Is The World Really More VUCA Than Ever? Jeroen Kraaijenbrink

On twitter I saw this for not the first time, and said:
Hooray someone is saying this. As Patrick Hoverstadt says, we entered WWII with byplanes and ended with jets. Indeed things may be more complex etc (complexity does depend on perspective and boundary judgements) but *nobody ever offers any proof!* Paradigm shift?

Source: Is The World Really More VUCA Than Ever?

Is The World Really More VUCA Than Ever?

VUCA volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity written in a note.

Wherever we look around us, we find claims and concerns that the world is increasingly getting out of control. Whether it is the business press, the media more generally, or our personal conversations, we are witnessing an increased feeling of uncertainty, turbulence, and change. This feeling has recently culminated in the notion of ‘VUCA’, the idea that the world has become unprecedentedly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (see here for a brief explanation). While a full assessment of whether this idea is correct is out of the scope this article, it is useful to briefly review it and not take it just for granted.

On the one hand, it seems obvious. Through digitalization, big data, artificial intelligence, robotization, (de)globalization, terrorism, financial crises, climate change and global shifts in power, we feel an increased volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in the world around us. On the other hand, though, such feelings are as old as mankind and we can question whether our situation today is more VUCA than during the Black Death, World Wars I and II or when we discovered that the earth was neither flat nor the center of the universe.

It is informative in this respect to compare current claims and concerns to older ones. If we compare, for example, Peter Hinssen’s “New Normal” from 2010 to Manuel Castells’ “Rise Of The Network Society” from 1996, the observed effects of digitalization on our world – increased complexity, dynamism, connectedness, and so on – are strikingly similar, with nearly 25 years in between.

We can also look at some of the early issues of strategic management’s oldest scientific journal, Long Range Planning. There we find papers with titles such as “Strategic Management: A New Managerial Concept For An Era Of Rapid Change” (1971), “Defence Planning: The Uncertainty Factor” (1971), and “Planning In A State Of Turbulence” (1977). This is more than forty years ago and as these titles suggest, VUCA was experienced then as well.

The fact that VUCA claims are of all ages doesn’t automatically imply that they are false or irrelevant. It is quite likely that the speed of change in many industries is much faster now than ten or twenty years ago. Enabled by (digital) technology and driven by changing customer needs, this increased volatility is real for many organizations. And yes, due to greater variety in supply and demand, increased (online) connectedness between people and between organizations, and increased globalization, the complexity of doing business has probably increased too.

While volatility and complexity can be established and measured quite objectively, uncertainty and ambiguity are more of a perceptual nature. In various definitions, the latter two are even proposed to be a result of the former two: the more volatile and complex a situation, the more uncertain and ambiguous we perceive it. This means that whether we experience the world is more uncertain and ambiguous, depends to a large extent on our ability to deal with its volatility and complexity.

The fact that uncertainty and ambiguity are largely in the eye of the beholder, points us at another interesting question about VUCA: who is it that experiences the world as more VUCA? My experiences in executive MBA teaching and consulting is that this perception is quite age-dependent and something particularly found at managers above fifty. This is supported by psychological research that shows, for example, that the older we get, the quicker time seems to pass by and the harder we find it to cope with the changes around us.

Another important question is whether the four elements of VUCA reflect on-going, fluctuating, gradual developments or whether we now witness a dramatic increase in all four of them. In other words, are the changes we feel just more of the same, or a break with the past? The latter is often suggested. This is understandable. It is more dramatic and makes for better headlines. But the first seems much more likely: that VUCA represents four continuously varying factors that increase and decrease over time, dependent on which part of the world and which industry you are in.

If we leave alone the question whether or not the world as a whole has become more VUCA than ever before, we can observe that most industries, at some point in time, do have VUCA characteristics. However, most industries are not VUCA all the time, and very often also not to an extreme degree. Rather, they typically go through disruptive phases alternating with more stable periods where even the disruptive periods are often spread over a couple of years. Furthermore, companies may have a diverse portfolio of products and services, some of which in markets that are VUCA and some in markets that are relatively stable, predictable, simple and clear.

From this quick review of the VUCA idea, we can thus take that the world might indeed be VUCA. But at the same time, this was also the case ten, twenty, or even fifty years ago. Furthermore, many aspects of business might not be so sensitive to the VUCA-ness of the world and companies often have portfolios of products in markets with different degrees of VUCA. Finally, the same technological advancements that cause VUCA, also help us to deal with it better than ever before.

