Greetings LOrs!
Greetings Dan!
Your recent posts to the list came just after I spent some time wrestling
with some of the same issues in an offline dialogue that I have been
having with Susanne Kelly, one of the authors of the recently released
book, the Complexity Advantage (which I will recommend to those who are
interested in applications of complexity theory to organizations). In the
book, Susanne and her coauthor, Mary Ann Allison articulate a
differentiation between what they term a fear hypercycle and a trust
hypercycle. Obviously, for effective organizational growth (and, by
inference, learning), they advocate working to set the trust hypercycle in
motion.
In our dialogue, I attempted to explain trust and fear from a behavioral
perspective (no surprise there) and tie it in to entropy production. I
think it might be appropriate to share the same line of thinking here in
response to some of the points that you raised.
In LO20917, you made the observation that scapegoating, blaming, labelling
and stereotyping are all evidence that entropy production was taking
place, along with the impairing of one or more of the seven essentialities
of creativity that have been identified by At. I think that this is an
astute observation. Learning, as a second order emergent of creativity,
depends on an unimpaired process of creativity, but also much more. Even
if creativity is not impaired, learning is still not guaranteed. And the
process of learning, if impaired, can create a "backward" flux that will
impair subsequent creativity.
In complex systems far from equilibrium, entropy is being produced and
free energy is available in abundance. This free energy may be harnessed
in such a way as to result in the SPONTANEOUS and irreversible emergence
of a higher order of complexity for the physical system (spontaneous self
organization). The rate of entropy production and the amount of free
energy available to the system are 2 of the necessary factors for driving
the system to a bifurcation point from which this emergence will occur.
However, there are other factors that will determine if the system will
take a path of emergence at the bifurcation point, or if it will immerge
into a state of disorder (this is the point at which I began to pick up on
the concept of entropy production and its application to systems of
behavioral energy).
Obviously, when we begin to talk about applications of this line of
thinking, whether it is on an individual or organizational level, we begin
to move into a position where we want to learn to understand these
concepts for the specific purpose of shaping the "becoming" of a system
towards a given end. In this case, simply recognizing that behavioral
systems can emerge or immerge, and that this occurs when the system is
driven (or pulled) to the brink of chaos and to a bifurcation point isn't
enough. We need to understand which factors determine if a system will
take a path of emergence or immergence at this bifurcation.
Similar to what you appear to be wrestling with now, the first step for me
in making these connections with systems of behavioral energy came when At
introduced the ideas of entropic force-flux pairs. In order for entropy
production to take place within a system of energy, both an entropic flux
(something to flow - heat, water, electricity, behavior...) and an
entropic force (a difference in levels of the energy within the system
that initiates and shapes the flow). The right combination of these two
(the force and the flux) creates a situation where the system is far from
an equilibrium state. The system will begin to flow towards the
equilibrium state (an attractor state which pulls the system towards a
future state), producing entropy along the way. But the wrong combination
of these two will still certainly produce entropy, but towards a
bifurcation point followed by immergence, not emergence.
One of the explanations of the relationship between the entropic force and
the entropic flux that At articulated which really helped me understand
was the distinction between the intensive quantities and the extensive
quantities within a system (LO20049, Primer on entropy, part III C). The
intensive quantities are those associated with the entropic force. These
are a kind of "being" which determines the potential for the system. If
the system is halved, these quantities are unaffected (for example,
cutting a 12 volt battery in half creates 2 smaller 12 volt batteries, not
2 smaller 6 volt batteries).
The quantities within the system associated with the entropic flux are the
extensive quantities. These quantities have to do with the actual
performance of the system. Halving the system will result in the halving
of these quantities (going back to the 12 volt battery system, the 2
smaller 12 volt batteries will each produce less amperage - the flow of
electricity - but the current will still be 12 volts). These extensive
quantities associated with the entropic flux provide us with the metric
for measuring and understanding the "becoming" of the system over time.
Now that we know that we must have an entropic force and entropic flux in
order to have entropy production, we need to take the next step and look
at the structure of the entropic force. As I said above, the force is the
source which initiates and shapes/influences the flux, or flow, of the
energy. It is the structure, or mechanics, of the force that will
determine the process, or dynamics, of the flux. As Leo Minnigh pointed
out in LO20246, there are great differences in the flow of energy
depending on the force that is used to create it. It was in this post
that he introduced/brought to my attention, the distinction between the
pushing force and the pulling force, causing all kinds of bells and lights
to go off in my head (as At likes to say, I got the gooseflesh). It
seemed that all at once my thinking reorganized in an avalanche, and a
whole new level of understanding emerged for me.
