Is the driver to blame, or should the system be redesigned?

A video clip - enough to provoke immediate judgment - is posted. A prompt decision follows. A wave of emotion spreads before the full truth, along with its necessary context, has time to surface. What the public sees is a corporate incident; what the company actually faces is a systemic problem.

Systemic conflict in multi-sided platforms

In multi-sided platform markets, enterprise value is no longer determined solely by the quality of products or services, but by how well the system is designed to enable multiple actors: users, drivers, partners, operations teams,... to interact in a stable and coherent way. When an incident occurs, it is rarely the result of a single individual action. More often, it is the intersection of multiple coexisting but misaligned normative systems.

Consider a scenario in which a ride-hailing driver transports an intoxicated passenger, leading to inappropriate behavior, after which the driver uploads a video of the incident. On the surface, this appears to be an individual violation. But at the system level, it is where three normative systems collide: the passenger’s personal norms under emotional excess; the driver’s professional standards in an abnormal situation; and the platform’s operational policies in managing conflict. The issue, therefore, does not lie in a single deviant act, but in the misalignment among these systems where each party may be “right within its own frame,” yet collectively produces a dysfunctional outcome. It is precisely this misalignment that not only triggers conflict, but also causes it to recur in different forms.

Systems thinking: from reaction to design adaptation

A common reflex among companies facing such situations is to quickly identify “who is at fault,” enforce policy, and close the case, such as suspending a driver for violating regulations. While this may be necessary in the short term, it addresses only the symptom, not the underlying structure. It does not enable other drivers to act better in similar situations. It does not influence future customer behavior. More importantly, it does not improve how the system itself operates. The incident may be closed, but the structure that produced it remains intact.

To address this type of conflict, organizations must shift from linear thinking to systems thinking, from viewing behavior as the cause to understanding behavior as the outcome of an underlying structure. This structure includes behavioral principles, operational mechanisms, real-world decision touchpoints, and the incentives that shape actor behavior.

Therefore, when a driver fails to use available support tools, does not terminate a risky trip, yet chooses to upload a video afterward, the response should not stop at concluding that “this individual acted wrongly.” The deeper question is: what structure made that choice possible, or even rational, at the moment of the incident? What is missing in the current system that prevents all parties from acting consistently and appropriately?

Building system-level problem-solving capability

The difference between a reactive organization and one with systems thinking capability lies in where it focuses its action. Reactive organizations resolve events. System-capable organizations resolve the structures that generate those events. In an increasingly complex operating environment, advantage no longer belongs to those who respond fastest, but to those who can design adaptive systems that proactively shape outcomes rather than merely react to consequences.

However, the ability to diagnose and redesign system structures is not intuitive. It must be developed through structured problem management methodologies, rather than relying solely on experience or situational reflexes. This is the core of the Problem Management program, where conflicts are not treated as incidents to be resolved, but as signals that reveal how a system is truly functioning. When organizations master system-level problem management, they do not just resolve the issue at hand, they elevate their entire operational capability.