So, is the world more VUCA than ever before? It just depends on how, where and when you look and who is looking.

 

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

Continues in source: Is The World Really More VUCA Than Ever?

The Efficiency-Destroying Magic of Tidying Up – Florent Crivello

 

Source: The Efficiency-Destroying Magic of Tidying Up – Florent Crivello

The Efficiency-Destroying Magic of Tidying Up

In his seminal book Seeing Like a State, James Scott describes what he calls “high modernists:” lovers of orders who mistake complexity for chaos, and rush to rearrange it from the ground up in a more centralized, orderly fashion. Scott argues that high modernists end up optimizing for a system’s legibility from their perspective, at the expense of its performance from that of the user.

Indeed, that love of order is above all else about appearances. Streets arranged in grids, people waiting in clean lines, cars running at the same speed… But everything that looks good doesn’t necessarily work well. In fact, those two traits are opposed more often than not: efficiency tends to look messy, and good looks tend to be inefficient.

Efficiency ain’t pretty

This is because complex systems — like laws, cities, or corporate processes — are the products of a thousand factors, each pulling in a different direction. And even if each factor is tidy taken separately, things quickly get messy when they all merge together.

The chaotic look of structural orderliness shouldn’t be so surprising. Intellectually, we do understand that appearances are misleading — things don’t have to look as they are, nor be as they look. But intuitively, we all remain hopeless slaves of appearances, no matter how often we were misled by them.

This natural messiness of efficiency is demonstrated by recent advances in industrial design. When a God-level AI takes over in a science fiction book, it often remakes the world in its image: full of straight lines, smooth acceleration rates, and lots of chrome (AIs love that stuff). But as we start using algorithms to design things, we get results that look a lot more chaotic than that, confirming that our intuitive preference for “straight line” designs has nothing to do with performance — it just comes from our limited ability to reason about more complex solutions. Ironically, it’s us humans who think like robots.

Jo Liss@jo_liss

When computers design things, they look very different.

Tensile structure before/after topological optimization:

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Jo Liss@jo_liss

The Wendelstein 7-X fusion device looks asymmetrical and messy, like it’s out of a bad sci-fi set.

View image on Twitter
66 people are talking about this
Jo Liss@jo_liss

London’s tube map only uses 45° angles to aid its human readers.

Now can you see the humanness in mainboard design?

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
165 people are talking about this
An evolved antenna design, Hornby et al 2006. This is orderly — it’s straight antennae that really are messy.

This is a messiness similar to that you’d find in nature — which makes sense, since both these algorithms and nature are optimizing for efficiency.


I submit that we should look with suspicion at simple-looking systems. The physical world is like a river in which a thousand streams come rushing — it is supposed to look messy.

Continues in source: The Efficiency-Destroying Magic of Tidying Up – Florent Crivello

Is the World Chaos, a Machine, or Evolving Complexity? How Well Can We Understand Life and World Affairs?

cxdig's avatarComplexity Digest

Chaos, machine, or evolving complexity? The butterfly effect suggests a world in chaos—with linkages so random or nuanced that just to measure or pre-state them is virtually impossible. To predict how they will interact is even less feasible. Thanks to “adjacent possibles” and the contradictory impulses of human behavior, much of our world appears to move in random spasms. Every new technology and policy outcome creates opportunities to push society in new and often unforeseen directions, driven by human agents who may introduce crucial but unpredictable goals, strategies, and actions. Against this view, complexity science seeks to identify patterns in interactive relationships. Many patterns can be plotted and, in some cases, foreseen. A comparison of political entities across the globe points to certain factors conducing to societal fitness. Analysis of states that have declined in fitness suggests why their strengths turned to weaknesses. A survey of societies that were relatively…

View original post 94 more words

New IChemE President focusses on systems thinking and the big picture for process safety – News – The Chemical Engineer

 

Source: New IChemE President focusses on systems thinking and the big picture for process safety – News – The Chemical Engineer

14th November 2019

New IChemE President focusses on systems thinking and the big picture for process safety

Article by Adam Duckett

Stephen Richardson

STEPHEN RICHARDSON, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at Imperial College London, has been appointed as the 79th President of IChemE.

Richardson’s Presidential Address was delivered on 12 November in London after he was presented with the ceremonial Chain of Office by outgoing President Ken Rivers.

