics
Copyright © Draper Kauffman, Ed.D.
- Environment Modifying
- Self-Maintaining and Repairing
Complex System Rules of Thumb
theWay of Systems
- Everything is connected to everything else.
- You can never do just one thing.
- There is no "away."
- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
- Nature knows best.
- If ain't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you
DO know that ain't so.
- "Obvious solutions" do more harm than good.
- Look for high leverage points.
- Nothing grows forever.
- Don't fight positive feedback; support negative feedback
- Don't try to control the players, just change the rules.
- Don't make rules that can't be enforced.
- There are no simple solutions.
- Good intentions are not enough.
- High morality depends on accurate prophecy.
- If you can't make people self-sufficient, your aid does more
harm than good.
- There are no final answers.
- Every solution creates new problems.
- Loose systems are often better.
- Don't be fooled by system cycles.
- Remember the Golden Mean.
- Beware the empty compromise.
- Don't be a boiled frog.
- Watch our for thresholds.
- Competition is often cooperation in disguise.
- Bad boundaries make bad governments.
- Beware the Tragedy of the Commons.
- Foresight always wins in the long run.