I have attended many presentations, both at ISPI and other conferences, where the talks promise to be about systemic approaches, or where the authors accurately identify their focus as "systematic" in the beginning, but somewhere through the presentation, magically "systemically" and "systematically" start swapping out with each other in the language, like synonymous butterflies that flutter in and out of the same place in a sentence. I have just finished reviewing a round of presentation proposals in which these two words continue to battle with each other. Even though they have very similar letters, in a very similar sequence, they are so different in meaning so as to nearly run perpendicular in definition. And yet, these two concepts are at the core of the principles of professional performance improvement practices (did I string enough big words together there?).
Ryan just posted on the language of performance. As a student of language and rhetoric, I find it interesting that the first two blog topics to roll from us are on language. At the core of language is thought - our language both reflects our thinking and creates our thinking. Lack of rigor in our language is indicative as lack of rigor in our conceptualization of our professional practices. Given that, getting clear on what the heck we mean when we say "performance" or "systemic" or "systematic" - since these are the core words of our very principles - is critical.
So - let's wrest systemic from the dependably mundane systematic. It is time to release these two words from each other's definition so we can get clear on what we're doing and where we're headed. Yes, when the two dance together, we can get great results. One without the other is like a ballroom dancing couple with one partner gone missing. And yet, no matter how well in unison a good set of partners may dance, each individual partner must remain vigilantly clear about his or her unique role in the pair. Otherwise, when the identity of one gets lost or muddled, the entirety will get lost and muddled.
Here I begin the section of the post in which you may start thinking, "yeah, yeah, yeah ... yadda, yadda, yadda" - read it, seen it, heard it. I know this particular topic has been addressed - over and over ad nauseum. Yet the problem persists - so my task is a tough one of jolting you into a way of keeping it clear. Let's start here - you can be entirely systematic and still not be systemic in your approach at all. And vice versa - you can be systemic in your approach, and yet not be systematic in the least. So it simply is not possible for you to be systematic and somehow magically or by default be systemic. Nor is it possible for you to be "systemic" and somehow magically or by default also be systematic. Given that these are two different dimensions of your performance (Ryan, did I use the word well, or should I replace it?), indeed these should be pictured as two perpendicular concepts. I'm going to be so brazen as to put them on axes - an X axis and a Y axis.
There's a very straight-forward reason for this theoretical relationship between systemic and systematic. Systematic is a focus on doing things well - it is the quality of the process you follow. When you do something, do you do it well or poorly? Systematic is all about process. When you follow an effective or proven method of formative evaluation, for example, you are committed to quality process. Now, I'm pretty sure we all understand "systematic" - to follow a clearly defined, organized process. It doesn't have to be linear or circular - just replicable and clearly-defined. That is necessary ... but it's only half of the story.
(And when I say "systematic" is dependably mundane, I say it with all due respect for the dear word - being systematic yields dependability and reliability. While the concept is, in truth, so straight-forward as to have an every-day sort of quality, therein also lies the beauty of the systematic.)
Systemic is a focus on impact - pure and simple. Said differently, systemic is a matter of doing the right things (Drucker, Kaufman). The concept of "systemic" is truly the most abused of the pair. (Giving the dancing analogy I introduced earlier, I'm sorely tempted to reference certain performances on "Dancing with the Stars" ... but I'll leave this to your imagination.) When asked, most people will readily reply that "systemic" thinking is about "the parts of the whole." We're going to consistently challenge that, and hopefully disabuse you of that definition, thereby wresting "systemic" from the limiting definitional grip it faces today. "Systemic" is a concern with impact - understanding that all parts are inter-related, inter-connected. This inter-relatedness necessarily means that what you do, deliver, or produce in one area ripples out to impact another area. But we get stuck - "if I create a new process here, that may impact policy in our organization." Or, "if I change the rewards/incentive structure, it will impact desired employee performance." While there is a necessary place for this "parts" level understanding for detailed planning, truly systemic planning starts with the largest whole possible - NOT your organization! I'll give you a few seconds to think ... what is the largest "whole" out there ... society. Everything we do, produce and deliver in our organizations impacts society. (We don't really reach a "5" rating on my little ol' chart until we consider performance - i.e. impact - at the societal level.) So we've stepped even beyond just "systemic" vs. "systematic" into "system" vs. "systems."
To determine if you are being systemic, ask yourself - am I addressing impact?
To determine if you're stuck on parts impact rather than whole impact, ask yourself - am I planning for desired impact on external clients and society?
To determine if you are being systematic, ask yourself - am I focused on doing things right?
Doing things right, without doing the right things, is like the old addage of the path to some pretty hot places - it may be paved with good processes, but the end outcome isn't desirable.
So here's my visual aid, such as it is, with added commentary now:
The more clear we get about precisely what we mean when we say these words - and the more consistent and conscious we get in our language and communication with clients - the better our impact will be.
Subscribe