Entitled Process safety: the big picture and the systems approach, the address focussed on the need to look at the whole system to ensure plants and processes are working efficiently and safely.

Richardson explored the causes of the Piper Alpha oil rig explosion in July 1988 and the lessons learned from the public inquiry, during which he spent a significant amount of time as an expert witness. He used this example to explain how the systems thinking approach should be used across all chemical engineering activities, as well as volunteering activities at IChemE.

He said: “I worry that the lessons learned so painfully from accidents are gradually lost by succeeding generations. Corporate memory is short and, regrettably, it is getting shorter.

“From a safety perspective, Piper was not an island: the system was not just Piper. Getting the system right is key when considering safety.

“Safety is nothing without a systems approach and it is key, not just to safety, but to all of chemical engineering.”

For more than 30 years, Richardson has worked at Imperial College London teaching chemical engineering and researching depressurisation of high-pressure hydrocarbon systems. During this time, he became an expert in process safety and investigated many major process accidents in the oil and gas industry.

He also jointly developed a computer programme, BLOWDOWN, which has been used on over 300 installations worldwide.

Commenting on his plans for IChemE during his 18-month tenure as President, Richardson made it clear that making IChemE a leading voice in process safety would be a focus, highlighting the need to join up activities to make them more impactful. He also made the case for giving more support to chemical engineering departments, to ensure that they, and their graduates, are fit for the future.

He also noted that the recognition of IChemE volunteers would be top of his priorities, as well as ensuring IChemE goes on to deliver a successful centenary celebration in 2022.

The 2019 Presidential Address was live-streamed and a recording is available to view here: www.youtube.com/icheme

An in-depth interview with Richardson will appear in the coming issue of The Chemical Engineer magazine.

 

 

Capra Course Webinars | Daniel Christian Wahl and Fritjof Capra in conversation on Vimeo

Capra Course Webinars | Daniel Christian Wahl and Fritjof Capra in conversation

On November 18th, 2019, we held the fifth in our ongoing Capra Course Webinars: a series of free webinars that we are hosting every few months within the framework of Capra Course. These feature Fritjof in conversation with friends and colleagues about their work and life.

For this webinar, we were lucky enough to be joined by author of “Designing Regenerative Cultures”, Daniel Christian Wahl. He is also a sustainability consultant and educator at Gaia Education.

Here is a talk by Daniel to watch for context: youtube.com/watch?v=uNS_8m7C3EI&feature=emb_title

The conversation focused on the SDGs to start with, as a tool to approach systemic and interconnected problems. Daniel and Fritjof spoke about the work on SDGs in the UN, and how the UN is tackling global problems for change. They focus in on SDG 8 which is focused on “economic growth” which could be seen to enshrine the problems of the 21st century. And then the focus goes more local – onto how to implement the SDGs locally.

The webinar reached a total of 68 participants, who were joining us from all over the world… A truly international crowd.

We were honoured to have Daniel as our guest and look forward to continuing the conversation on our Alumni Network Platform. We received so many questions from Alumni during the webinar that Daniel has agreed to look at the questions that remained and write up some longer answers after the webinar. He will then post that as a blogpost which we will share with everyone.

We’re so excited to be hosting this series and to have such interesting and diverse conversations emerging. Watch this space for our next guest in the coming months!

Schedule of Webinar
First 5 minutes: Welcome
35 minutes: Fritjof and Daniel in conversation.
40 minutes: Questions from participants. Questions were collected in the chat window from listeners and participants.
5 minutes: Wrap up
(Total: 85 minutes)

We hope you enjoy the conversation!

source link: https://vimeo.com/373809060

 

WEBINAR | The Systems Change Evaluation Canvas: A Tool for Planning to Evaluate Systems – Tamarack Institute 

 

Source: WEBINAR | The Systems Change Evaluation Canvas: A Tool for Planning to Evaluate Systems

WEBINAR | The Systems Change Evaluation Canvas: A Tool for Planning to Evaluate Systems

How will you evaluate efforts to create systems change? The right approach depends on your situation, the type of change, and many other constraints that are unique. As demand for systems change initiatives has increased, so has the need to evaluate this type of work, though this type of evaluation is still emerging. To respond to this need, over the past year we have been developing a planning tool for evaluating Systems Change efforts — a Systems Change Evaluation Canvas.

