Hey blog!
It has been a while! Life happens and has a way of distracting us from some of the things we love. I have been busy with work and family - still posting content elsewhere, some of which I might share here in the future, others will be left to stay where they are. It’s valuable content in the context in which it was created, but not necessarily valuable in the context of this blog. I have been thinking about how to get back into the swing of things and I think I have a good topic for today.
I have been reflecting recently on the systems we create and how they reflect our values. I have also been thinking about novel applications to mathematics, but that is for a different day.
When it comes to the systems we build - be it software, hardware, or even social systems - they are a reflection of our philosophies and beliefs. The choices we make in the design and implementation of these systems can tell us a lot about what we value as individuals and as a society.
Within the context of data, there are many facets we can explore, from the data we choose to collect, the algorithms and transformations we apply, the way we present and visualise the data, the decisions we make about how to use the data, the way we communicate our findings, and the governance and culture we create around the data. Each of these facets can tell us something about our philosophies and beliefs.
Here’s a principle I have been thinking about:
The structure and behaviour of our systems reflect the philosophies and beliefs of their designers and leaders.
This principle is a reliable diagnostic lens through which we can understand the systems we create. It is a reminder that our systems are not just technical constructs, but also social and cultural artefacts that embody our philosophies and beliefs.
Where the Principle shows up
You seen it in tech:
- When social media platforms optimise for engagement at the cost of well-being (the irony of publicising this over social media), you’re seeing the philosophical trade-offs of growth-driven engineering cultures.
You see it in data:
- When an organisation tracks productivity but ignores burnout or context, that’s a reflection of a belief that productivity is more important than the well-being of employees.
You see it in leadership:
- The transparency (or opacity) of decision-making, the tolerance of ambiguity, the comfort with dissent - these become baked into workflows, policies, even org charts.
Every design decision is a value choice:
- What we track and what we ignore
- Who gets control and who gets surveilled
- What gets standardised and what gets left to intuition
When a system emphasises competition over collaboration, or surveillance over trust, it’s not a coincidence - it’s a philosophical choice.
What does this mean for us?
This principle forces us to ask harder questions:
- What part of me is showing up in the system I’m designing or leading?
- What values am I encoding into culture, structure, or strategy - intentionally or unintentionally?
- What do our metrics say about what we believe matters?
- What does our resistance to change say about our beliefs and who we’ve become?
My beliefs
I’m going to state my philosophies and beliefs here, and I encourage you to do the same. This is a personal exercise, but I think it is important to share them with others. I want to be held accountable for my beliefs and philosophies, and I want to be able to hold others accountable for theirs.
My philosophies and beliefs have shaped me as a person and as a leader. They have influenced the way I think about data, technology, and leadership. They have shaped the way I approach problems and the way I interact with others. And they evolve over time as I learn and grow.
I am a liberal and a Catholic. I believe that people are called to grow into the highest possible standards of excellence - not just in outcomes but in purpose.
I believe that society, and the systems we create, has a duty: to keep people safe, private, and secure - not in fear but in freedom.
Everyone is on a journey. Systems can’t define that journey for them. But they can support it - by offering guidance, clarity, and a space to grow.
I believe we seek meaning. And I believe structure, thoughtfully designed, helps focus that search - not to constrain, but to shape. We do not stumble into meaning. We create it. We build it. We design it. And we do so in a way that is intentional and thoughtful.
This is why I believe systems should be shaped with:
- reflection - so we know what we are doing and why we are doing it
- understanding - so we can see ourselves and others in the process
- compassion - because no one is perfect, and no system will be either
I don’t always get this right, especially as I have designed systems unconsciously. I have perhaps leaned into more Catholic elements of my upbringing than I would like to admit, such as hierarchy and rigid structure. I have also perhaps leaned into more liberal approaches which have neglected the need for structure and clarity. And in the future? These philosophies and beliefs will continue to evolve.
Design is never neutral
The comforting lie of system design is that it is objective - that it’s just logic and reasoning, devoid of personal biases or societal influences. However, every design decision we make is inherently subjective, reflecting our values, beliefs, and the context in which we operate.
Every toggle, policy, and process says something about us. And when we leave that “something” unexamined, we risk perpetuating harm or building structures that calcify our worst qualities and instincts.
A Call to Consciousness
You don’t need to control every outcome or be responsible for every decision of a system to be able to apply this principle. You just need to acknowledge: your fingerprints are on the system.
What kind of fingerprints do you want to leave?
Lead in a way you’d be proud to be mirrored. Build systems that tell a better story about who we are - and who we want to be. Be intentional about the systems you create and the philosophies and beliefs they reflect.