The System Behind the Symptom

In 1982, General Motors closed its Fremont plant in California. The factory had a reputation for poor quality, high absenteeism, continuous conflict between workers and management, and frequent grievances.

At first, the problem looked obvious. People!

Two years later, Toyota partnered with GM and reopened the same plant as New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI). Surprisingly, most of the earlier workers were rehired.

The location did not change, and most employees came back.

But the way work was done changed. Teams became responsible for quality. People could raise problems immediately. Supervisors worked differently with employees. The production system encouraged everyone to solve problems rather than ignore them.

As a result, outcomes improved a lot.

This story is notable not because Toyota ‘fixed’ the people, but because it makes us question whether the people were ever really the problem.

Kurt Lewin, an early leader in Organization Development, explained this idea with a simple equation:

B = f(P, E)

Behavior depends on both the person and the environment.

We often focus on the P. Lewin also reminds us to pay attention to the E – environment.

What is happening around people that might explain the behavior we see?

This question is especially important when organizations try to solve recurring problems.

When attrition rises, compensation is reviewed. When projects get delayed, more reviews are introduced. And if it is a cross-functional challenge, a collaboration workshop is organized.

These responses can all be helpful. But these actions address only what we can see. Often, what we notice is just a symptom, not the real cause.

Take a manager who repeatedly escalates decisions to the senior leadership team. A “symptom lens” will indicate a lack of ownership. So we might coach the manager to be more decisive.

But what if the diagnosis says that independent decisions are often questioned or reversed? Mistakes get a lot of attention. Senior leaders say they want people to take ownership, but they still stay involved in major decisions.

Then, the manager’s behavior starts to make sense. Escalation is simply the safest way to respond to the environment.

The same thing happens with collaboration.

Two departments may seem unwilling to work together. But if we look more closely, we might find that for one team, performance is about speed, and for the other, it may be control. Their goals compete, decision rights overlap, and each leader is responsible for protecting their own results.

So, telling teams to ‘collaborate better’ merely addresses what we see, without changing the conditions that cause the problem.

This is where using an Organization Development perspective really helps.

Individual behavior is important. But many a time people make choices based on what the environment compels them to do.

They adapt to what gets rewarded and what gets punished. They learn which decisions they can actually make. They learn if it is safe to speak openly. They learn whether mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn or as reasons to blame.

That’s why, when a problem keeps coming back, we may need to ask a different question.

“What in our environment is making this behaviour likely?”

This question helps us see beyond the symptom – structures, processes, decision-making, leadership, measurements, relationships, and unwritten rules that determine how work actually happens.

Lewin’s equation is over seventy years old.

But maybe B = f(P, E) still gives organizations one of the simplest reminders today that before trying to change the person, look closely at the environment where they are being asked to change.

---

Authored by Sanjay Gupta . Founder and Principal Facilitator, Leaping Frog Consulting Services.