If it is a machine:

• You have to take it apart and put it back together in order to change it
• You need a mechanic who knows how the machine works to tell you what to do
• You have individual components which are fixed in shape
• You have a whole which can only do what it was built to do and has limited capacity to adapt
• It has limited sensing systems and little intrinsic intelligence
• Somebody has to “drive” it
• It is likely to wear out or become obsolete
• It is unlikely to be any fun to be in

If it is alive, i.e. a living system:

• It would continuously adapt itself to its changing external and internal conditions
• It would leverage all of its own intelligence in solving its problems
• Its components would individually change in order to support the health of the whole
• It could evolve beyond what it was originally set up to accomplish
• All of its parts would contribute to the data-gathering and sensing of the whole and all would contribute their local awareness toward the intelligence of the whole
• To a high degree it would be self-directing, self-organising and self-managing
• Its adaptability would enable it to replenish itself and to find new ways to thrive
• Since it would maximise the contribution and creativity of all those within it, it would be much more fun to be part of.

What might be possible for your organisation or your team or department if it thought of itself as a living system, behave accordingly and developed its capacities to increase those options?