Systems Community of Inquiry is back up!

https://stream.syscoi.com/
THE place for all things #systemsthinking, #cybernetics, #complexity and such (if it’s missing – join up and add it!)

Map–territory relation – Wikipedia

A Very Good wikipedia article

 

Source: Map–territory relation – Wikipedia

 

Map–territory relation

Tissot’s indicatrices viewed on a sphere: all are identical circles
The Behrmann projection with Tissot’s indicatrices
The indicatrices demonstrate the difference between the 3D world as seen from space and 2D projections of its surface

The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that “the map is not the territory” and that “the word is not the thing”, encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself. The relationship has also been expressed in other terms, such as Alan Watts‘s “The menu is not the meal.”

See more in source: Map–territory relation – Wikipedia

 

Characteristics of Systems Leadership – Heart of the Art

Pretty good. ‘Stropping’ means something different where I’m from, though!

 

Source: Characteristics of Systems Leadership – Heart of the Art

 

Characteristics of Systems Leadership

The Phillips Kay Partnership Ltd

First published at Heart of the Art, 20th January 2019

This blog is co-authored by John Atkinson and David Nabarro.

David is the strategic director for 4SD. He has previously worked for several years in senior roles within the UN system. These included coordinating the international response to the West Africa Ebola outbreak 2014-15, the UN’s response to volatile food prices and the Movement for Scaling-Up Nutrition. In October 2018 he was joint winner of the World Food Prize.

John is a founding director at PKP. He has designed, instigated and led whole systems change approaches at the global, national and local level for Governments and Cities as well as for multi-national corporations.

In our work together we have explored what systems leadership means, what working with living systems really looks like and how that plays out for real when you have a central role within loosely-organized human systems that are trying to address complex issues.

Where we begin

There are many models for how systems are supposed to work. Each has at its core a philosophy, sometimes explicitly understood and described, often less so. Most define a route towards an answer, via a prescribed methodology, resulting in seemingly inevitable success. Our experiences have been more varied.

The reality is that leadership through large, complex and politically contested issues can be very tough on the people involved. It challenges our perception as to what is for the best, and how best to achieve it. And it challenges how we can find connection with all those who need to be involved.

We find that as systems leaders focus on complex global challenges they cannot just rely on neat and ordered, often mechanical, approaches to problem-solving like Gantt charts, root cause analysis and logical frameworks.  They need an altogether different set of characteristics, some of which are not easily learnt in the seminar room.

There are some important basic competences that should not be neglected:

  • An ability to encourage groups of people with similar core values to come together around a shared purpose.
  • To nurture co-creation of the future by wide groups of stakeholders.
  • To convene design-focused workshops full of diverse participants and to make records of decisions made, incorporating them in business plans.

All of these things really matter. We organize sessions that help develop the competence to do this: we participate in them, enjoy them and sense that colleagues benefit from them greatly.

However, it is our belief and experience that the essence of systems leadership goes beyond acquiring this basic competence. It calls for qualities of thought and action that are unique to effective systems leadership. It involves being able to feel what might be possible, how quickly and with whom. It also means living with the pain, discord and conflict that are inherent in getting divergent groups to work effectively together. The emotional core can be dark at times. Systems leaders must be confident that they can preserve their ability to lead in a difficult environment, through being resilient and functioning effectively in messy situations. It also means being capable of helping colleagues find the way along a path ahead, a path that is rarely clear and often needs creating as we go.

As new connections between groups and individuals form, new patterns arise and from that something novel becomes possible. At the same time something is collapsing. The existing ways of finding coherence are challenged. The fulfilling relationships and certainty as to who we are and where we fit are beginning to crumble. Job roles, departments, even whole organisations may play no part in the new future. This is invariably a political space. It can be deeply painful. People will contest the things that need to happen and in doing so they overtly or covertly fight for the continuation of the present. At such moments, all the doubt, insecurity and anger can be focused on you.

Three areas in which being confident helps

To be effective in this realm means being confident in working with the politics of living systems, dealing with uncertainty, and coping with adversity.

Politics: The politics of living systems are important whenever complex problems are being addressed, whether on a local or global scale. Decisions must be made about who gets what. The stakes are high, and different options can seem equally unpalatable. There are constant contests about who will win, and who might lose out; who will do what and when; who will pay, and how. So much depends on where the power to make things happen lies, and how that power is used. The real source of power is not always obvious.

Systems leaders must be confident when working with those who seek to accumulate and then use power, and they must be comfortable operating within this deeply political realm. This applies to the ‘big P’ Politics of local, national and international governance as well as the small ‘p’ of power relations within and between organizations.

Systems leaders appreciate the need to understand how power is being gained and the influences over its use within all manner of political processes. They take account of the multiplicity of power plays under way, with constant competition over scarce resources and much appearing to depend on the outcome of seemingly minor decisions. At the same time, there is a conundrum. It sometimes seems that politics are undermining efforts to get vital tasks done. This all means that an ability to work with the politics of living systems is an essential, but sometimes frustrating, aspect of a systems leader’s professional journey. The political processes are neither good nor bad, quite simply they are a part of the job. You have to be confident about working with them.

