Replying to LO24422 --
On 24 Apr 00, at 9:15, d.n.suresh wrote:
> ...Could any of you kindly give me lead on any models of change
> dynamics? It will be great help in my future efforts.
** ON MODELS AND MODELLING **
** A Personal Review: Somewhat Longish **
** Busy readers may please read only the summary **
Dear Suresh and others,
I would like to take this opportunity to make an observation on
organisational change models, the summary of which is the following:
SUMMARY: Certain phenomena are such that they allow mutiple
models (e.g., viewpoints) of themselves, without any unique (or self-
evident) logic for choosing from among those models. In such
cases, one has to impose some additional constraints, e.g., the
modeller's purpose, a preferred modelling vocabulary, an optimum
model complexity, etc., in order to choose a suitable model and
make use of it (in acting, controlling, adapting, etc.). This, in fact,
is related to the principle of 'first order cybernetics'.
On First and Second order cybernetics, these web pages:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/asc/First-_cyber.html
http://www.unizar.es/sociocybernetics/chen/pfge2.html
http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~umpleby/Strategies_2nd_Cyb.txt
http://artsci-ccwin.concordia.ca/edtech/ETEC606/lorraine7.html
http://www.pangaro.com/proposals/rise-of-proposal.html
Experience in the study of organisational change suggests that the
principle of 'first order cybernetics' might be inadequate
(insufficient, unreliable) in the context of organisational change. A
more reliable principle is necessary. It is possible to characterise
such a principle.
*End of summary*
DETAILS:
*1. Certain phenomena are such that they allow mutiple models
(e.g., viewpoints) of themselves, without any unique (or self-evident)
logic for choosing from among those models.*
Organisational change has been studied for more than 50 years now. The
initial approach was to DISCOVER the LAWS that govern human interactions.
Since such laws could neither be found in psychology nor in sociology,
various attempts were made to locate intermediate regions (e.g., role
relations, psychological fields, life- spaces, symbolic interactions,
intersubjectivity, work systems, etc.) and to look for LAWS in those
regions. Although this effort produced a vast literature, the much
promised laws were not to be found. The literature produced a large number
of models however (none of the models having a law-like invariance).
*2. In such cases, one has to impose some additional constraints,
e.g., the modeller's purpose, a preferred modelling vocabulary, an
optimum model complexity, etc., in order to choose a suitable
model and make use of it (in acting, controlling, adapting, etc.).*
Although the multiplicity of models (of organisational change, in this
case) posed a 'SCIENTIFIC' problem (i.e., that of not finding a
'scientific criterion' for comparing the models), it did produce many new
practical opportunities. A new breed of organisational change advisors
(consultants, facilitators, managers) emerged who imposed various
'practically relevant criteria' to help organisations change and renew
themselves. Please note that such change or renewal could not be shown to
be 'improvements' in some absolute sense, but only 'better' from some
specific (selected) point of view. But every point of view is restricted
in some sense (this is an ancient idea made explicit, e.g., in the 6th
century AD in India by Shankara; it has been restated several times in
several cultures, e.g., by C. W. Churchman in his book: The Systems
Approach). Therefore, the application of these models produced
consequences not always in line with what is expected.
This led the more reflective consultants to introduce the idea of
'learning', i.e., accepting that the model can produce surprises (and
unintended consequences), can we learn anything from its use? Can we do it
better the next time? This kind of thinking is at the root of the
contemporary ideas of professional learning, management learning,
appreciative inquiry, participatory research, etc. (Please note that this
is not the only root. There are other roots as well, e.g., the need to
challenge excessive control by policy makers -- as in education, the need
to encourage farmers to improve their practice in agriculture, etc.)
Interestingly, the models themselves provided the required discipline to
promote this kind of learning or inquiry (or enquiry?). The notion of an
'inquiry cycle' ('research cycle') was used which involved: (re)use of
model >> study of consequences >> review of objectives >> changing the
model >> (re)use of the model. (I am sure you would have seen other
variants of this cycle.)
