systems

Some thoughts, following a late-night chat with a friend at the prata place near my home. Nothing like a good prata with a nice teh-o-ice-limau or teh-si-alia-kosong, to whet one's appetite for good conversation and/or pseudo-philosophizing.

We were talking about charismatic leaders and the systems they build. Actually, we were talking about just one particular charismatic leader whom my friend has had the privilege of working with, but you know the type - the LKYs and Steve Jobs of the world. They build up organisations, put systems in place, sometimes even plan for succession by doing the best they can to train future leaders, ingrain their values and work processes in their co-leaders and subordinates. And then they leave. And sooner or later, the system starts to fail.

All too often, I think, we think of systems as being independent of human influence. We think of them as mere frameworks for action, like factory production lines which in themselves are neutral, have no personality, conform to no ideology or organising vision. Yet of course that is far from the truth. Anyone who has ever had to take over the running of a system from a predecessor whose personality differed very greatly from their own, knows this intuitively.

Systems are designed by people. The design process is far from the neutral. It reflects the personality - the strengths and weaknesses - of the designer. Any system, in fact, is made with the comfort and ease of the designer in mind. When someone else has to take over the system from its original designers, there is bound to be some point of mismatch somewhere. Whether major or minor, this mismatch will make itself felt. It is then up to the new users of the system to either change themselves (difficult), or to change the system (also difficult - but probably wiser).

Singapore Inc. is currently in the early stages of what may turn out to be a major systemic overhaul. It's about time, and I'm glad it's happening now, rather than later.
...
...