This webinar features Mark Cabaj and Galen MacLusky introducing the canvas, walking through important things to consider when planning systems change, and showing how the canvas can be applied to a real-world scenario.

You can learn more about this tool, and evaluating systems change, at our upcoming event Evaluation + Design: Evaluating Systems Change in Ottawa, ON May 22-23.

Watch the Webinar Recording

Take Your Learning Further

Other Webinars that May Interest You

Source: WEBINAR | The Systems Change Evaluation Canvas: A Tool for Planning to Evaluate Systems

 

Hot Wash Debrief: OODA + Cynefin

 

Source: Hot Wash Debrief: OODA + Cynefin

Hot Wash Debrief: OODA + Cynefin

Last week, I was fortunate to attend Cognitive Edge’s MasterClass exploring the links between Cynefin (a sense-making framework, born in the IT industry) and OODA (a modeling of decision-making, born in the US Air Force). If you don’t know at least one (1) of these frameworks/models, there’s a good chance you’re going to be lost here… 
 
This post is my attempt to capture some of the smaller “events” within the workshop, and also to begin chunking together various lessons learned. My head is still spinning with new ideas, so I write this as almost a way to help myself analyze and synthesize what just happened….
Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia, USA

Continues in source: Hot Wash Debrief: OODA + Cynefin

Philanthropy, systems and change – The Australian Centre for Social Innovation

 

Source: Philanthropy, systems and change – The Australian Centre for Social Innovation

Philanthropy, systems and change

A collection of stories and tools aimed to support foundations in growing the mindsets, behaviours and practice that enable systems change.

 

The world is changing at an unprecedented pace. Our economy is restructuring, technology is disrupting the way we live and work, our population is ageing and the disparity between the haves and have-nots is growing. We have an opportunity to determine what that future looks like, but the window is closing. There has never been a more important time for philanthropy to make bold moves towards changing the world for the better.

During a recent philanthropic retreat, hosted by The Fay Fuller Foundation in South Australia and facilitated by the Global Social Innovation Exchange (SIX), a small breakout group explored the nuances for philanthropy in this changing landscape. There was a sense that some were stable and committed in their primary role as funders, while others were starting to assume additional roles to support change in systems. What quickly emerged was a spectrum of roles, all valid, important and different.

This work, taken forward by The Australian Centre for Social Innovation, Perpetual, Dusseldorp Forum and the Paul Ramsay Foundation, seeks to build on that conversation. It is not a “how-to” guide for systems change, it is a starting point for foundations who are interested in exploring how their own internal conditions align with their ambitions to create the big changes needed across many aspects of our society.

Whilst this work was centred around the role of Philanthropy, Carolyn Curtis, CEO at The Australian Centre for Social Innovation believes the themes are relevant to all people with an aspiration to operate in more systemic ways.

The challenges we face are too great to ignore the power structures, mental models and mindsets that hold problems in place. As institutions, practitioners and funders we are all a part of the story that needs to change.

Teya Dusseldop, CEO of The Dusseldorp Forum believes “the term ‘systems change’ has become a catch all and rather meaningless. With this work we are aiming to cut through the rhetoric, and demystify the term while providing tools that are actionable for foundations and their boards.”

What’s clear is that there is enormous opportunity to consider the value brought by bringing a diversity of voices and experiences into how requests for funding are assessed and considered by philanthropy.

There’s a great opportunity for us to do more by reaching into communities of diverse experience to assist our clients with advice, to re-think who qualifies as ‘an expert’ and to ensure that we as an organisation are doing all we can to listen more closely to the voices of communities we are trying to support.

CAT FAY, GENERAL MANAGER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT AT PERPETUAL

Perhaps one of the more challenging conclusions is that many of the current norms of traditional philanthropy, such as short-term, discreet investments and a board of experienced professionals, tend towards sustaining existing systems rather than transforming them to something new.

Throughout the report there are stories from across the world of how foundations are evolving their giving strategies, deepening their relationships, taking on new roles and innovating their operating models in order to grow their impact.

As a relatively new foundation, we have found it immensely helpful to look over the shoulders of other philanthropic organisations. The report helpfully highlights how those old and new have been challenged to keep redefining their roles, what it means to be innovative, and to play roles that others are unwilling or unable to play to create and sustain change.

