source:
Cynefin and Critical Systems Thinking (CST): A further contribution to the debate | LinkedIn

Cynefin and Critical Systems Thinking (CST): A further contribution to the debate

I recently wrote a CST review (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-systems-thinking-overview-gapps-eu-science-jackson-obe/) of the EU Science Hub/Cynefin Centre Field Guide to leadership in times of complexity. Dave Snowden has written a detailed and considered response (https://stream.syscoi.com/2021/03/29/naturalising-narrated-cognitive-edge-dave-snowden-response-to-two-recent-mike-jackson-pieces/ ), for which I thank him. It has helped me gain a clearer understanding of his ‘naturalising’ approach to complexity and of our differences. This contribution to the debate is meant to further mutual understanding.

continues (and please comment) in source:
Cynefin and Critical Systems Thinking (CST): A further contribution to the debate | LinkedIn

caminao 10:36 am on April 8, 2021

The Cynefin framework takes a procedural perspective to complexity, as opposed to Stafford Beer’s systemic one.
It ensues that the intrinsic nature and fabric of complexity are mostly ignored, and consequently the significance of digital immersion and machine learning technologies for cybernetics, in particular the relationship between homeostasis, entropy, and complexity.
https://caminao.blog/2019/04/29/focus-entropy-homeostasis/

Systems Community of Inquiry