This initial examination of the Labour Party from a systems viewpoint indicates that there are problems in how it is managed and operates, also its purpose and principles are inadequately defined.

Analysis of existing systems with known problems needs identification of key interacting factors and integration of data to form a model of reality.  ‘Systems thinking’ was essential to put a man on the moon to cope with the great complexity of the project.  In the case of an open system (such as the Labour Party) inputs are transformed into outputs.  But inputs may be inadequate; the system inefficient; also undesirable outputs may be excessive.  Fortunately systems are know to have similar structures and behaviour in many fields e.g. medicine, engineering, economics, psychiatry, sociology, management, and politics.  Using this knowledge, systems dynamics methods using computer simulation modelling have produced: deeper awareness of political processes, an improved grasp of fluctuating economic activity, and a clearer perception of physical and social behaviour.

Systems thinkers see organisations as being pluralist with coalitions of groups pursuing their own interests as well as those of the organisation.  Consequently the unitary (authoritarian) view is seen to be intellectually untenable.  Top down command-and-control management is considered to be outdated and inefficient not only by systems thinkers but also by most management experts.  For example as early as 1943 Peter Drucker (born 1909) began a two year social scientific analysis of General Motors.  It led him to discount the command-and-control model throughout a long and distinguished career.

Dee Hock (born 1929), founder and former CEO of Visa Credit Card associates famously said:-

“Purpose and principle, clearly understood and articulated, and commonly shared, are the genetic code of any healthy organization. To the degree that you hold purpose and principles in common among you, you can dispense with command and control. People will know how to behave in accordance with them, and they’ll do it in thousands of unimaginable, creative ways. The organization will become a vital, living set of beliefs.”  This appears especially appropriate for a progressive political party!

The Labour Party’s operational problems and management style

The Guardian article: ‘Arnie Graf – The man Ed Miliband asked to rebuild Labour’ exposed some serious problems (his full report is not available).

These problems are summarised below:-

Labour has just 200,000 members out of 60 million people, so it looks like a narrow group of people only interested in office.  It risks losing its connection with the vast majority of working and non-working people.  It has a genuine tradition, but has not adapted adequately in a rapidly changing world.  Graf saw the need to talk to community figures, clergy, and workers from all sectors, also to people who were disillusioned by politics.  These were potential sources of new members and interacting relationships. But currently, Labour gatherings are often suspicious of outsiders, especially people who vote Labour but are not prepared to be members.

New members can be greeted with suspicion. They should be welcomed into a group that offers trusted, working relationships and interesting political discussions.   Constituency and branch party meetings have become bureaucratic and hierarchical in nature. They are dominated by older members with established power bases and minutes from previous meetings.  Not surprisingly members feel uninspired also despite paying to join they are only called on to do the legwork. They weren’t seen as potential leaders but people to do tasks.

Many people with power in the party, from those in head office to the chairs and secretaries of local branches, want things to stay the same.  This attitude will be even greater in those receiving a significant proportion or all of their income from their roles.  For such people a flood of new able members is unlikely to be welcomed.  The theme of “vested interests” is a favourite of Miliband’s, but unfortunately he tends to be better at challenging them in policy than within his party.

The party is seen to set its policy from the top to the bottom, rather than bottom to the top.  This epitomizes command-and-control organisational management.  This also a feature of the other activities described above.   Another aspect is that many regional members think that any leaders must be based in London, as most instructions and documents came from there.  Miliband’s personal leadership ability was repeatedly being called into question inside and outside the party.  How he introduces necessary improvements will be of prime importance to him.

Social organisations

In systems terms the Labour Party is classified as a social organisation as it contains people.  It could exist indefinitely and even grow, by continually importing new people and resources especially knowledge.  However the organisation’s outputs must sufficiently meet the demands of the public and its members.  Serious deterrents to the acquisition and retention of members have been revealed.  Major and constant improvements in the quality and distribution of knowledge are required.  Effective communications need to be two-way, crossing internal hierarchal barriers. Interaction between members and the public is important to monitor opinions and counteract media bias.  Feedback internally and externally should be used to control and continuously improve performance.