Uncertainty: Systems leaders must be comfortable with, and manage, uncertainty at all times. It is a given that there is uncertainty in the environment. If the future direction was clear and agreed you would have no work to do. What we are referring to is your own uncertainty; how you manage yourself. Here are two of the doubts we have felt in ourselves.

First, “how do I know whether my contribution is meaningful?” The uncertainty experienced by a system undergoing change can challenge both the systems leader’s existing sense of coherence as well as her or his ability to maintain it.

When any series of systems are undergoing change, those involved start to doubt their relationships and question who they are and where they fit in. Some familiar things seem to crumble and this causes a fear of collapse.

This leads to anxiety and pain with many people holding on to the past, fighting to continue the present and disagreeing that change is needed. When we find ourselves in these moments, what is our escape valve? For both of us, John and David, being able to cope with uncertainty starts with knowing who we are, warts and all, and finding comfort with that.

Second, “how do I know whether I am being successful?” Most systems leaders sense that there is real progress when the systems themselves begin to grow strongly. Fresh and intriguing connections are made and new patterns start to arise. More effective ways to get things done are emerging. But things will not necessarily be better for everyone, at least in the short term.

That is why the systems leadership role means thinking through what happens to the less desirable parts of any system as well as those which we seek to enhance. None of us can make the difficult parts just vanish. Collapse and emergence walk hand-in-hand. The role of the systems leader is to accompany both, helping different actors work out what to resolve for themselves and what they need to resolve together. Then we devise ways in which it might be helpful to work with people, enabling them to develop the means for resolving the challenges they face.

Adversity: Systems leaders encourage connections between living systems in ways that enable them to make better collective sense of what is going on. Helping to make connections among people with a whole raft of pain and hurt is far from pleasant. In these circumstances, getting better connected can be personally challenging and some people will become hostile towards you. The systems leader can become the personification of a new and unwanted direction and is likely to be on the receiving end of hurt and anger. It is important to remember that whatever is conveyed in gestures, words or feelings is likely to be an expression of something deeper. The leader has to be resilient in the face of adversity and must try to avoid taking personal responsibility for the difficulties within systems.

In summary, when our egos cry out for recognition and reward it is a danger signal that should be heeded. If you want too much for yourself in any outcome (a new role, enhanced reputation or influence), you will invariably fail. Both pain and success are not, and cannot be, about you. If you are prepared to sink without trace in the final outcome, almost perversely you become more influential.

Three areas in which it helps to be capable

We have also seen that there are three key capabilities that are of the essence when systems leadership is applied to complex global challenges: being able to scope, evolve, and strop, jointly with those with whom we work.

Scoping: It is sometimes said that the pursuit of ambitious targets is the key to making things happen, but strong allegiance to targeting can have unintended consequences. It leads to wholesale shifts in organizational priorities or operations, and a focus on what is delivered, rather than what is experienced by those for whom services are provided. The negotiations involved in agreeing common milestones can take precious resources away from creativity and innovation and can even be used to block progress.

What is important is to maintain the sense of a meaningful direction that appeals to many, scoping on behalf of all. The direction and destination do not need to be described precisely or entirely. But they do need to draw on different elements that reflect the interests of the various groups of stakeholders. This lets people see how what they want can be achieved if they decide to play along (or at least appear to).

Both of us have experienced working with small groups that rapidly grew and grew by making sure that, while their purpose was clear, the means for getting there was necessarily vague, as well as being open and available. This attracted others who cared about the work to join the effort. This form of constructive ambiguity is a valuable attribute in systems leadership.

Evolving: In our experience there are important ways in which complex organizations influence what their associates do. One way is to use tightly defined purpose statements, project plans and outcome measures. This can stifle the kind of creativity that enables organizations to grow through adaptation. It is prioritizing the relentless pursuit of a pre-determined strategy, together with its milestones, over the gradual build-up of a strong momentum.

We have found that leaders appreciate that allowing for detailed plans and outcome measures to become apparent as the work progresses, allows for more effective ways to tackle complex issues.

It seems to us that being comfortable with this kind of progressive evolution is at the heart of systems leadership. Though it is welcome to many of those with whom we work, some will still struggle to find ways for combining progressive evolution with operational control and accountability.

Stropping: We appreciate that systems leaders will always prefer to work with whole systems – to “get all the system in the room”. What we find in practice is that this strategy is often realized later rather than earlier in the process. We’ve noticed how at first a small group sense that something disturbs the status quo and seem to coalesce. Slowly others who think like them are drawn into their conversations.

And we are also aware that if things shift significantly, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that the right groups are engaged, especially those with much to lose in any change. They often have quieter voices and less capacity than the groups who tend to be already at the table.

This is an example of stropping, pursuing strategy through opportunity. It is letting the strategy find its own place and pace through the opportunities that appear in the journey of change.

Five qualities – of thought and action – that are also helpful

As we encourage colleagues to develop their capabilities as systems leaders we see how their abilities are influenced by their experiences, presence and personalities. The way in which they do that in any given setting really does depend on who they are. From our perspective, David, as a qualified medical practitioner, can take positions in some groups that John simply cannot.

