Job Searching, Systems Theory, and the Value of Noise

by Matthew V. Brown, Ph. D.

There are different types of systems. Emergent systems are one type. Emergent systems are not like mass production or manufacturing systems where their general purpose is to produce the most high-quality widgets at the lowest cost. The built-in intention driving systems of production and even service delivery systems are to achieve mass production (scale) and homogeneity (high quality). Combine these two principles and you have the underlying outcome of such systems, produce as much of the same as possible. Emergent systems often have no such built-in intent. This type of system has randomized and unpredictable (stochastic) elements that bring order in chaos and show us how individual variance can produce global effects. They are self-organizing yet messy.

In conventional production systems, products and processes are refined and improved largely through the willful reduction (albeit elimination) of defects and errors. Humans demonstrate a kind of trial and error learning process with these systems. Scale, which is the systems capacity to produce at volume, can be better achieved as errors are reduced and mass replication becomes possible. This is sometime referred to as an economy of scale. The elimination of error in mass production systems of many types has resulted in countless cost savings to producers and led to substantial benefits to consumers. Eliminating error has become a generalized solution strategy that many argue leads to better outcomes is both intuitive and a powerfully attractive notion. One cannot underestimate the power this simple idea has had on influencing management theory over the last 75 years. However, error elimination alone as important as it is to trial and error learning, is not a true source of discovery. Emergent systems produce new discovery. In this article, I will first argue that eliminating (or even reducing errors) is not necessary toward improving certain types of system activity; Second, I will describe an adventure experience called the Drop Off which is a kind of search game/activity I did many times in Outdoor Leadership School. Finally, I will draw out important system theory lessons and principles from the Drop Off activity experience that are analogous to designing and executing a system theory job search.

In systems theory noise is synonymous with the concept of error...noise being considered an ever-present and valueless annoyance. So, what is error (or noise) in a system? If you are trying to do something the exact same way in each iteration, for example, play a scale on the piano, or draw a circle...you might be inclined to assess each attempt as a series of "correct" actions or "incorrect" actions. Yet how do we tell correct from incorrect? In the case of playing the scale on a piano, the notes are well-designated. So, without belaboring the idea, if you are performing some action that is well-defined and has been replicated to a specific degree, one can compare one's own performance to others. Errors would be any deviations from the exact replicated performance...any difference from imitation. The goal of such performance is similarity, or homogeneity if you like...perfect replication. This is difficult to achieve in some instances...and we human pride ourselves, indeed highly value certain types of performance replication (think classical music).

Yet, consider that if instead of valuing similarity and attempting to achieve an acceptable level of homogeneity...the system now values difference...not all difference, not random difference, but interesting or compelling difference, one might say smart difference. Errors in such a new system might be necessary for performers to extend beyond mechanistic forms of imitation and replication toward expanding their unique style or artistic range. Mass production has nothing to do with this sort of learning...and it is learning. Imagine how many times we are compelled to learn by trial and error. It is painful and tedious and not much fun. Better to be done with most of it before we become adults!

Now, think about jazz music. It is full of trail and error, but it is different. You may not feel comfortable listening to complex jazz performance, but performers will tell you that intended errors and willful mistakes...are re-interpreted and are all part of the artistic expression...improvisation it is called. And the discovery of discord and dissonance adds to producing new creative combinations, completely new and original sounds, and complex emotive responses...new music. Now, I ask you. Are you a classical musician or a jazz performer? Do you want to be a replicator or an artist? No one will say one is better than the other...they are just different.

If you want to help well-defined production systems be optimally efficient and productive, there are jobs waiting for you. I recommend learning such skills associated with Six Sigma, etc. There is a huge demand for refining conventional systems and eliminating "noise" or error. Yet be mindful that you will hardly be asked to discover any new things short of some new way to minimize "any jazz". Whether you are participating in error reduction efforts at some local or global level, the statistic process controls you will employ are similar and well-defined.

Let me describe an activity that caused me to question the value of error reduction even though I didn't completely reject the trail and error learning that direct experience offers. The activity was called, Drop Off (DO). Essentially, the DO is a search where each participant is given five topographical maps, only one is a correct map of the area where they begin there experience. This activity demands that the facilitators create a rather elaborate safety system (people get lost), so I wouldn't just do this without the extensive planning, some experienced leaders, and proper safety net.

Each person is given a partial description of the end point (final destination) with a time limit to arrive. It was fairly obvious to each participant (and there were eight) that their first objective was to select a map. Oh, I forgot to tell you that each person begins from a slightly different beginning point and they begin on their own. They are set up to begin as individuals navigating similar terrain, yet from separate initial conditions. They are within 2 miles of the final destination, and their starting points don't vary more that 300 yards (about 1/6 of a mile). They start the activity within an hour's time and are told the entire activity will take between 2-5 hours. Each person was given a water bottle and a new compass.