Operational improvements

A detailed description of the Labour Party’s structure and performance, including historic trends, should be added to Graf’s findings. A list should be created of concise objectives aimed at overcoming observed problems.  Alongside each objective describe the major constraint limiting its implementation.  Then prioritise the objectives within a table with constraints alongside.  The position of an objective in the table will be affected by the expected difficulty in achieving it, no matter how desirable it may be.  This is an attempted optimisation activity so some objectives are bound to be in conflict.  This will require trade offs.  Selected objectives may be implemented in parallel but monitoring of success or failure should occur for feedback control.

The purpose of the Labour Party

A similar prioritised list of objectives and constraints is required regarding planned social changes and policies.  Objectives need to be achievable for motivational purposes.  The progress of the implementation of objectives needs to be monitored to enable feedback control.  (A mission statement is inadequate for this kind of exercise.)

Labour Party principles

Assuming that the Labour Party wishes to reaffirm its commitment to Social Democracy, it should be comparatively easy to select and emphasise its key aims.  But political ethics and personal values should also be included.  If attitudes and behaviour are unsatisfactory within the Labour Party, what confidence can there be in its ability to improve the rest of society?  Low membership of political parties is partially due to the poor perception of politicians by the public.  The public also expect higher standards from progressive parties.  There should be an attempt to meet this demand.

 Leadership

Leaders of organisations need to inspire and motivate people to achieve goals.  Exhibiting expertise and knowledge while doing so, gains respect.  With the decline in command-and control thinking the emphasis has been towards encouraging team effort.  This helps to create a shared vision and goals from relationships built to develop a sense of team spirit.  The diversity of personalities and their talents continue to be recognised, but compromise and tolerance minimise conflict. When the needs and values of individuals converge with those of the organisation, creativity and a shared vision can emerge.  The organisation’s vision should be clear so that everyone understands their role in its achievement.  To facilitate this all necessary systems, resources and processes should be in place.  Leaders need the ability to make rapid decisions and solve problems to some extent.  But problems that are difficult or occur at some remote point in the organisation are best solved by appropriate teams.  The composition, actions and dynamics of teams vary greatly from those of committees which dominate the Labour Party.

 Lessons from other organisations

Many experts have realised that the interacting components of an organisation constitute a system.  In Japan as such knowledge was developed, it was eagerly implemented.  Toyota famously, has combined the most advanced system of management in the world with the most advanced learning organization in history.  It has retained a structure but unleashed the creativity of its employees, so achieving consistent growth with innovative new products for nearly a century.

 Toyota’s two main principles are:–

1.  Continuous improvement by having: a long term vision, taking on challenges, continuous innovation and going to the source of problems.

2. The building of respect for people and creation of teamwork.

 It was realised that people needed a sense of purpose to be motivated and to aim for goals.  If the system was right so would be its results.  Value was added to the organisation by developing people, with leaders embracing and promoting corporate philosophy.   Principles needed to be ingrained in employees for organisational survival.  (This thinking is much in line with Dee Hock’s!)

Solving the causes of problems drove forward organisational learning with consensus based solutions swiftly implemented.  As a ‘learning organisation’ there was constant reflection on its practices and striving for improvement.  This included individual self evaluation.  All employees were part of a team with all suggestions being welcomed.  They were viewed as key assets, not drones who had to follow directions and be kept in line.  They felt empowered because their opinions mattered.

 The management hierarchy was flattened and pay was equalized, so that everyone felt in it together.  Decentralization was sufficient for creativity, but an adequate structure and controls remained to ensure operational consistency.  It was realised that for efficiency, communications needed to be mainly upward.  Top management was seen as a function and a responsibility, not a rank and a privilege.  W E Deming (also very much involved) observed that about 85% of a system’s problems are due to its design, which is management’s responsibility.  Furthermore selfishness and competitiveness were seen as destructive forces within systems.  This can be extended of course to world systems and their crises.

Harvard Business School concludes that where entrepreneurship is essential for the survival of successful companies, there should be minimum interference in project teams by senior management.  Indeed in one company an innovation team was given an “island of freedom”.  New management paradigms are being evolved where innovation is from the bottom up, decentralized and unpredictable but it is still capable of being managed.

 I have visited a major company using similar practices to Toyota’s.  It has turned round its performance from being in the ‘relegation zone’ to being world leader for its products.  A word of warning though a new mindset had to be developed and it has taken 10 years for this to be achieved.

 Modifying the Labour Party will need similar hard work and patience but it can’t start soon enough!