At the same time, we have come to appreciate the several different qualities of thought and action that help systems leaders as they navigate complexity and ambiguity. As before, we recognize that the ways in which these qualities are applied will be highly contextual and highly personal. We are interested to know how others use them as they lead efforts for systems change. We share five of them now:

1          Hold competing perspectives simultaneously

The nature of living systems is that they look different to everyone depending on where we sit in them. People can therefore hold competing views that are in contradiction to each other, and both can still both  true. In the systems leadership role we need to be able to hold multiple competing perspectives simultaneously and give up striving for an objective truth. It isn’t there to be found.

2          See the whole system differently to its separate parts

We don’t arrive at a truth as to how the system works by studying its separate elements. So we shouldn’t do it. There are characteristics of any living system that are a function of that system as a whole and not found in any of its parts. We must focus on how the elements do and don’t relate, and what happens when they act together.

3          Feel into the pace, rhythm and readiness

It doesn’t matter what external timescale or plan is in place, a living system will move at a pace driven by its internal relationships and its relationship with its environment. As systems leaders we need to become adept at feeling into the pace of change that can be handled, the rhythm that underpins that pace and when things are ready, or not ready to move. If it’s not ready, we don’t try to move it. When it is ready to move fast, we don’t slow it down.

4          See the system in relationship to its environment

Living human systems evolve in symbiosis with their environment. An internal focus on the workings of the system tells us only a part of the story. The new stuff is invariably occurring around the points where the system and its environment are in closest contact. We must go and take a look there and reflect on what we’re seeing.

5          Meet people right where they really are

The way people show up is the way they show up. We can’t force them into a different place. We can’t make them move faster than they are prepared to go. So we see them, hear them and engage with them right there, not from where we feel they should be going. Then we’ll find the potential that exists, however great that is or otherwise.

One step at a time with the direction in mind

We constantly remind ourselves that systems leadership is both art and science. It is the artist and scientist in each of us that determines how we respond to what we uncover through our practice of systems leadership.

We hold the key to being good at being ourselves. As each situation unfolds we interpret what we find through our own experiences and emotions. Many of us find that being honest about our real motives, as well as our reactions to what is happening around us, helps us feel our way into the next step. And that, for us, is the beating heart of this art.

We take each situation one step at a time, always enhancing the quality of our thoughts and actions. We become confident within the politics, uncertainty and adversity. We scope, evolve and strop, always together, always trying to remain aware of the direction in which our steps might be leading.

We can’t tell you how to be you. We hope that by sharing our experience of this work it points you at how you might be you a little better. And how, in evolving your capacity to draw on all that you have within, you might make your world a little better too.

Preliminary Steps Toward a Universal Economic Dynamics for Monetary and Fiscal Policy | NECSI

 

Source: Preliminary Steps Toward a Universal Economic Dynamics for Monetary and Fiscal Policy | NECSI

Preliminary Steps Toward a Universal Economic Dynamics for Monetary and Fiscal Policy


Cite as:

Yaneer Bar-Yam, Jean Langlois-Meurinne, Mari Kawakatsu, Rodolfo Garcia, Preliminary steps toward a universal economic dynamics for monetary and fiscal policy, arXiv:1710.06285 (October 10, 2017; Updated December 29, 2017).

Download PDF

(also on arXiv)


Abstract

We consider the relationship between economic activity and intervention, including monetary and fiscal policy, using a universal monetary and response dynamics framework. Central bank policies are designed for economic growth without excess inflation. However, unemployment, investment, consumption, and inflation are interlinked. Understanding dynamics is crucial to assessing the effects of policy, especially in the aftermath of the recent financial crisis. Here we lay out a program of research into monetary and economic dynamics and preliminary steps toward its execution. We use general principles of response theory to derive specific implications for policy. We find that the current approach, which considers the overall supply of money to the economy, is insufficient to effectively regulate economic growth. While it can achieve some degree of control, optimizing growth also requires a fiscal policy balancing monetary injection between two dominant loop flows, the consumption and wages loop, and investment and returns loop. The balance arises from a composite of government tax, entitlement, subsidy policies, corporate policies, as well as monetary policy. We further show that empirical evidence is consistent with a transition in 1980 between two regimes—from an oversupply to the consumption and wages loop, to an oversupply of the investment and returns loop. The imbalance is manifest in savings and borrowing by consumers and investors, and in inflation. The latter followed an increasing trend until 1980, and a decreasing one since then, resulting in a zero interest rate largely unrelated to the financial crisis. Three recessions and the financial crisis are part of this dynamic. Optimizing growth now requires shifting the balance. Our analysis supports advocates of greater income and / or government support for the poor who use a larger fraction of income for consumption. This promotes investment due to the growth in expenditures. Otherwise, investment has limited opportunities to gain returns above inflation so capital remains uninvested, and does not contribute to the growth of economic activity.


Press Release

Wealth redistribution, not tax cuts, key to economic growth

CAMBRIDGE (October 17, 2017) — President Trump’s new tax plan will follow the familiar script of reducing taxes for the rich in the name of job creation. Not only will these trickle-down policies not work—they’ll make the problem worse. A new report by a team of complexity scientists demonstrates an alternative: increase wages to create more investment opportunities for the wealthy, thus creating new jobs and a stronger economy.

In the ten years since the financial crisis, despite massive economic interventions and zero interest rates, unemployment rates have only now returned to pre-crisis levels. Poverty and debt continue to be widespread, and economic growth struggles to reach 3 percent.