As instructors, we virtually used to practice navigating using an incorrect map and scout out the terrain using erroneous map reading as well. Now, if you had a balloon or kite you would rise up immediately and read the topography and it might help you choose the right map. However, choosing the right map doesn't fully guarantee successful navigation. Map selecting and map reading demand slightly different skills. Map selection is a landmarking activity where you look at the terrain and try and match it to the topography depicted on a map. You are essentially taking a three-dimensional picture and comparing it to a two-dimensional plane with contour lines that indicate the third-dimension of elevation. Length, width, and elevation are your mapping measures. Map accuracy adds a wonderful level of complexity and challenge to this adventure education activity.

Let us say that nearly everyone comes to believe that the final destination is at the top of some hill or rise. It may not be the highest point on their map, but it is above most of the terrain depicted. However, one caveat that was instilled upon me when designing a DO was that each person's correct map was NOT to indicate the final destination by line of sight. This means that no one would be able to just landmark where they were, then use a correct map to merely strike a simple bearing toward some hilltop they could see from the starting point. In fact, each participant's [correct] map would include a false hilltop destination that they could readily see from their starting point. It is best when designing a DO to choose 5 maps that are adjacent to each other (represent tracks of terrain that are right next to each other forming a single composite grid) so that second map selections can help re-position participants back on corrective paths and renew their confidence upon making an initial error in map selection.

Suffice to say, this is a very difficult challenge for most people. This activity was also one of the last in a series of challenges designed to prepare outdoor leaders and wilderness instructors for working at organizations like Outward Bound. I did the DO activity about seven times, three times as a participant and four times as an instructor.

Here is my general synopsis. About 50-60% of participants end up choosing the correct map which isn't too bad. The 40-50% or so struggle through and it is best as an instructor to log each person's initial map choices somehow without acknowledging the correctness or incorrectness of their initial selection. Knowing which people choose an erroneous map is part of your safety system. It takes twice as many people to form a good safety system as number of participants, so if you have eight participants, then you need 16 people plus the activity leader in the surrounding area (about 4 square miles) and their contact with the participants is to be almost none unless a participant requests assistance or wishes to stop participating.

About 10% of the participants I supervised (3) decided to stop during the 2-3 hour time mark, and all were advised (or accompanied) to what was called a Safe Spot where they waited until everyone else had completed their search. Usually, 2/3 to 3/4 of the participants successfully arrived at the destination by the 3 and 1/2 hour mark. Two of the eight usually got lost early, but if the safety system is well-planned and well-executed, these two are shadowed closely (yet safety instructors remain unseen) and then redirected at certain points in the activity timeline usually by well-placed messages that are placed in plastic milk jugs and intentionally hung from stand-out trees where wayward participants are likely to find. Safety system personnel have various instructions to execute as the full activity unfolds and they also have walkie-talkies to connect with each other. I practically knew every tree, hill, and dale in the four-square miles by the fourth time around.

The Drop Off activity is no small challenge. It is about navigating both unknown territory with minimal (at least partial) information and some unknown elements that can really make the activity challenge rise to an entirely new level. The second time I did the DO, when we started it was extremely foggy. We were given a final destination to reach that was obviously a slightly elevated place, but we could not see how high any of the hills were as we began. Even choosing an initial map was anyone's guess. It was very confusing and I took quite a long time choosing my first map (which turned out to be wrong). My obvious search strategy was to simply look around at my fog-bound location and look for a path uphill. If I could have seen the highest point from my location, a simple Six Sigma approach would have worked like a charm. I would just keep looking and stepping uphill until I arrived at the highest point...all steps level or downhill being merely noise. As I executed my search strategy, I eventually could look around and see that all directions led downhill. I would note my coordinates with a glance of my chosen map, and declare that I had reached my final destination...the highest point! Not too surprising that this search strategy is called hill climbing.

Well, how well did my search strategy work? Not all that well once the fog lifted. I was sure that I had reached some sort of local high point...yet off in several directions I saw higher ground. The trouble with a hill-climbing strategy is that we may end up at a local high point rather than the global destination. I was so sure that my simple strategy would be effective that I hardly checked my maps to verify they were correctly reflecting the terrain. My strategy was to reduce error by ignoring what I deemed to be noise (going downhill). I also assumed (being a good systems thinker) that equifinality was at work and there were many correct solutions to my search problem that my strategy guaranteed me success. I began to see my folly when the fog lifted and I imagined all the other participants ending up on different hilltops...some higher than others. I surmised correctly it turns out that if the terrain were rugged, then it was more likely that each of us participants would end up on a local hilltop (and that is exactly what happened). This is when I had this Eureka moment.

