You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems. (James Clear)

By now, you have probably realized that I believe we cannot have a significant impact by focusing solely on individuals without addressing the problem of the system(s) at play, and discussing this quote is an opportunity to reiterate some points on this subject.

In short:

• Performance depends more on work systems than on individuals or set objectives.
• Superficial reorganizations fail because operational practices are not transformed.
• Improving systems requires a culture of excellence and a willingness to go beyond established routines.
• The shortcomings of digital technology and hybrid work reveal the limitations of current systems.
• The role of managers is to mobilize teams to transform the system, not to look for someone to blame.

Who is the author?

James Clear is not a strategy consultant or management professional. He comes from the world of applied behavioral psychology, where he specialized in the mechanisms of habit formation and performance routines. 

His book Atomic Habits (2018), which became a global bestseller, explores the idea that lasting change is not built on dramatic breaks but on the accumulation of small adjustments.

Far from grand management theories, Clear is interested in the real world, in everyday life, and in how personal and collective systems condition our ability to progress.

Context of the quote

Clear’s formula is a diagnosis of the recurring failure of many strategic initiatives.

“You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems. (James Clear)”

In many organizations, the impact of grand intentions and announcements is overestimated, and the power of underlying work systems is underestimated. Goals set a theoretical direction, but systems translate (or too often betray) that direction into everyday reality.

In other words, it is not the declaration of intent that creates transformation, but the quality of the concrete organization of work.

This is a topic that resonates particularly strongly with many of my personal beliefs, and one that I have illustrated repeatedly on his blog.

For example, on the subject of employee experience, I focus on the concept of work context and work organization (2023 Employee Experience Barometer: the employee experience confronted with its contradictions) rather than cosmetic initiatives.

Also, when I say that when things aren’t working in a team, I never start by blaming people. Instead, I mobilize them so that together we can tackle the system that is causing their poor performance in 94% of cases (The Problem Isn’t the Employee, It’s the System). For me, a failing employee or team is not a problem, but more often than not a symptom of the problem.

Because even if you want to put people back at the center of your processes, nothing will work if you don’t put the right system in place (People Centric Operations: adapting work and operations to knowledge workers ).

Because we underestimate “work design” as a factor in performance and engagement (Right fit, wrong fit).

And finally, because I believe that the role of a manager is to create the context for a team’s success, and that this includes the concept of a system, which is the only way to be scalable and avoid micromanagement (How to love control and not be a burden to yourself and your teams?).

In short, as a manager, I have always made it a priority to understand the system I am entering and to constantly improve it, because it is the system that will either ruin or enhance individual and collective talents, and I have to say that I have seen more of the former than the latter. Focusing on individuals while neglecting the system only leads to cosmetic initiatives.

Finally, as the good old Deming said: “a bad system will always beat a good person“.

The real limiting factor in an organization’s performance is the system, not the individuals, and AI will not change that, especially if we are content, as is often the case, to automate dysfunctional systems.

Explanations and implications

This quote challenges some common preconceptions in the world of work.

Goals are necessary but not enough

We are used to ambitious and grandiose announcements, and for some gurus, setting ambitious and courageous goals is the be-all and end-all of management.

But setting goals only provides a direction, a first step that is only valuable if it is accompanied by the rigorous design of mechanisms that will enable these goals to be pursued on a daily basis. Without this, the business remains stuck in the contradiction between words and actions.

Goals are often accompanied by reorganization, sometimes the creation of a new department and new layers of hierarchy that do nothing to address the underlying problem (How to Manage Complexity without Getting Complicated), but nothing ever changes in the way work is conceived and carried out.

And if I may return to a recent example, that of Moderna, bear in mind that if the concept of workflows appeals to you, it will have profound implications for the organization of work and, above all, for all your KPIs, which will either give it meaning or not (Thinking of work as a flow: appealing, but is it realistic?).

We change on the surface, not in substance.

Systems make work possible (or not)

A work system encompasses everything that structures the activity of individuals: information flow, task prioritization, decision-making, information flow management, team coordination, individual autonomy, managerial model, performance measurement, and so on.

It is all of these routines, some of which are often implicit, that determine a team’s ability to deliver the expected performance.

But working on systems is difficult

Businesses avoid working on systems as much as possible, and even when they can do so within their own scope, managers refrain from doing so, and there are reasons for this.

To begin with, many do not have this culture, and these fundamental issues are seen as something complicated that is part of the infrastructure.

Furthermore, few managers are concerned with or have a culture of operational excellence, especially among knowledge workers (Knowledge workers, the excluded from operational excellence?).

The corollary is that doing so is seen as a thankless, unrewarding task, especially since it is invisible work that deals with intangible issues and requires a comprehensive understanding of how a team or business works (understanding work systems).

Improving work systems also involves dealing with established practices and routines that are accepted despite the fact that they are no longer appropriate, and even confronting those who put them in place.

While we’re at it, it also means revisiting what “more or less works” and therefore no one considers a problem.

It is also a long-term issue that is not in tune with the constant need for urgency, which requires things to be put in place quickly, even if their impact is small. The results are not immediately visible, although by adopting an incremental approach inspired by agility, it is possible to start changing things fairly quickly (Improving a team’ s work: a story of continuous improvement).

Finally, it is a subject that is difficult to communicate internally, which is a real problem in a world where communication regularly replaces execution.

It is fundamental work, rarely spectacular, but nevertheless crucial.

Putting it into perspective

James Clear’s message therefore applies to many very contemporary issues that are probably familiar to you.

Information overload

Making collaboration a goal (when it is only a means to an end) without an effective approach to managing information flows is tantamount to creating organizational noise (Eliyahu Goldratt’s fictional interview on infobesity and bottlenecks in knowledge work). Poorly configured tools, unstructured communication flows, constant demands, hyperconnectivity (Hyperconnectivity in the workplace: digital becomes a burden): the system becomes saturated and blocks action.

Digital workplace

Adopting digital tools without reviewing business processes creates a counterproductive technological mess. The problem is not a lack of tools, but the inconsistency between the tools and the actual workflow of employees (What about the employee journey in the work environment ? and What (digital) workplace experience for your employees ?).

Hybrid work

Promoting flexibility without effective coordination methods exposes teams to misunderstandings, synchronization issues, and disorderly individual initiatives (Are you really ready for all cases of remote working ?). Again, the problem is not distance, but the fact that individuals in the same place can coordinate to compensate for poor systems, which is possible remotely but requires some practice. Remote work has been widely blamed, even though it was not the problem but merely made it visible (Remote work: a mirror of the organizations’ weaknesses.)

Bottom line

I can’t help quoting Rummler & Brache here:

“Over the long haul, even strong people can’t compensate for a weak process. Sure, some occasional success may come from team or individual heroics. But if you pit a good performer against a bad system, the system will win almost every time.“.

Management likes intentions, but organizations operate with systems.

As long as we prioritize setting goals over designing effective work systems, the gap between ambition and execution will continue to widen.

Today, performance depends less on the ability to set new goals than on the art of designing simple, understandable, and operational work environments.

And finally, if you’re wondering whether your teams would follow you in such an approach, I can only offer you my personal experience.

One day, I had to take over a department whose performance left much to be desired and, understandably, everyone was worried about their personal future.

My message was simple: “I know that individual and collective performance is not up to par, but I’m not going to waste my time blaming you for that: you are 6% of the problem, the rest is the system. You are not the problem, but a symptom of it. However, I need everyone’s contribution to change the system, together“.

The result was immediate engagement, involvement, an improved atmosphere, and astronomical time savings in change management.

Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)