JO TAYLOR, CHIEF CAPABILITIES OFFICER, PAUL RAMSAY FOUNDATION

The tools contained within the report provide an opportunity for foundations to have reflective conversations with their teams, boards and grantees about four potential “contributions” they can make in supporting systems change.

REPORT

Philanthropy, systems and change

Perspectives, tools and stories to help funders find their best-fit contribution to change.

 

Source: Philanthropy, systems and change – The Australian Centre for Social Innovation

How to master the art of creating the ‘Adaptive Spaces’ that enable innovations to spread – with Prof Mary Uhl-Bien (4pm GMT, 4 Dec, Zoom meeting) | Q Community

 

Source: How to master the art of creating the ‘Adaptive Spaces’ that enable innovations to spread – with Prof Mary Uhl-Bien (4pm, 4 Dec, Zoom meeting) | Q Community

 

4th December 2019

Zoom video call – online/phone (all welcome) *4 pm*

We’re delighted to welcome back Prof Mary Uhl-Bien, a leading pioneer internationally in complexity thinking and practice.

One regional healthcare leader who participated in the last Q Community Zoom with Mary said it was “incredible to participate in!” (and it’s the most popular video on the Q Community’s YouTube channel).

** PLEASE REGISTER TO RECEIVE YOUR LOGIN INFO **https://zoom.us/meeting/register/4c900ef31834c26cdc2040ba88984b7b

Mary’s decade-long research program focused on uncovering the key sources and mechanisms that enable innovation, transformation and change – including in hospitals and across health systems. A framework was developed from these lessons for how best to support new forms of leadership for adaptability and organisational agility.

This research found that successful innovations emerge from informal/entrepreneurial networks but must be supported and developed in (temporary) ‘Adaptive spaces’ if they are to fulfil their potential for transforming formal bureaucratic organisations (like the NHS, as well as other public and private sector organisations).

Tools including Labs, Liberating Structures, Design Thinking, Adaptive Salons and Summits and Positive Deviance can help us create these vital ‘Adaptive spaces’.

In this Zoom Mary will focus on the practical steps we need to take to effectively initiate and support these ‘Adaptive Spaces’ – as well as the new ‘Enabling Leadership’ needed to help them function effectively, complementing the current leadership approaches.

Important preparation for this Zoom…
This will not be an introductory overview of Mary’s framework: please familiarise yourself with the basic framework before this Zoom session (eg watch Mary’s 2018 Q community Zoom video: ‘How ‘Adaptive Spaces’ enable innovation in healthcare and beyond‘).

Reading matter includes:

Great short (5 pg.) article: ‘Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting from Human Capital to Social Capital‘ (People + Strategy, 2016) – open access.

If you have more time: ‘How to Catalyse Innovation in Your Organisation’ (Sloan Management Review, 2017 – open), co-authored with organisational network analysis pioneer Prof Rob Cross and others, highlights the three network roles that are key to catalysing emergent innovation.

Also recommended: ‘Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability‘ appears in Organizational Dynamics (2017) – closed access.

Bio
Mary Uhl-Bien is the BNSF Railway Endowed Professor of Leadership at the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. She is an expert on complexity leadership, relational leadership, and followership. She is active in executive education nationally and internationally and has taught for the Brookings Institute and the Gallup Organization.

Contact


Booking

 

Source: How to master the art of creating the ‘Adaptive Spaces’ that enable innovations to spread – with Prof Mary Uhl-Bien (4pm, 4 Dec, Zoom meeting) | Q Community

Enrolments open Complex Systems Leadership Program 2020 – starts 30th January (Wicked Lab Australia)

 

Enrolments open
Complex Systems Leadership Program 2020

Starts 30th January

Creating change is hard – but you won’t be alone in this highly supported and mentored online program

Are you ready to lead systems change?

Begin creating change with our Complex Systems Leadership program (CSLP). This program is project-based and designed for people ready to take action on tackling wicked problems. This is a rigorous 4 mth program that will build your capacity to take a complexity, systemic innovation and ecosystem approach to tackling complex social policy problems.

This isn’t a passive experience.

As a participant in this program, you’ll work on a wicked problem of your choice in a community of your choice. You’ll apply the knowledge, skills and tools you gain to your real-world wicked problem using Wicked Lab’s Tool for Systemic Change, a tool to map, track and measure ecosystem transitions.