I remember from my math class that if you graph x and y coordinates and they change relative to each other in certain ways, they tell you something important about what our teacher called a landscape. I wondered if this idea applied to real terrain? I remembered him explaining to us that if a graphed function (an equation of a line) had a lot of switches up and down frequently then it was non-linear...which meant if along my path if the gains and losses in elevation were tied to where I was on the landscape, then the landscape is rugged..rugged enough to bet a hill-climber is going to end up on a local high point...non-linear meant it had heterogeneity and equifinality (many solutions...all non-optimal)! So, how did I actually find the final destination once I was convinced I had only found a local high point? All my other Six Sigma climbers were perched on their hilltops waving and feeling self-assured. It seems that what is good for homogeneous process refinement is not so good for discovery.

I knew that the first thing I had to do is commit to an error...stepping downhill. I had to pay attention to some noise...but what noise? It turns out that it is not so important your choice of noise, but you should be mindful that you do have a confirming tool in a correct map. Here's how it works. To navigate on any rugged terrain you must step downhill (accept noise and error) as long as you continue to landmark and verify your map choice which means you allow error only so far. It is analogous to the way Sir Isaac Newton invented a way to estimate the area under a curve (and integral) by adding up little squares...a successive sum of estimates (see the photo at the beginning of the article). Error (noise) allows you as the climber to step off your local hilltop so that you can actually find the global optimum. Embracing a small degree of noise in the system helps you escape the local (sub-optimal) solution.

Now, we come to the third and final section of this article. How do we utilize our new found systems theory knowledge in a new job search? First, let's consider variation. Let's avoid the temptation of jumping to a concepts like fit or qualified or even opportunity. There are so many job titles to consider...so much variation. Think of a title that piques your interest then derive 10-12 derivatives from that title. For example, human resources director, might become Chief of People, Director of Learning, Human Capital Officer, etc. Be bold and use something like LinkedIn searches or even Google searches where you put in a title and ask for derivatives (positions or job titles that mean the same thing). Before you enter the employment search system, you need to create some variation. If you don't you will get a narrow band of connectors. One of your first job search activities is not to search for specific jobs per se...you begin by building a network...a map of the terrain. And trust me, it will be a rugged terrain with lots of trees, hills, and dales.

Like the Drop Off, your new job search demands that you choose a map. We are going to force your choice a bit here by insisting that this initial map choice be the published market of jobs (indeed.com is a good example of a search engine for jobs in the published market). Now, think of yourself as an adaptive agent which means that as you progress along your chosen path, you will change your bearing and possibly your near-term goal or destination. It is quite likely that you will become caught up in hill-climbing to some degree (we all do), and you will avoid the noise and press ever higher...ever closer to some local hilltop. Let us hope we can clear the fog, get you to accept a little useful noise, and re-engage your climb. There are many paths to sub-optimal results, multiple solutions to the summing of estimates, numerous attractive scarecrows on the Yellow Brick Road. If I only had a brain...

We begin our search for high ground in the fog. Some us don't really know what is out there, and some do not know for what they search. Everyone you meet on your search will have partial knowledge and in order for you to access the value in their partial knowledge you need to think about (and write down) what you are good at and what gives you energy and confidence. As you talk with folks, ask them what exactly they do every day that makes them want to work the next day...what challenges do they seek, and what do they want to learn...what in their work are they most proud to share...how did they get to where they are now. Remember, you are using variation, learning, mapping, and feedback to build a valuable tool box...a network. As most of the questions you ask network connections have positive slants, some questions may emerge that ask what things about your work are problems...yet save these negative feedback inquiries for later when you have established a stronger relationship with that network connection.

Partial knowledge will accrue as feedback informs your search...early on try not to filter out noise. There are no errors here...you are not refining your search yet...keep your antennae up and your eyes wide open...listen closely and accept the noise, at least for now. The key early in a job search is to not collapse the balloon too early...let it fill with air and rise. Think heterogeneity which means from one to many. Instead of looking for a single job...build what is called an "opportunity menu" and a "referral network". The opportunity menu might have several categories of job descriptions that are of interest to you. There are a lot of things you can do with respect to work...you are a complex human being with a toolbox full of skills and value! Talk to people who make decisions about what sort of people they select to work with...find out what values and skills they seek in candidates. And remember, no one has the complete knowledge for you, there is no single mind that will provide you the perfect solution in this effort. There are many paths to the answer.