The new complexity science analysis describes the flows of money through the economy, not just the overall activity. It shows that there are two cycles of activity that have to be balanced against each other. The first is that workers earn salaries and consume goods and services. The second is that the wealthy invest in production and receive returns on their investment. The two loops have to be in the right balance in order for growth to happen. If there is more money in the worker loop, there aren’t enough products for them to purchase. If there is more money in the investment loop, consumers don’t have enough money to buy products so investment doesn’t happen.

The paper shows that before 1980 there was too much money in the worker/consumer loop. That money was chasing too few products, giving rise to dangerously increasing inflation. After 1980, likely because of the Reaganomics tax changes, the balance tilted the other way. There was too much money in the investor loop and the result was a series of recessions. The Federal Reserve repeatedly intervened by lowering interest rates to compensate workers’ low wages with increased borrowing, in order to increase consumption.

The research shows that the way the government is regulating the economy is like driving a car with only the accelerator and without using the steering wheel. Steering means keeping the balance between the two loops in the right proportion. While Federal Reserve interventions have helped overcome the recessions, today we are up against the guard rail and need to rebalance the economy by shifting money back to the labor/consumer loop.

Since 1980 consumers have accumulated trillions of dollars of debt, and the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. This is the result of government policy reducing taxes for the wealthy in the name of increasing economic activity. No matter how much money investors have, these so-called “job creators” do not create jobs when consumers don’t have money to buy products. Increased economic activity requires both investment and purchase power to pay for the things the investment will produce.

The research shows that Reaganomics had the right idea at the time, but there is need today for a new, bold policy change in the opposite direction. The economy will grow if the flow is shifted toward workers/consumers and away from wealthy investors. The work cautions, however, that this has to be done in the right amount. Reaganomics moved things too far toward the wealthy, so shifting the flow in the other direction has to be done in the right measure.

The results suggest that current approaches to correcting economic problems by reducing government spending (austerity), while decreasing taxes for the wealthy to promote investment, are misguided. They may have been good policies in 1980 but they are long outdated today. It turns out that economic inequality is not just a social justice problem, but actually an economic problem. Fixing economic inequality will have dramatic benefits for economic growth.



FIG 1: Schematic model of monetary flow representing the wages and consumption loop and capital and return loop (red). Transfers from or to banks (savings and loans) and government (taxes, transfers, subsidies and other economic activities) are also indicated (black).


News Coverage

MotherboardMath Suggests Inequality Can Be Fixed With Wealth Redistribution, Not Tax Cuts
by Daniel Oberhaus
Human CurrentThe Path to Economic Growth According to Complexity Science
interview by Angie Cross


by Daniel Starkey
FuturismResearch Shows Inequality Is Solved With Wealth Redistribution, Not Tax Cuts
by Brad Jones and Brad Bergan
El Economista¿Conviene eliminar el ISR a quienes ganan menos de 10,298 pesos?
by León A. Martínez
Complexity DigestPreliminary Steps Toward a Universal Economic Dynamics for Monetary and Fiscal Policy
Phys.orgWealth redistribution, not tax cuts, key to economic growth


FIG 10: Plot of consumption versus investment between 1960 and 2015. The straight lines represent the dynamics of the economy if the ratio of consumption to investment were fixed. Recessions occurred in years marked by red dots.



FIG 3: Economic flows in the US from 1960 to 2015 according to categories of Fig. 1.



FIG 4: Fraction of economic activity for economic flows. The dominant flows are those of the primary loops in Fig. 1.



FIG 5: Wages divided by wages plus returns (similar to sw in Goodwin’s model), reflecting the percentage of economic activity in the wages and consumption loop compared to the total in the two dominant economic loops. A transition between different behaviors is apparent in 1980. Fits are exponential (blue) and sinusoidal (red) curves. Using the expression in Eq. 22 from 1960 to 1985 we have λ= 0.12/yr, z0 = 70.8%, z1 = −0.64%, t0 = 1960, and Eq. 23 from 1986 to 2005 we have z0 = 59.8%, z1 = 1.65%, k = −0.69/yr, φ0 = −6.0, and t0 = 1986, with p < 10−15 and p < 0.0001, respectively.



FIG 6: Estimates of borrowing and total savings (or debt) for Labor and Capital. A transition from capital borrowing to labor borrowing and capital savings in 1980 is evident. A. Labor borrowing obtained by subtracting wages and government benefits from consumption and taxes. B. Capital borrowing obtained by subtracting returns and government interest payments from investment and taxes. C. Labor total savings obtained by aggregating borrowing since 1960 and D. Capital total savings obtained by aggregating since 1960. Total savings (debt) is obtained by aggregating borrowing since 1960.



FIG 7: Examples of economic development diagrams that indicate the state of the economic activity in terms of the wages/consumption (vertical axis) and investment/returns (horizontal axis). A. Shows stable flows that progress according to different policies that infuse the same proportion of money into each of the loops. This would be the case if all proportions would be functional. B. Shows the case where as one of the loops becomes larger than the other, economic activity is compromised and flows deviate in a way that eventually reduces economic activity consistent with the expectation that one of the loops is necessary for the other. C. Shows what happens to B when policies are shifted by adding additional flows to the investor loop. Scales are arbitrary.



