Replying to LO23875 --
Gavin, you wrote:
[snip]
however if you take the complex adaptive systems (CAS) view then our
actions are often controled by the systems and what ever we do or say
cannot change the outcomes-see Senge on this very issue (Beer game). Only
if we understand the full picture which we do not. [snip]
Gavin, I would argue this is not an altogether accurate premise with
respect to CAS. Specifically, it is very possible--in experience, even
inevitable--that we can and do change the outcomes of a system. The
challenge lies in determining the opportune time, place and nature of
intervention necessary to influence a system's behavior to advantage when
that system is itself continuously and relentlessly changing at a pace and
in ways that make conventional notions of predictability seem ridiculous
and absurd. Note also that Senge's work has focused largely on 'dynamical
systems theory' (DST) and only marginally on 'complex adaptive systems'
theory (CAST). While closely related, there are a number of critical
differences to be considered.
To my own way of thinking, the essence of CAST as it applies to practical
issues lies in the notion that it is impossible to "understand the full
picture" as you suggest. While it may be impossible to understand a CAS
in any literal sense, it is very possible to understand it in terms of its
first principles. The challenge lies in accepting that those first
principles can only be meaningfully articulated in terms of metaphors and
not in some rigorous mathematical formalism that is generally accessible.
(The Turing test--and the tens of thousands of attempts to 'pass' the
test--speaks loudly to the nature of the beast.)
While this may be frustrating, it does not make the situation impossible:
consider that, in spite of our inability to fully grasp the CAS which is
life, we continue to live and, for what it's worth, we seem to be doing a
rather decent job of it too. One important area of common ground between
DST and CAST is the premise that leverage can be maximized by
understanding and intervening in a system on the basis of first
principles. One of those first principles has to do with 'intention'
which I assume is similar or equal to what you refer to as 'motivation'.
In CAST, intention serves as an 'attractor'. The strength of that
attractor will influence the system in highly probabilistic ways, although
not exactly in predictable ways. (Remember, this is all happening at the
edge of chaos.)
When confronted with a system that must be addressed from a CAST
perspective (and even from a DST perspective), an understanding of the
deep principles of emergence and overall systemic behavior are crucial.
>From such a starting point, sustainability is more likely when approached
from the perspective of creativity rather than conformity. For most,
creativity implies risk while conformity implies safety. I have not read
Bill Powers' book, but I wonder if he addresses the inherent paradox in
human behavior with respect to where individuals' priorities lie in this
respect.
In my own thinking and practice with respect to organizational design and
behavior, much of what individuals subscribe to in respect of orientation
to the risk/safety tradeoff is a function of the 'cultural ethos' that
acts to hold an organization together. I consider an organization's ethos
to be either a formal or tacit agreement as what the organization wishes
to "create, preserve and protect." When that ethos lies in favor of
safety--implying a need to preserve the status quo--then participating
individuals' behavior will be so motivated. If, on the other hand, it
embraces creativity, my experience tells me that the organization will be
much more tolerant of unpredictability and far more responsive and
adaptive in the face of turbulence throughout that organization's
environment. In either case, individual organizational participants'
behavior is 'sensible' while only in the later case is the resultant
behavior of the organization-as-a-whole also sensible in the context of
the larger systemic environment.
The implication is that, when faced with a highly unpredictable scenario,
much depends on keeping systems in sync with each other across scale
boundaries. (A common analog deals with 'winning the battle but losing
the war.) In such instances, context is everything. Instead of
emphasizing 'making sense' with an emphasis on the outcome, better to
emphasize 'sense-making' with an emphasis on the process. The subtle
difference here lies in a distinction between 'being' and 'becoming' and
individuals' and organizations' attitude and orientation toward one or the
other. (This may be a big leap here, but I wonder if their is something
to be learned from Nietzsche in this regard as to dealing with our fears
of the unknowable.)
Anyway, these are just some quick thoughts which your post triggered for
me. Please forgive me if I went too far off-topic or did little more that
make a mountain out of a mole-hill.
Cheers, Arnold
--"Arnold Wytenburg" <arnold@originalthinking.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.