You see. If finding one position were the answer then a real concerted search would not be necessary. That is why I tell people that as soon as you find a job, start looking for the next opportunity. How do you know whether you have merely found your local hilltop? Just don't be cavalier about building your opportunity menu by announcing your intentions to your present employer. Be an adaptive agent yet keep your ongoing search private and your intentions close to your vest. When it comes to what is called "at-will" employment, you owe very little loyalty to an employer...not many people will tell you that. I was led to believe that an employer was due a certain amount of loyalty and gratitude for hiring and putting you to work. Nonsense. Employment is an agreement of commercial exchange pure and simple. At-will means that an employer can release the agreement and end employment at any time for any reason giving very little power to the employee in such cases.

Every job search has its own entropy. Entropy is the natural running down of things...like Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics. Without inputs of energy the search engine grinds down slower and slower until it stops working. You will get fatigued in your searching and it will be at times difficulty in knowing if progress is being made. Here are your progress benchmarks: 1) do you have sufficient variation meaning do you have a single target or many different targets you are aiming toward...opportunity menu; 2) who is in your network, and how have you imposed order on this list of contacts. You need to create a structure for your network by noting what they do, who they are, where they work, when did you contact them, when is your next intended contact, what do you want ask next, how did they get to where they are...and determine a note as to WHY you think they are an important network connection...what purpose does their presence in your network serve. Notice I used the 5W1H structure of question formation to structure my excel spreadsheet that orders my network!

You will get a lot of negative feedback (rejection) as you execute a job search. Finding opportunities or discovery activity poses a low risk high volume negative feedback flow. Yet once you begin to shift to applying and sending out resumes, your actions will change the feedback flow. You need to manage your expectations about receiving feedback because your search is designed to produce many times more negative feedback (return to normal end state prior to search...no search activity) than positive feedback (proceed to building opportunity menu). For some rejection will amplify your search fatigue. To counter this form of entropy, infuse your search with small wins. A small win is adding a connection or finding a new attractive job description, or finding an interesting company, or chasing with a network connection (not about a job opportunity per se) about strengthening and expanding your network. It ultimately is about you enlisting those with partial knowledge in your network to share just a little of their energy helping YOU in your job search. So you see, a job search is not really a search for a job...it is a search for connection and relationship. You are developing a support community and in doing so you will become part of many other people's support community. It is what we call in systems theory a small world.

Small worlds are a collection of loosely-coupled agents that form a tight configuration that first reduces what are called degrees of separation. Mathematically, you are only six degrees of separation away from every human being on the planet. That means that everyone you know directly comprises a set of people that is one degree of separation away. Now take every person in that set and add every person they know directly (that set is two degrees of separation) and so on. It is an astounding fact. When you build a network you are closing degrees of separation turning this into seconds, seconds into firsts and so on. The point of this is to use your small world...the one you are building to leverage network connections and degree separations of the first and second degree. Finding the right people that you can gain direct access to that you do not YET know directly. It is very much like looking out over a rugged (and foggy) landscape and seeing many people standing on their local hilltops but all you can do is wave and acknowledge their presence because you cannot get close enough to communicate directly.

Remember in the description of the Drop Off where I found myself on a local high point during my search for this final destination. At first, when I arrived on my hilltop I was very satisfied with my hill-climbing efforts...my simple strategy of ignoring error (climbing upward always) seemed to be working well...I arrived at a high-point. Yet because I had no tolerance for errors or acceptance of noise, I could only reach a local high-point. My efforts were limited by my strategy. The way to discover that there is another higher-point to reach is for some a daunting realization. Many job searchers satisfice (a systems term coined by economist Herbert Simon) becoming both satisfied with their local hilltop goal, and suffice to stop searching once a sub-optimal solution is gained...it is good enough becomes the premise for vetting the chosen solution. This idea sent economists who argued that systems like markets self-regulate and optimize through the roof.

You have to decide what you want to do...but knowing that a job search begins the building of a small world changes the foundation of your search efforts. If you accept the premise that your search is really one of building valuable connections instead of finding a job, then you are truly a systems thinker. A job may just be a placeholder in the conceptual scheme of your life, even a career is just an idea...quite likely you will enjoy multiple careers...but like a savings bank that you can draw upon as time unfolds, your network becomes an investment account that you can draw on when you need capital...human capital...social capital. Your search is a big part of an expedition...an expedition is a specific type of journey. It is a journey into terra incognita (unknown territory) and most unknown territories have a rugged quality to them. You can learn to traverse and navigate on rugged terrain using systems theory as a toolbox. Your tools are forged both by the concepts I have shared and tried to explain and your own direct experience which will make your tools slightly different (and better for your use) than mine. So, take your new map (or five maps) choose a good one, grab a compass, a bottle of water...and begin your new journey. Search Well.