FIG 11: Same data shown in Fig. 10 but the region of the data between the 1960 and 2007 lines is expanded to the entire first quadrant by setting the 2007 vector direction as the x-axis (by subtracting it from all data) and, similarly, the 1960 straight line as the y-axis. Recessions occurred in years marked by red dots.



FIG 12: Interest rate (blue), inflation rate (red), and real interest rate (green) showing the two regimes of behavior prior to and after 1980 consistent with investment limited and consumption limited regimes.This suggests that the current zero interest rate is not due to the financial crisis but rather due to the limiting behavior associated with the consumption limited regime that started in 1980.

Phone: 617-547-4100 | Fax: 617-661-7711 | Email: office at necsi.edu

277 Broadway Cambridge, MA USA

Systems leader in need of support?

 

Source: Systems leader in need of support?

 

You are a working on systems change. At times it feels isolating, overwhelming and you’re not clear what move to make next.

You could really do with a place for thinking, reflection and support.

The Systems Sanctuary was designed with you in mind.

We host virtual, peer-mentoring programs for systems leaders like you to:

  • Share your unique challenges
  • Learn new tools and techniques and
  • Build an international network of new friends who can support you
We prioritize participation from people who are working from lived experience of unjust and unhealthy systems, and we welcome applications from people all over the world.
  • Early Bird price till 18 January 2019
  • Final deadline for applications 25 January 2019

Find out more below… 

“Warm and human facilitation, good structure, sense of openness. The huge diversity of work people are undertaking was stimulating and inspiring” ”

— PARTICIPANT – IN THE THICK OF IT

Find out more

Peer support for systems leaders focused on climate change

Working on climate systems change from intersecting angles including renewable energy, food production, climate justice, gender equity and finance and at least two years into their work.

Find out more

Peer support for women of systems change amid life transition

Open to women of all ages and who have been, or are beginning to work in, systems change. We encourage women and women identified participation of all ages to apply.

Find out more 

Peer support for systems leaders at least two years into their work

Previous applicants have worked on economic development, food security, immigration, aging, criminal justice system, to cross cutting topics like racism, gender equity, health and education.

Find out more

Peer support for systems leaders at least 2 years in, living in Australia or New Zealand

Many of our applicants come from Aus/NZ so we’ve created an In the Thick of It Cohort designed specifically to build the ecosystem of systems changers in the region.Find out more

What do you know about systems leadership?

Read our new publication, highlighting key themes on the challenge of systems leadership from our first Cohort of In the Thick of It, 2018.
Find out more about what we think it takes to lead systems practice. Our research on systems Capabilities and Capacities.

David Chapman on Twitter: “Any application of formal rationality to the real world is relative to an ontology, which cannot be derived formally. “Paradigm shift” means a large ontological reorganization. Broader understanding of this remodeling is needed now…”

 

https://jaydaigle.net/blog/paradigms-and-priors/

 

Hospicing The Old – TheFarewellFund – Cassie Robinson

Source: Hospicing The Old – TheFarewellFund – Medium

Hospicing The Old

In 2010 I was introduced to the Berkana Institutes’s Two Loop model, and I come back to it again and again. As I’ve moved across different projects and jobs, it’s still the best way I’ve found to place myself in the system and what kind of role I’m playing. At Government Digital Service and the Co-op I was working in the dominant system trying to do the transition work. At Tech for Good Global, our whole purpose was centred around illuminating the pioneers and trying to build community so that the field grew in coherence. And a lot of the Point People’s work has been about connecting, building and nourishing networks across both systems.

It’s worth watching their short video that I’ve linked to above but I’ve also tried to sketch it out below, as I understand it.

The Berkana Two Loops Model- it’s intentional that the two loops never touch as they are two entirely different paradigms.

In essence it shows a dominant system that is dying, and an emergent system that has the potential to become the system of influence. As the dominant system reaches its peak, new pioneers emerge (1), recognising that the dominant system (however impossible and far away that might seem) is beginning to decline.

The emergent system

It’s important that this new, emergent system is named and that the pioneers, the people and organisations building alternatives are connected together (2), and the work they are doing, illuminated.

Through this illumination and nurturing they form communities of practice (3)and grow more coherence as a field. As they do, more people and organisations join.

Illumination is also necessary to show a path for transition from the dying system to the alternative, emergent system. I also marked on here those people that create an alternative system but remain on the edges or disconnected from the main influence of the system(4). These are the people that take themselves off to build new communities, living in alternative ways, but turn their back on any responsibility for anyone else.

The dominant system — but a system in decline

Of course a lot of what goes on in the dominant system is trying to crush the alternatives that are appearing in the emergent system.

It helps when there are people in the dominant system who work to protect and enable those alternatives as they emerge, whether through funding, new policies, different kinds of commissioning etc — holding the space for pioneers to do their work.

There are people that help keep the dominant system stable as it dies — this is important because there is still a lot that is dependent on that system.

Others work to help people and organisations transition from the existing, dominant system — helping make tangible how to do things in a new way and showing them what is happening in the emergent system. I always picture these people as doing hand-holding work — walking alongside organisations to cross the “transition bridge.” Some make it, others don’t.

But it’s the last role that I’m particularly interested in at the moment. The Hospice Worker role. As the dominant system starts to decline, they provide care and compassion for those that are dying and alleviate the pain.

