Who is ready to act?!? - a response from Bill Pasmore
Below is William Pasmore's thoughtful and passionate response to my article, "Down in the Mines". At Openloop Solutions we are committed to putting STS theory into practice.
"I was saddened to hear from those close to him that Eric Trist was distraught at the end of his life, believing that his work had not made a difference. I see it differently. Having written about his contributions and knowing the impact he had on my life and the lives of many others, I recognize the significance of his legacy. Yet, as I grow older, I can’t help but share some of his frustrations.
Your piece, referencing Eric’s work in the coal mines in the 1940s, naturally leads me to reflect on how far we’ve come—and it’s all too easy to conclude that the answer is “nowhere.” Why, 80 years later, are we still telling this same story? And who is actually listening? Where are the once-celebrated counterexamples—the Kalmar plant in Sweden, the Gaines Pet Food plant in Topeka, the Procter & Gamble detergent plants? Most are gone or have reverted to more traditional ways of working. To my knowledge, no groundbreaking new facilities based on socio-technical systems (STS) principles are being built anywhere in the world. Even in areas like ERP systems, where there is a passionate group of STS scholars and practitioners in IT, little of their theorizing seems to translate into actual practice.
So, what’s going on?
Hypothesis 1: Leaders haven’t heard the message. Despite 100,000 articles, a million conference presentations, podcasts, and videos, decision-makers remain unaware of STS principles. If you surveyed a thousand leaders and asked if they had ever heard of STS or read an article about it, they would likely say no. But we know some leaders have heard the message because some organizations have been designed using STS—and the results were positive. Yet, the knowledge hasn’t spread from those who have seen the benefits to those who haven’t.
If the world discovered a cure for cancer, most people would hear about it, and those affected would be eager to learn more. In this case, a cure for low engagement, poor quality, disregard for safety, and low productivity was found—but no one seemed to care.
Hypothesis 2: Leaders don’t care. Even employees who have the chance to shape their own workplaces—such as in startups or employee-owned companies—replicate the “I’m the boss, and I get to decide” model. They show little interest in exploring a better way, especially if it involves worker participation, which is inherently messy and threatens their absolute authority.
Some “enlightened” leaders make efforts—they open things up for questions in a town hall or conduct skip-level meetings—but they don’t require other leaders to do the same, nor do they formalize participation in work system design. They allow their executives and mid-level managers to operate however they see fit, which usually defaults to the “I’m the boss” model.
After all these years, leadership development providers have still not been able to quantify the benefits of leadership development training because, too often, there are no benefits. Left to their own devices, people revert to the leaders they were before. It’s simply easier to be the boss than to constantly listen, engage, and adjust. Their bosses don’t demand real engagement (though they might encourage it in a speech), and even employees don’t necessarily expect to be included in meaningful decision-making.
When we highlight the billions wasted on ineffective systems—and the well-documented solutions available—we’re met with silence. Leaders don’t care because they aren’t rewarded for trying harder or penalized for inaction. They just need to do what everyone else is doing. If things go wrong, they can fire the IT consultants and hire another firm. We saw this cycle repeat itself multiple times while we worked together.
You’d think boards or owners would hold leaders accountable, but they don’t. They, too, favor the “I’m the boss” model and don’t prioritize building a high-performance culture. They assume their organizations will be fine regardless. They fail to recognize that major business failures often stem from cultural stagnation (think Walmart’s success versus Sears’ collapse). Yet, instead of addressing systemic issues, they just look for a new boss.
Only Sweden and Germany recognized the importance of embedding worker input into national law—forcing leaders to do the right thing despite themselves. In contrast, the U.S. and Australia place decision-making power entirely in the hands of individual leaders, allowing them to run things however they please.
Maybe it’s time for a new set of STS principles:
Never allow technology to be designed and implemented without the end users in charge. If the people who will use the technology don’t have real decision-making power, don’t do it at all.
Don’t assume leaders will lead well. Instead of trusting leadership instinctively, educate shareholders (not just boards) on what good and bad leadership look like—clearly and unequivocally. No more blind trust in the idea that "we hired a good person, so let’s let them do their job." If you invest money, you should have a say in how it’s managed. If you don’t care whether you make or lose money, then, by all means, let leaders do whatever they want.
Establish a "Council for Smarter Business." This group should define leadership standards and push for change. Fill the seats with highly respected, open-minded individuals and charge them with elevating leadership quality nationwide—engaging investors and government officials to remove leaders who refuse to evolve. Power matters.
The time for lamenting lost opportunities is over. The question is: who’s ready to act?"