Some have started to label this process as 'action research'. However,
other more scientifically-oriented commentators (e.g., P. B. Checkland)
have been criticising it. The main crux of the criticism is that, even
this does not adequately solve the 'scientific' problem discussed earlier.
*3. This, in fact, is the principle of 'first order cybernetics'.*
The idea of using 'a model' (not necessarily 'the right model') to
determine a series of required inputs to a system in order to obtain a
series of desired outputs is known as the principle of 'first order
cybernetics'. The process of using a model of some economy to determine
the level of interest rates in order to achieve the desired level of
national income, output, employment, and price level, is a perfect example
of the application of first order cybernetics. (This kind of application
was pioneered by the LSE, London.)
*4. Experience in the study of organisational change suggests that
the principle of 'first order cybernetics' might be inadequate
(insufficient, unreliable) in the context of organisational change.*
There are a number of reasons why the principle of first order cybernetics
does not apply very well in the case of organisational change. I will only
outline some of these:
+ problem of deciding what (whose) objectives should be pursued
+ problem of changing circumstances (internal and external)
+ problem of reflexivity (i.e., people acting on the hypothesis of
what might be expected of them -- thus usually nullifying the
model's effect!)
+ problem of interdependence and turbulence (events outside the
system's boundary interacting with the events inside the systems'
boundary to create major unexpected events)
+ problem of diversity and co-ordination (arising out of the use of
multiple models by multiple actors - or agents)
etc.
*5. A more reliable principle is necessary. It is possible to
characterise such a principle.*
This in fact is the crux of the entire debate concerning 'second order
cybernetics'. The readers can get a glimpse of that from the web-sites
given above. Let me state some of the key issues there:
The principle of first order cybernetics assumes that there is a 'system'
and a 'modeller' (i.e., an observer of the system) who produces a 'model'
and uses the model to work with the system. What it misses is that the
'system' may also have the capacity to observe (i.e., it may belong to the
class of 'observing systems', see Von Foerster's book by that title). The
system may produce a model of the modeller and behave according to that
model!
Illustration: This is not as esoteric as it might appear to those who are
not using this vocabulary. Consider a young student and an adult teacher
involved in an educational context. The teacher has a model of the student
and accordingly decides what inputs to give to get the educationally
desirable outputs. The student also has a model of the teacher and
accordingly decides what inputs (e.g., questions, replies, fibs, and
excuses) to give in order to get the desirable outputs (e.g., early end to
the class, less homework, preferred group-mate, an interesting assignment
at the pub, etc.).
This is comparable to the situation that is obtained in the context of
organisational change. Only it is much much more complex, simply because
there are too many teachers and too many students involved.
That is why, one should look for mechanisms by which the interdependence,
the diversity, the dynamicity of the context can be managed so that the
interependence, diversity, dynamicity, etc., do not function as obstacles,
but in fact as resources in producing creative and interesting outcomes.
Therefore, Suresh, the search for a good enough model of this complexity
becomes transformed into a search for designing appropriate environments
and appropriate mechanisms of interaction that would create opportunities
for combining the diversity into useful and interesting outcomes.
I would like to end with a metaphorical example. Consider a busy
market-place with many people of many different shapes, sizes, and
colours, criss-crossing each other in their brisk and self- engaged steps;
their hands loaded with recent purchases and their minds meandering in
numerous ways. Suddenly you sit down at a central place and start playing
a sweet rhythm with your guitar. Slowly the environment begins to
transform. People form a circle (an object that did not exist earlier) and
perhaps some children inside the circle begin to dance to your rhythm (an
event that did not occur earlier).
The problem is really to find the rhythm that will do the trick within
organisations.
Love.
----------------
Prof. D. P. Dash
Xavier Institute of Management
Bhubaneswar 751013
India
New E-Mail: dpdash@ximb.ac.in
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.