The need to close things down, dismantle them, end things, is a natural part of change, but I don’t think we do it very well. I don’t think there is a well designed practice around it. And that’s the start of a new enquiry for me — The Farewell Fund — introduced in my next post.

An Introduction to the Viable Systems Model – Robert Lamb

    Nice intro

    Complexity Spectacles – Experiential initiations into complexity thinking – 8-12 April 2019, De Elegast (Nijmegen, Netherlands)

    Source: Complexity Spectacles | Whitemergence

    Whitemergence

    Complexity Spectacles & You!

    Dutch-Nederlands

    Midweek 8-12 april 2019
    De Elegast (Nijmegen-NL)

    Begeleiders
    Liesbeth DebruynOscar MeijnSophia van Ruth (animatearts.net) en Maarten Swinkels (changetrek.nl)

    Infopagina Download

    Informatie en inschrijven

    liesbeth@whitemergence.org
    +32 484 133 212

    Complexity Spectacles

    The phenomenon complexity manifests in many appearances. Complex spectacles invites you to interactively meet many of them throughout a five-day immersive experience. You will be challenged to investigate the many meanings in relation to your own situations and interests. This approach asks for a profound commitment and engagement of you as a participant. Throughout this joint endeavour you will learn to look through complexity spectacles. These are glasses that aspire to broaden and enrich the way you envisage the complexity of human organising in relation to the world around and aim to help you navigate complex dilemmas in the future.

    & You!

    The second part of this five-day session starts from you as a person, it aims to give you a new perspective on your personal key questions. You will explore how you want to relate to the complexity of life: how to deal with wicked personal problems and how you want to be meaningful in a complex world.

    Join the first Complexity Spectacles ever! 8-12 April 2019

    Installation artwork Anthony McCall (LaM)

    Program and approach

    • Part 1 – Monday and Tuesday – Spectacles 
      The general approach of the first two days is an organic interplay between experiences, theory and making meaning. Compilations of information, thoughts and activities constitute small modules, each addressing certain topics, phenomena and many interrelated concepts. Profound commitment is asked from the participants, however, the modular approach provides you to dynamically check in and out. The whole is a dynamic and associative interweaving of many theoretical concepts related to real life.
    • Wednesday – Passage to part 2
      Between the two parts of the course, there will be a one-day experimental open space to harvest and share insights, experiences and ideas. There is also the possibility for new participants to join the group for the rest of the week.
      Besides that you will explore, develop and refine your core personal questions. These questions will be taken to the second part.
    • Part 2 – Thursday and Friday – You! 
      What does it mean to act wise in a complex world? Throughout a journey, also outside of the domain, we will search for answers.

    What

    Main concepts that will be addressed

    • Complex, complicated and simple
    • Emergence and self-organisation
    • The edge of chaos
    • Attractors and phase transitions
    • Adaptivity, resilience and evolution
    • Networks

    How

    Working methods

    • Reality games
    • Collective improvisation (InterPlay)
    • All kinds of challenges and assignments
    • Cases and practical experience
    • Conversation and dialogue

    Why

    What makes it unique

    • The process taps into the generative and creative power of the participants
    • Care for the organically unfolding process
    • Your own unique experience
    • New perspectives on complex personal issues
    • Reflecting on yourself as a complex human system
    • Topics dynamically interweave
    • Academic reference material
    • Care for the quality of human interactions
    • Maximal use of diversity existent in the group
    • Emergent generativity
    • Dynamically shifting between a focus on yourself and a focus on your meaning in the world
    • “We walk the talk” with a meta-level consciousness on the process

    Information

    liesbeth@whitemergence.org
    +32 484 133 212

    CFP | ISTC 2019 | Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in the 21st Century

    Dr. Steffen Roth's avatarProf Steffen Roth

    Call for papers to the 19th International Social Theory Consortium conference ISTC 2019 on “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in the 21st Century: System as the future of modern society?”

    Co-organizers:

    • Harry F. Dahms, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, USA*
    • Steffen Roth, La Rochelle Business School, France, and Kazimieras Simonavičius University in Vilnius, Lithuania*
    • Ilaria Riccioni, Free University of Bolzano, Italy
    • Frank Welz, University of Innsbruck, Austria

    Date: 5-7 June 2019

    Venue:Inter-University Center Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik, Croatia

    Paper submission: Per email to the corresponding co-organizers (*). Deadline: 15 March 2019.

    The theme of this year’s conference pertains to affinities and complementarities between systems theory and critical theory for purposes of analyzing modern societies in the twenty-first century as social systems whose stability, functioning and future increasingly is in doubt.  Conventionally, critical theory and systems theory have been regarded and treated as mutually exclusive treatments and modes of analyzing of societies undergoing transitions from premodern to postmodern conditions. …

    View original post 432 more words

    Prisoner of a Heartless Ideology: Part II – Barry Oshry

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/prisoner-heartless-ideology-part-ii-barry-oshry/

    Prisoner of a Heartless Ideology: Part II

    Barry Oshry

    Writer, Thought Leader, Presenter

    It can be illuminating to strip nations of the ideological baggage of freedom and totalitarianism, and to see them instead in terms of the interplay between Power and Love. I intend this not in the sentimental meaning of these terms, but rather as the fundamental processes that drive all human systems, from families to organizations, to communities and, in this case, nations.[1]

    Power is the drive of human systems (nations) to individuate, that is, for the system parts – individuals and groups – to function independently of one another, to go their separate ways.  And, as the parts go their separate ways, they tend to differentiate, they become more different from one another. The Power state of systems is characterized by freedom, energy, competition, variety, innovation, and growth.

