And perhaps a good question to ask is: Do companies with great people-systems outperform and out-sustain companies that don’t put the necessary stock into this?

I love how we’re all stretching and playing around with this topic. What started with some simple questions has blossomed into a variety of different perspectives and tangents. We almost need a mindmap to map out the dialogue here…which may not be a bad idea.

The dialogue here has been excellent. The one notion that I would add is to consider the various people-systems as systems, as well. It’s this that goes to the heart of my own post. We can talk about the systems that can exist parallel to the human component (technology, financial, etc). Within these systems, I can see the dichotomy between people and systems, one where you can plug in an individual and watch them act. But where I see most organizations falter is understanding their own people-systems (learning, social networks, engagement, etc) which is an integration that connects people to the organization’s culture and deeper purpose. This conversation and exploration will always get trumped by financial and more traditional concerns as long as the old way of doing things is exalted. But I see things changing in this regard which is very exciting.

Steve, I really appreciate your inclusion of your experience with long-standing companies trying to figure out how they might stay in business. It seems that they may be realizing all too late that things have changed and their good intentions are likely not enough to keep the vultures away. And I see this honestly as a positive – its the cycle of death and rebirth that can be a powerful incubator of new and dynamic businesses. Would we rather work at a gutted organization still in business or a new organization with fresh focus, better market prospects, and – hopefully – a better grasp of its people-systems to help it succeed in this new age of business?

Looks as if we are on converging (that’s a good thing) tracks this week.

One of the things I’ve thought about is this:

If systems trump people, then should organizations be identifying honest employees who simply have the minimum skills necessary to operate the system and not go so crazy focusing on the “best and the brightest”?

Sort of like the “minimum daily requirement” in vitamins. They’ll keep you healthy (not necessarly super-charged) for a long period of time.

It would save money on salaries, time in the hiring cycle, and limit expenditures on “development.”

This is actually a legitimate question to ponder if the systems vs. people argument is true.

So true. I agree that if you put a strong performer within a broken system, the chances of that individual succeeding are slim to none unless they have the ability to quickly influence and drive change of that process–which is rare for anyone that might be new to a company who may be set in their ways. And the reason why I feel this post is timely and deserves more consideration is this: given the current state of the economy, employers are examining their workforce and preparing to make some tough decisions – if they haven’t already. That said, many organizations are already about as lean as they can get thanks to the last recession; so if you think in terms of workload, a lot of people are already at max capacity and trimming will add to the pressure. Couple that with failing systems or processes and you’ve got big trouble for any sort of future growth.

I agree with your thinking to instill a holistic approach to people system assessment and ‘now’ would seem the perfect time for companies to analyze their operations (including people) to examine every potential to improve, communicate and evolve in order to come out of this stronger.

Smart employers listen to the voices of their employees and then commit to making change happen within their people systems – in any economy. Good people + great people systems = strong employer brand.

Charee