# POSIWID ## The Idea in Brief **The Purpose Of a System Is What It Does.** Not what it claims to do. Not what it was designed to do. What it actually, observably does. If a system consistently produces a particular outcome, that outcome is its purpose—regardless of stated intentions. This is Stafford Beer's most subversive insight. --- ## Key Concepts ### Behaviour Over Intention Ignore mission statements, values posters, and executive speeches. Judge systems by their actual behaviour. If your hiring system consistently rejects diverse candidates, its purpose is homogeneity—regardless of what HR says. If your quality process creates paperwork but doesn't catch defects, its purpose is bureaucracy, not quality. ### Stripping Away Self-Deception POSIWID forces honesty. It's uncomfortable to admit that a system you designed or manage has a different purpose than you intended. But the gap between stated purpose and actual behaviour is where organisational dysfunction lives. ### Systems Have Emergent Purpose Complex systems develop purposes that weren't designed in. Bureaucracies optimise for self-preservation. Markets optimise for liquidity. Organisations optimise for what gets measured and rewarded. These emergent purposes often override intended ones. ### Cybernetic Framing In cybernetics, you treat the system as a black box. You don't ask what's inside; you observe inputs and outputs. POSIWID is the logical conclusion: if the output is consistent, that's what the system is for, whatever its designers believed. --- ## Implications **In diagnosis:** When systems produce bad outcomes, don't ask "what went wrong?" Ask "what is this system actually optimised for?" The answer reveals what to change. **In design:** If you want different outputs, change the system structure—incentives, information flows, feedback loops. Exhortation ("try harder", "be better") doesn't change what systems do. **In accountability:** POSIWID means you can't hide behind good intentions. If your organisation produces harm, that's its purpose. You are accountable for outcomes, not intentions. **In change:** Changing a system's purpose requires changing its structure. Mission statements don't change systems. Reorganisations, metric changes, and incentive redesigns do. --- ## Sources - [[The Unaccountability Machine]] — Dan Davies uses POSIWID to explain organisational dysfunction; systems do what they're structured to do - [[Systemantics]] — Gall's laws complement POSIWID; systems develop goals of their own, regardless of designer intent - [[Nine Lies About Work]] — The lie that company culture matters—what actually matters is what the company does, not what it says - [[Thinking in Systems]] — "Purposes are deduced from behavior, not from rhetoric or stated goals" --- ## See in Field Notes - [Two Halves Of Trust](https://www.anishpatel.co/two-halves-of-trust/) — Structure over intention: organisational trust comes from what the system does, not what it claims