The Purpose of a System

the unintended consequences of what it actually does

Sometime last week, a colleague posted this snippet from Wikipedia:

The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID) is a systems thinking heuristic coined by Stafford Beer, who observed that there is “no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do.” The term is widely used by systems theorists, and is generally invoked to counter the notion that the purpose of a system can be read from the intentions of those who design, operate, or promote it. When a system's side effects or unintended consequences reveal that its behavior is poorly understood, then the POSIWID perspective can balance political understandings of system behavior with a more straightforwardly descriptive view.

I keep thinking about our congregations and all of the ‘wisdom’ we share about how hard it is to change congregational systems, and how long it takes to make change happen in congregations.

Is it possible… that this is polity’s purpose? That this is, in fact, how congregations are supposed to work?

Is it possible that despite our intentions, visions, missions, and stated desires for change and growth… we stay stuck because that’s the way the system is designed?

I think about how congregations long for more young people, more diversity, more families… but somehow don’t change the systems that keep the congregation small, white, and older. The desire to grow is real, and it’s imbedded in the vision… but it still doesn’t happen. Change that would manifest that vision doesn’t happen.

And I’m beginning to think that’s as designed.

We make it hard to change because we are relying on processes that prevent change.

And by processes, I mean things like consensus, where one person can stop an action, or reacting to individual complaints. I mean the processes between the lines of the bylaws, those cultural ‘ways we do things around here’ that stymie progress, like needing to study everything, or form task forces to study everything, or the invisible roadblocks of ‘we tried that once’.

And because these things are imbedded in the system, they are in fact part of the system - often hidden from plain sight, because the mission and vision are front and center, and nothing in the governing documents says ‘we won’t do anything unless we get buy in from everyone.’

Is it any wonder so many religious professionals try new initiatives under the umbrella of ‘experimentation’? We experiment all the time with changes to the order of service, to communications, to organizing, to approaches to spiritual development and education. Everything’s an experiment so things can happen and not get stuck in a system that is working, as intended, to prevent change.

And what I know is this: most of us don’t actually like it this way. We do want to change, to grow, to live into our vision, to pursue our mission. We want to react and improve with agility and savvy. We want to be relevant and stay relevant. We want to live our values both inside and outside our building. Yet our systems are too often failing to help us do that.

The systems are working as designed.

So what will it take to change the system?

(Hint: it’s not about a new governance structure.)

What will it take to remove the roadblocks that keep our congregations from moving forward?

(Hint: is has to do with covenant.)

What will it take for our congregations to not just profess our values but live our values?

(Hint: it’s going to require putting love at the center.)