In LO20309, I drew the parallels between entropic force-flux pairs and the
ABC model of behavior. My understanding is that the change in behavior
over time represents the behavioral entropic flux, while the antecedents
and the consequences for behavior form the entropic force that initiates
and shapes the flow of behavioral energy. Once I had gotten this straight
in my own thinking, I immediately saw the parallels between the pulling
force in physics and the pulling force of positive reinforcement on
behavior and the pushing force in physics and the pushing force of
negative reinforcement on behavior. As Leo observed, pulling forces
concentrate, or attract, the flux, and pushing forces spread, or disperse,
the flux. I extended this by suggesting that negative consequences and
the lack of positive consequences create resistance to the flux and also
shape the flow of energy.
The bottom line here is that it is the consequences that follow behavior
that form the feedback loops which amplify or balance the flow of
behavioral energy. This allows us to understand more clearly the role of
feedback in influencing rate of flow presented in systems thinking. The
consequences form the structure of the entropic force for behavior, and
thus play a crucial role in determining whether emergence will follow the
bifurcation point, or whether immergence will result. (!!!!) Emergence
(irreversible spontaneous self organization) can only result if the
dominate source of behavioral energy in a system is positive
reinforcement.
I can't emphasize enough here how HUGE this is in understanding where we
are and where we need to go (what we need to do) in shaping change in
organizations. Without this understanding, we are hitting golf balls into
a dense fog (we have no unequivocal feedback for our behaviors, and don't
know where to look to get it). This understanding provides the lens for
identifying the levers for change in systems of behavioral energy. And it
helps us to build longer levers (as Senge said, give me a lever long
enough, and I will single handedly move the world).
As I see it, the fear and trust hypercycles (the result of iterative, or
recursive, amplifying feedback loops) identified in Susanne's book are the
result of the process of reinforcement that is used (negative and positive
respectively). When the source of behavioral energy shaping the flow of
behavior is negative reinforcement, the hypercycle of fear immerges and
the possibility that irreversible spontaneous self organization might
emerge on the far side of a bifurcation point is precluded.
To frame it in the ABC model, trust and fear are consequences of our
process of reinforcement. In this sense, I believe that they are outcomes
of our process and patterns of interaction, much more than they are
prerequisites for some subsequent outcome. In other words, if emergence
is to result, trust, not fear, will be present, but it will also be an
outcome of the process that supports emergence. Wherever emergence is
found, trust will also be found.
Trust, however, is a result that can be seen prior to reaching the
bifurcation point from which emergence results. In this sense, it is an
upstream indicator that the process, or paradigm, of reinforcement is
shaping the flow of behavior necessary for emergence. I believe that this
is why trust has often been perceived as a prerequisite for other desired
organizational outcomes. However, unless we have defined the process
through which we will get more trust, we may not have helped ourselves
very much. And we are also opening ourselves up to the possibility that
we are working on a result that may, or may not, actually get us where we
ultimately need to be.
This whole discussion is one that I have had in various forms with many
people around many different characteristics. For example, self esteem is
another OUTCOME. Empowerment. ownership, depth of commitment, locus of
control, self efficacy, motivation, attitude, pride/joy in work,..., all
of these are outcomes, but, generally speaking, they are peripheral to the
issues of learning and performance. They are collateral consequences that
are also impacted by the paradigm of reinforcement that is predominant.
In some ways, tracking these outcomes is like tracking various process
level indicators or statistics. For example, in basketball, this is more
like tracking game attendance, fan support, player attitude, "desire to
win", team commitment, etc... and trying to work on these areas as a
method for improving winning percentage. Actually, you need to be
pinpointing upstream results, and the behaviors that are critical for
success in these areas. Then you need to be measuring, providing feedback
for and reinforcing these behaviors (rebounds, points, steals, assists,
etc..., are examples of upstream results. The behaviors that produce them
are things like block outs, picks/screens set, shots taken within 10 feet,
# of passes, etc...). I always ask the question that Deming asked - By
what method are we going to obtain the outcome? Almost all of the
characteristics listed above are outcomes of a positive reinforcement
process. While none of these are necessarily tied to success, all of them
will be impacted positively if we use positive reinforcement to accomplish
our goals. Conversely, all of these are impacted negatively if we rely on
negative reinforcement as the means for shaping the system of behavioral
energy.