If you’re motivated to create real change for wicked problems, change that sticks, this program provides the resources and tools to help you make that happen.  As a CSLP participant, you’ll join a cohort of other individuals from across the globe focused on addressing wicked problems. The program kicks off January 30th and finishes end of May 2020.

What can you expect from the program?

  • Learn about the unique characteristics of wicked problems
  • Master tackling wicked problems using nine Focus Areas an online Tool for Systemic Change
  • Apply your learnings to a real-world problem
  • Feel supported with monthly small group mentoring where we’ll guide you every step of the way.
Learn more
Download program outline
Ready to lead systems change?

Submit your application today and our Admissions team will be in touch.

Register now

Did you miss our webinar? Catch up now

Learn about our approach, our Online Tool for Systems Change and the Complex Systems Leadership Program
Watch now

Get the tools you need to lead systemic change

As a participant on the program you’ll receive a 1yr license to the Tool for Systemic Change, which you’ll use to map a solution ecosystem. Learn more about what this means and how the tool works in this overview video.

Wicked Lab’s Tool for Systemic Change

CAPITALISM’S CYBERNETIC SUPREMACY, and why socialism does not work – Javier Livas

To me, such a weird selection of good and bad ideas and argument – but the interesting stuff is very interesting – particularly the ten characteristics of viable systems from about 17:00 onwards:

1 – viable systems have evolved and are built from the bottom up in growing complexity
2 – viable systems are not hierarchical, or based on authority
3 – viable systems rely on their viable components acting with the maximum possible autonomy
4 – viable systems evolve into the future by experimenting with different options, they take a more ‘natural selection’ route
5 – viabe systems make a very wise use of their coordination function
6 – viable systems live in the border of thermodynamic chaos
7 – viabe systems are sentient; and they can detect wrong moves and mistakes
8 – viable systems have a shared identity
9 – all viable systems depend on a positive feedback to produce energy and a negative or control feedback to provide control
10 – to control and be controlled at the same time are two side of the same organic structure

(30 minutes but I had no problem listening to this one at 2x speed)

An Explanation of Perceptual Control Theory by Rick Marken, and Can Perceptual Control Theory Deliver the Promises of Cybernetics? – YouTube

 

Theories underpinning psychological practice ‘wrong’ – Feb 2019

 

Source: Theories underpinning psychological practice ‘wrong’

Theories underpinning psychological practice ‘wrong’

psychological practice wrong, University of Manchester psychologists
© Nataliia Shcherbyna

A computer game devised by University of Manchester psychologists has called into question the theories which have been used for over a century, suggesting psychological practice has been wrong

Dr Warren Mansell says the theories that divide up ’stimulus’ from ‘response’, which underpin smoking cessation programmes and most psychological therapies, should be re-evaluated.

The theories were spawned by the influential BF Skinner since the American psychologist John Watson famously claimed in 1913 that the aim of psychology is ‘the prediction and control of behaviour’.

The study is published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General today.

Dr Mansell’s computer game, based on ‘perceptual control theory’, supports the view that our behaviours vary from moment to moment rather than being triggered by thoughts or learned by ‘associations’ to ‘stimuli’ in our surroundings.

“Humans strive to get ‘just right’ experiences, such as keeping a comfortable temperature or keeping safe, said Dr Mansell.

“So it’s unsurprising that most of the initiatives for changing people’s behaviour based on removing stimuli that trigger habits like smoking or trying to make children behave with rewards and threats, fail in the long term.

“This is because psychologists privilege the observer’s view of behaviour over the experience of the person who is doing the behaviour.

“Our study shows quite how at odds these two perspectives can be, and it paves the way for a new generation of interventions to help people with habits, fears and addictions.”

Dr Mansell discussing his experiment and findings

A total of 164 people did the game, in pairs. One person, the actor,  was instructed to move a computer mouse to keep a cursor located within a circular target at the bottom of the screen.

The mouse movements left a trace at the top of the screen and the second person, the ‘observer’ was asked to observe the actor and the computer screen.

The movement of the cursor that the actor had to counteract to keep the cursor on target was upside down mirror image of the word ‘hello’.

Most of the actors were unaware they had written the word ‘hello’, and most of the observers were unaware that the actors were trying to keep a cursor on target.

Dr Mansell added: “There was an almost 100% contradiction between the actors’ and observers’ answers. This is because we only think that the ‘eye-catching’ side effects of behaviour – in this case writing the word ‘hello’ – is the intended action.

