Complex Maladaptive Social Systems

This is a conversation about corporate culture. In any business system, you have a social system (corporate culture) running in parallel with the business system. Overlooked by management is the fact that there are two social systems running in parallel: one for management and one for employees.

Complex Maladaptive Social System (CMSS) is a play on buzzwords. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) is a big topic in the Complexity (VUCA) world. Complex Adaptive Social Systems (CASS) takes CAS into the social domain. Complex Maladaptive Social System is a reference to toxic work environments. If we take Argyris and Schön’s Model I Theory-in-use (TIU) and update the terms, then Complex Maladaptive Social System is the right name.

Model I applies to employees whose daily work involves following procedures and having their output validated against a quality standard. Basically, people at the bottom of the corporate hierarchy. Management and the “professional” employees fall under Model II which is typically a healthy, productive social system (CASS?) Academics may disagree with my definitions of the two TIU. But this is the view from the bottom of the corporate hierarchy.

It is possible for an employee focused social system to be healthy and verdant. Then again, it can quickly devolve into a toxic work environment. This occurs most often when punishments are applied for not meeting quality standards. It is important to remember there are two social systems at work here. Management may see the punishments as merely requiring retraining. The management social system perceives the error as minor. The employee social system sees it as an affront and a threat to their survival: blame. That sounds crazy, but it is the case in toxic work environments.

Let us look at what Argyris and Schön called Model I Theory-in-use (CMSS.) The four Action Strategies for Model I Theory-in-use are:

1. Design and manage environment so that actor is in control over factors relevant to them. [This sounds like empowerment, but the emphasis is on “control.”]

2. Own and control the task. [This sounds like accountability, but the emphasis is on “control.”]

3. Unilaterally protect the self.

4. Unilaterally protect others from being hurt.

(For a detailed review of these topics, look for Argyris and Schön’s writings on Single and Double-Loop Learning.)

Problems arise from the last two action strategies: protect self and others. “Unilaterally protect” means without regard to the truth or consequences of your actions. Lie. Lie like your job depends on it. Spread that lie in the company’s rumor mill. Undermine anyone who may endanger the lie. That is the worse case, and there are lessor gradations of this behavior.

“Lie” is an inflammatory word. I used it for effect. A more nuanced review may find that people choose to double check the results of the inspection. Once the results are checked and confirmed, a low level meeting is called to understand the context of the error. Then another meeting is scheduled to decide how to proceed, and then another meeting, and another. The delay in reporting to upper management quickly becomes a lie of omission and a reason for additional delay. Eventually, it devolves into a political fight to determine who will inform upper management of the bad news. Management is going to ask, “Why weren’t we told about this when we could do something about it?”

Remember, this is a conversation about business systems and social systems. The policies, processes, and procedures of the business system are in use and have full effect. The employee social system is out of alignment with the business system, but the business system is not affected. Management may never see the evolution into a toxic work environment. If the business system is affected, the standard business system reporting like KPIs and metrics will not show the change. The changes are seen in reductions to effectiveness, efficiency, morale, turnover, and other indirect effects. Things get worse.

In an unhealthy employee social system, the motivation to protect the self and others may eventually supersede the business system. All business systems have exceptions to the rules. To affect these exceptions, people are assigned specific authority to interpret the policies and procedures and suspend punishments for out-of-tolerance outputs and behaviors. This authority, and the Model I action strategies of unilaterally protecting self and others, leads to the corruption of business systems, all while appearing to comply with the defined authority/approval process. The out-of-tolerance results are temporarily accepted. Eventually, these exceptions become the new undocumented standard. Phrases like “Let me tell you how work REALLY gets done around here.” start popping up.

An employees’ goal of advancing their career through successful management, outputs, and outcomes is subjugated to a goal of acquiring more and more authority to avoid punishment (blame) and the ability to protect others from blame. The “successful” career path is changed to avoiding blame, assigning blame, and redefining blame (approval of temporary changes to tolerances). Job descriptions that manage blame become the highest social levels within that social system.

In summary, business systems have social systems running in parallel. Argyris and Schön identified two such social systems: Model I (employee) and Model II (management or healthy for both employees and management). Model I behavior can lead to a toxic game of avoiding blame. It changes the employee's career goals from success in avoiding, assigning, and redefining blame.

If you like what your reading, buy me a coffee.