To further illustrate the collateral relationship of the outcomes of trust
and commitment to positive reinforcement, I have developed my own
definition of trust from a behavioral standpoint. In explaining it, I
actually have to begin by providing my behavioral definition of integrity.
Integrity, from a behavioral standpoint, exists when the antecedents for
behavior reliably predict consequences. You may recall from reading some
of my posts to the LO list (see LO20081 and LO20152), antecedents are only
effective when they reliably predict (are effectively paired with)
consequences. It is worth noting that a behavioral system may have
integrity when the antecedents reliably predict negative, as well as
positive, consequences.
When judging integrity of another person, this definition generally helps
us understand. But we can be even more specific, defining integrity as a
special case of the above definition. A person has integrity when their
verbal behavior (spoken word) accurately predicts their observable, or
overt, behavior. When the eyes see what the ears hear, the person has
exhibited integrity. The verbal behavior is an antecedent for the
observable behaviors that may provide us with consequences. OUR behavior
that may be influenced by this cycle is what I would call "trust".
As I discussed to some extent in LO20152 in the paragraphs on intention,
there is often a gap between what a person says and what they do for a
number of reasons. The emergence of trust in a relationship is dependent
on integrity, but again, a special case applies. Personal integrity is
present any time a person's words accurately predict their behaviors, even
when this is a bad thing for you. I may tell you that I am a
good-for-nothing who intends to take you for all that you are worth, and
then fulfill this expectation in my future behaviors. According to this
definition, I have integrity, but you certainly will not trust me with
anything of value to you.
Trust, then, requires behavioral integrity (words reliably predict
actions), BUT ALSO desired consequences linked to the predicted behaviors
for the individual who is being asked to trust. Only when these 2
conditions are present will trust result/emerge and grow (I hope this
helps you to see my point that trust is an outcome much more than it is a
prerequisite condition). Only when your words predict actions that
involve desired consequences for me, will I be willing to trust. And, as
you demonstrate that your words reliably predict your behaviors, my trust
in you will grow.
These conditions are also required for commitment (to a relationship, or a
vision) to result in an organizational setting. The extent to which they
are present will determine the extent to which commitment will result
(this is why commitment is also an outcome, and depends on the presence of
positive reinforcement within a system). My commitment to an end will
only matter TO YOU, when your realizing your desired outcomes requires MY
behavior. When our MUTUAL desired outcomes require behaviors from both
parties (this is INTERDEPENDENCE from a behavioral viewpoint), personal
integrity is required for success (emergence of a higher level of
organization), but trust and commitment are outcomes of the consequences
that we experience in the interactions.
Fear is the dark side of the consequence paradigm coin and is an outcome
of negative reinforcement and a lack of integrity. Fear is a conditioned
emotional response that results when the conditions for trust and
commitment are violated (lack of personal integrity and/or predicted
negative consequences). It may also be gauged as an indicator of whether
the paradigm of reinforcement is shaping the flow of behavior in such a
way as is necessary for emergence to result. If fear is present, to what
degree it is present, and what it stems from are all areas to consider
when evaluating or assessing the paradigm of reinforcement at any given
point in time (a means for assessing the present "being" of the system of
behavioral energy). However, without an understanding of behavioral
principles, systems thinking, and entropy production, it may not provide
us with a clear understanding of what we need to do differently and what
barriers may need to be removed to get where we need to be.
The pushing/dispersive/spreading effect of negative reinforcement that
stems from the escape/avoidance of an undesired antecedent condition
produces a lot of entropy. Disorder certainly increases, and the system
may be taken to the brink of chaos, a bifurcation point, and beyond, but
you can be assured that beyond the bifurcation point lies immergence, not
emergence. This is exacerbated by the fact that the use of negative
reinforcement is positively reinforced from the perspective of the one
wielding the influence (requires no pinpointing, gets behavior, and gets
it NOW).