    Love is the drive of systems (nations) to integrate, for the parts to come together as interacting components of an integrated whole. And, as the parts come together in common effort, they tend to homogenize, developing more commonality with one another. The Love state of systems is characterized by togetherness, cooperation, uniformity, oneness of purpose.

    Nations survive by developing a balance between Power and Love processes, and what differentiates one nation from another is the balance and intensity with which these processes are expressed.

    Systems self-destruct when one process totally drives out the other.

    Anarchy develops when Power completely drives out Love. The welfare of the parts supersedes the welfare of the system. Parts lose their commonality with one another. Competition devolves into warfare and internal struggles for survival. The system as a whole dis-integrates.

    Totalitarianism develops when Love completely drives out Power. Freedom is suppressed in the service of cooperation. Difference is suppressed in the service of uniformity. Individuality, entrepreneurism, and innovation are suppressed, as is the human spirit. The systems collapses under its own weight.

    Ideological struggles. Warfare develops as humans attach values to the neutral processes of Power and Love, seeing one as the good and the other as evil.

    The advocates of Power champion Power as freedom and liberty, and they see Love as all that crushes freedom and liberty.

    The advocates of Love champion Love as equality, community, and unity, and they see Power as all that destroys equality, community, and unity.

    Both advocates are correct in one respect. Power and Love have their creative and destructive properties. Power can and has destroyed community, equality, and unity. (See the hollowed-out cities, the growing inequality, and divisiveness in the US and other western societies.) And Love can and has crushed freedom and liberty. (See the history of communist nations.)

    No system is pain free. Even in balanced societies – systems of Love and Power – Power both liberates individuals and groups and it weakens and destroys community and leads to inequality and divisiveness.

    And Love both creates equality and mutuality and #it suppresses freedom and independence.

    So, for example, both the US and Scandinavian countries are balanced systems; Scandinavian countries are weighted more on Love, resulting in less inequality at a cost of some freedom; the US is weighted more on Power, resulting in more freedom at the cost of inequality and divisiveness.

    That complexity of system life is just how it is.

    Advocates tend to stress the creative aspect of Love or Power while denying or ignoring the destructive consequences.

    It is paradoxical that, in their ideological purity, prisoners of heartless ideologies insist on destroying the very processes that are essential to system balance and survival.


    [1]For those unfamiliar with my work on whole system processes, see Barry Oshry, Context Context Context,Axminster, U.K., Triarchy Press, 2018

    Complex Systems in Transition – Stellenbosch Centre for Complex Systems in Transition

     

    Source: Complex Systems in Transition – Stellenbosch Centre for Complex Systems in Transition

     

    A journey towards becoming a systemic practitioner: becoming a project manager and an educationalist – Ian Joseph Cammack

    The ‘Cammack toolkit’ available as a pdf on here is a nice guide to reflective practice.

    Source: A journey towards becoming a systemic practitioner: becoming a project manager and an educationalist – University of Bedfordshire Repository

     

    A journey towards becoming a systemic practitioner: becoming a project manager and an educationalist

    HDL HANDLE:
    http://hdl.handle.net/10547/337220
    TITLE:
    A journey towards becoming a systemic practitioner: becoming a project manager and an educationalist
    AUTHORS:
    Cammack, Ian Joseph
    ABSTRACT:
    This thesis is a systemic examination of my practice as an educator specialising in the development of early career project managers. This inquiry is conducted through an internal inquiry into my living theory and an externally focussed inquiry into the journey that the early career project managers take to becoming a project manager. Four broad foci of my living theory are identified, ‘Soft Systems Methodology’, ‘Action Learning’, ‘Reflective Practice’ and ‘Systemic Practice’. These are discussed in order to consciously consider the foundations of my practice and to identify areas where the practice has been eroded through familiarity and developed through innovation. The external inquiry draws on three sources of qualitative data. The first two sources of data explore the experiences of students enrolled on the MSc in Project Management at Lancaster University during an action learning project. These two sources are an analysis of ‘word clouds’ and ‘critical incidents‘ presented in the dissertations that reflect on these projects. The third source of data is a series of interviews held with alumni of the MSc in Project Management at Lancaster University. These two areas of inquiry combine to present a framework for project management practitioner education that comprises of three broad areas of development. These areas of development align to the ‘ways of knowing’, ‘ways of doing’ and ‘ways of being’. The ways of knowing zone is made up of the development of a systematic approach to project management. This zone is complemented by the ‘ways of doing’ that looks at the development of this systematic perspective through the development of a range of analytical and social skills. It is suggested that systemic eloquence may be gained by enhancing the ‘ways of knowing’ and ‘ways of doing’ with a systemic perspective that encompasses relational dispositions to the practice of project management. This relational disposition covers the ways in which project managers learn to understand the dynamics of the problem situations that they co-create with their stakeholders. Furthermore, it is noted that the development of project management practitioners should be facilitated through their experience in the practice of projects. This ‘hands on’ engagement combined with an approach to self-development founded on reflective practice helps to develop people capable of delivering projects rather than talking about the delivery of projects.
    CITATION:
    Cammack, I.J. (2013) ‘A journey towards becoming a systemic practitioner: becoming a project manager and an educationalist’. PhD thesis. University of Bedfordshire.
    PUBLISHER:
    University of Bedfordshire
    ISSUE DATE:
    Jan-2013
    URI:
    http://hdl.handle.net/10547/337220
    TYPE:
    Thesis or dissertation
    LANGUAGE:
    en
    DESCRIPTION:
    A thesis submitted to the University of Bedfordshire, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Professional Doctorate in Systemic Practice
    APPEARS IN COLLECTIONS:

    Complexity Explorer – Fractals and Scaling course starts 15 January

     

    Source: Complexity Explorer

     

    Fractals and Scaling

    Lead instructor: 

    About the Course:We will begin by viewing fractals as self-similar geometric objects such as trees, ferns, clouds, mountain ranges, and river basins.  Fractals are scale-free, in the sense that there is not a typical length or time scale that captures their features.  A tree, for example, is made up of branches, off of which are smaller branches, off of which are smaller branches, and so on.  Fractals thus look similar, regardless of the scale at which they are viewed.  Fractals are often characterized by their dimension.  You will learn what it means to say that an object is 1.6 dimensional and how to calculate the dimension for different types of fractals.

    In addition to physical objects, fractals are used to describe distributions resulting from processes that unfold in space and/or time.  Earthquake severity, the frequency of words in texts, the sizes of cities, and the number of links to websites are all examples of quantities described by fractal distributions of this sort, known as power laws.  Phenomena described by such distributions are said to scale or exhibit scaling, because there is a statistical relationship that is constant across scales.

    We will look at power laws in some detail and will give an overview of modern statistical techniques for calculating power law exponents.   We will also look more generally at fat-tailed distributions, a class of distributions of which power laws are a subset.  Next we will turn our attention to learning about some of the many processes that can generate fractals.  Finally, we will critically examine some recent applications of fractals and scaling in natural and social systems, including metabolic scaling and urban scaling.  These are, arguably, among the most successful and surprising areas of application of fractals and scaling.  They are also areas of current scientific activity and debate.

    This course is intended for anyone who is interested in an overview of how ideas from fractals and scaling are used to study complex systems.  The course will make use of basic algebra, but potentially difficult topics will be reviewed, and help is available in the course discussion form.  There will be optional units for more mathematically advanced students and pointers to additional resources for those who want to dig deeper.

    Course Outline

    1. Introduction to fractals. Self-similarity dimension. Review of logarithms and exponents.

    2. Box-counting dimension. Further examples of fractals. Stochastic fractals.

    3. Power laws and their relation to fractals. Rank-frequency plots. How to estimate power law exponents.

    4. Empirical examples of power laws. Other long-tailed distributions: log normals and stretched exponentials. Implications of long tails.

    5. Mechanisms for generating power laws. Rich-get-richer phenomena. Phase transitions. Other mechanisms.

    6. Metabolic scaling. West-Brown-Enquist scaling theory.

    7. Urban scaling.

     

    About the Instructor(s):David Feldman is Professor of Physics and Mathematics at College of the Atlantic.  From 2004-2009 he was a faculty member in the Santa Fe Institute’s Complex Systems Summer School in Beijing, China.  He served as the school’s co-director from 2006-2009.  Dave is the author of Chaos and Fractals: An Elementary Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2012), a textbook on chaos and fractals for students with a background in high school algebra.  He has thrice offered a MOOC on Chaos and Dynamical systems on the Complexity Explorer site, in addition to this MOOC. Dave was a U.S. Fulbright Lecturer in Rwanda in 2011-12.

     

    Casey Acklin is a graduate of College of the Atlantic, where he studied neuroscience and anthropology from 2011-2015 and frequently worked with Dave Feldman as both a student and a teaching assistant. After graduation he worked at The Jackson Laboratory studying Alzheimer’s disease, and now plans to serve for one year as an AmeriCorps VISTA member working with the Dementia Engagement, Education, and Research program at the University of Nevada, Reno. Casey likes to say: “A day without math is like a day without sunshine!”

    What does it mean to be critical? – complexity, reflexivity and doubt in everyday organisational life.

    Chris Mowles's avatarReflexivepractice

    Complexity and Management Conference – 17th– 19th May 2019, Roffey Park Institute.

    One of the difficulties of thinking, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, is that it tends to unravel things. Next year’s conference will address a theme which has come up again and again in previous conferences, the degree to which questioning, particularly of our own assumptions and value positions, can unsettle. It’s not always easy to question what’s going on, particularly in organisations which encourage us to align and be positive, but what are the ethical consequences of not doing so?

    In a recent piece of research carried out for LFHE/Advance HE, we discovered that senior managers in Higher Education establishments may feel conflicted about some of the change projects they are responsible for. Keen to do a good job on the one hand, on the other they may also entertain doubts about the long-term effects…

    View original post 312 more words

    s
    search
    c
    compose new post
    r
    reply
    e
    edit
    t
    go to top
    j
    go to the next post or comment
    k
    go to the previous post or comment
    o
    toggle comment visibility
    esc
    cancel edit post or comment