“From programs to help people stop smoking, to managing children’s behaviour in schools, this century-old view that the outsider can most accurately measure, predict and change another person’s behaviour has dominated.

“Therapies for a range of mental health problems should instead help people to become more aware of what they are trying to control in their lives, and balance them in more helpful ways.

“We feel that this approach would be applicable in diverse areas such as learning new skills, coping with dementia, and even building robots.”

 

Source: Theories underpinning psychological practice ‘wrong’

The systems school www.thesystemsschool.org – community of practice note on mental models, and info about their December session

The systems school is at www.thesystemsschool.org (based in Australia)

sign up to their community of practice: https://thesystemsschool.us20.list-manage.com/subscribe

Their next systems community of practice meeting:
interview: bill walker – client voice framework (dhhs vic) for community services
december 12th 11:00-12:30 AEST

  • you will receive a calendar invitation separately if you are already registered for the community of practice

————————————————————

**
1. last session: mental models
————————————————————
watch the video here https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mtjfH2qkdKx61SSnVi7ouy7CJSxD4Rus

review the slides here https://drive.google.com/open?id=19IHZkQUGYj97gYSYoIwCLMC6734C7ZXI

check out these links to over hundreds of mental models

  • https://fs.blog/mental-models/
  • https://nesslabs.com/mental-models
  • https://jamesclear.com/mental-models

In our group discussion on mental models – we talked about some of the challenges and opportunities working with mental models.

  • individual mental models/community mental models – powerful social narratives at play
  • learningful conversation must go with the grain of culture (too often dominant cultures assume ignorance and impose their own ways including technologies of learning rather than accepting everyone has lived experiences eg of poor services/policy failure)
  • advocacy [from the list of activities to work on mental models] such a missed opportunity – seeking to understand others
  • maybe one of the hardest bits of being open to evolving mental models is vulnerability…especially when it involves critique from others and self, and the realisation that we are all wrong in some way. that’s a hard place for lots of people to sit!
  • culture is the mind of the community – you need to address these social narratives at a community level for change to happen
  • dysfunctional systems arise from dysfunctional shared mental models (and the behaviours and relationships they produce + the expectations these generate)

we don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are
~ anais nin
————————————————————

**
2. case study released!
————————————————————
a few sessions ago we heard from hannah opeskin at caulfield community health service about their use of systems thinking and the systems change framework https://preventioncentre.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Systems-Change-Overview-w-Practices.pdf

read the case study here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BNCW3vmYOW63JfGSA9WB3B82a-pLlCzC/view

————————————————————

**
3. commitment to act
————————————————————
we have introduced an activity called ‘commitment to act’. these are small exercises to support you staying connected to your systems practice.

at the end of our session i asked our community what their commitment to act:

  • share systems thinking with my university mentees
  • reflect more on my own mental models
  • schedule time for regular reflection – use guiding questions provided
  • carry this content through into the work and facilitation i have coming up

what commitment will you make to build your systems practice between now and our next session?
————————————————————

**
4. upcoming events and training
————————————————————
introduction to systems thinking

  • 5 week webinar series – starts november 13th – registration starts at $125 for individuals
  • more details here https://www.the-systems-school.org/webinar-series
  • we’ve kicked off, but not too late to join as we are sharing the recordings

innovating systems thinking: methods, practice and leadership

  • 2 day event in melbourne february 11-12 202 – for experienced systems practitioners
  • registrations open november 18th
  • more details here https://www.the-systems-school.org/innovatingsystemsthinking

============================================================
** http://www.the-systems-school.org

Copyright © *2019 The Systems School, All rights reserved.

Cybernetics • Regulation In Biological Systems • Selection 1

Jon Awbrey's avatarInquiry Into Inquiry

Regulation In Biological Systems

10/3.The foundation. Let us start at the beginning. The most basic facts in biology are that this earth is now two thousand million years old, and that the biologist studies mostly that which exists today. From these two facts follow a well-known deduction, which I would like to restate in our terms.

We saw in S.4/23 that if a dynamic system is large and composed of parts with much repetition, and if it contains any property that is autocatalytic, i.e. whose occurrence at one point increases the probability that it will occur again at another point, then such a system is, so far as that property is concerned, essentially unstable in its absence. This earth contained carbon and other necessary elements, and it is a fact that many combinations of carbon, nitrogen, and a few others are self-reproducing. It follows that though the state of…

View original post 192 more words