This combination produces a synthesis of the Limits to Growth and Shifting
the Burden archetypes from a systemic perspective (see the Fifth
Discipline). The "just enough to get by" and other detrimental side
effects that are delayed but certain to occur when negative reinforcement
is used (for example, shallow commitment, hoarding of info, "every
woman/man for her/himself", competition, not cooperation and
collaboration, win/lose thinking, independence, not interdependence,
escalation of the use of influence tactics and negative attributions - see
LO19894, burnout - related to the minimality criteria for entropy
production expressed in behavioral terms - see LO20446,...) are all
collateral consequences of negative reinforcement. You mentioned several
others - scapegoating, stereotyping, labeling and blaming are all
activities that are "produced by" negative reinforcement. It is these
"selfish" and protective behaviors that result in the impairing of many of
the essentialities for creativity, precluding emergence of learning, and
form the backward flux that will impair subsequent attempts at creativity
and future learning.
These activities clearly illustrate the variety of behaviors that may
result in the efforts to escape or avoid the potential negative
consequences, and they have nothing to do with the desired behaviors that
are required for effective performance of the system. Much behavior is
generated and entropy is produced, but none of it is converging on
emergence. It is moving in all different directions away from the threat.
I hope that this also illustrates why negative reinforcement is a very
inefficient way to influence behavior, and why so much more energy is
expended when this is used as the method of influence. Negative
reinforcement tied to results can result in self organization, but the
self organization will not be spontaneous. To illustrate, a system may
restructure (and may self determine what structure it will take) in order
to avoid a threat to its existence, but this self organization cannot be
classified as an emergence because it is not spontaneously initiated.
Changes of this type are often fleeting, and require a great deal of free
energy introduced from outside the system to sustain. Changes that are
encouraged through positive reinforcement are tied to spontaneous
restructuring of the system to attain a desired outcome, not escape an
undesired one. The new structure is self determined, and initiated
spontaneously.
The pulling/attracting/concentrating characteristic of positive
reinforcement as a source of behavioral energy also produces entropy, but
towards an end. The entropy produced using positive reinforcement
attracts the system and concentrates/shapes its flow and pulls it towards
a new state of behavioral equilibrium. Positive reinforcement, and
positive reinforcement alone, can result in emergence of the system to a
higher level of complexity (irreversible spontaneous self organization) as
it moves beyond the bifurcation point. It does take more effort initially
(we must define what behaviors must be reinforced - we can't rely on
rewarding results - and we must also turn the tide of the existing
behaviors and the existing dominant paradigm of reinforcement in many
cases), but, over the long term, does not require the expenditure of
nearly as much free energy, as the self organization that emerges is
irreversible.
So, positive reinforcement is required for spontaneous irreversible self
organization to a higher (and more desired) state of organization due to
the attracting/concentrating characteristics which will pull behavior and
focus its direction (as opposed to the dispersive/spreading effect of
negative reinforcement). It is critical for the emergence of trust and
commitment in situation of interdependence (present by the very nature of
organizations).
Dan, obviously I haven't addressed all of the issues that you raised in
your recent posts, but I hope that I have addressed some. The systems
perspective applied to systems of behavioral energy is scalar - the same
general principles apply at varying levels of aggregation. But the
complexity of the systems increases as the level of aggregation increases.
Emergence at these superordinate levels is dependent not only on whether
each of the essentialities has been met on that level, and the structure
of the force influencing the flow of energy at that level, but it is also
contingent on having all of these criteria met on each of the lower levels
of aggregation (subsystems nested within the larger system), down to the
individual (see the brief discussion of metacontingencies in LO20649).
Now we are really talking about some of the fundamental issues that must
be addressed if organizational learning and change is to be realized.
Thank you for your insights and questions!
Regards,
Jon Krispin
Completely unrelated topic - a word of appreciation.
This list is a continual source of learning for me. I know that I spend a lot of time writing about a small subset of activities involved with learning organizations. I want to go on record as saying that I read all of the posts to the list and get an e
normous benefit from them. Whether the discussion is around knowledge management, dialogue, a specific consulting approach, or some other area in which I am not as fluent and don't participate actively, all of them require the contributions of so many wh
o make this list what it is, a true exemplar of cooperative learning.
Thanks to all of you.
--"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>