But how does one actually apply CAS? My perspective has always been that yes, complexity/emergence/co-evolution exist at all levels and we can seek to understand it, but it is by its nature, very hard to control. So you look at systems thinking or even optimization to manage even if you can’t control.
For example, take a business. Sales incentive systems are a way we try to influence behavior towards a particular goal. Now anyone who has designed or implemented those programs can tell you that you’re never 100% sure how people are going to respond. But you assess, you manage and you optimize. CAS would rightfully identify all the new and surprising things that salespeople do (uh oh), but then what? Where do you go from there in actually attempting to improve and change?
Point being, CAS always struck me as more realistic, but not altogether that manageable (obviously). So you look at these other modes of thinking and say, “This is obviously an abstraction and it won’t tell the whole story, but let’s at least look at this one part of these flows and address that.” Not perfect, highly abstracted, but literally manageable.
Unfortunately I haven't really either. There are plenty of great tools for scientific and academic researchers, but none that I'm aware of that would meet the needs of business leaders/practitioners.
I do suspect it's just a matter of time until the right tools emerge!
Absolutely fantastic! I use systems theory to make leverage and extractive vs regenerative systems more accessible to the public (and why we have wealth inequality), but you’ve definitely put me onto weaving this in
This is the choose your own adventure part that honestly makes it fun because there’s no blueprint really (even though everyone wants that certainty) you just have to experiment!
I apologize for coming out of the gate hot. I'm working on these ideas elsewhere, linguag.substack.com/p/they-shoot-horses-dont-they, and am swimming in the process. First, I applaud your effort. What we are discussing here is exactly what we should be doing, talking about evidence and process. I absolutely understand your perspective and i wonder if the micro/macro frame might apply in this case. My perspective is to embrace the complexity and make the most of it in the imperfect pursuit of knowledge, the micro, and you are focusing on communication, how to apply the product of micro analysis to the information needs of decision makers. I agree, I don't see a conflict. I'm very drawn to your phrase "emergence, uncertainty, and limits of control in organizational life." I think there is further room for discussion as I believe my purposeful language model does a good job of balancing both uncertainty and knowledge building.
For my perspective, the author simply has a limited expectation of systems thinking. I think it's a mistake to say that a system's perspective assumes a complete understanding and complete control. My approach to systems is the opposite, that the goal of complete control is an illusion. The problem with the classic approach to systems is that it ignores the role language plays in the process. If you fully incorporate the role of language, by definition you're fully incorporating the unconscious as a variable, which goes a long way to filling in the gaps. For me, looking to chaos for the answer starts to brush up against religion. Rather than focusing on the unknown dynamic of variables is if they need to be fixed, it seems the best approach is to accept that language is a finite tool incapable of capturing the infinite.
I think we may be talking past each other. I wasn’t saying that all systems thinkers believe in total control. My point was that when systems theory is applied in organizations, it often gets used as if control and predictability are achievable, and that’s where it breaks down.
That’s why I lean toward complexity: not because systems thinking is “wrong,” but because complexity gives boards and executives a more practical way to work with emergence, uncertainty, and limits of control in organizational life.
The really malignant consequence of systems thinking is that as the world shifts to a different attractor than your model was tuned to, there is enormous pressure to use capital and political pressure to change the world to maintain the model fiction (regulation, starving competitors, monopolistic behavior).
Systems being what they are, and reality being the truculent beast it is, it doesn’t just change its mind under the pressure. Instead, forces grow as the enterprise resists the change until, when it finally capitulates, the forces unleashed by correction to the attractor are hideous.
So. We are now giving up on 3 million years of history of Humanity trying to adapt its environment to suit itself?Because that's what I am getting from this.
But how does one actually apply CAS? My perspective has always been that yes, complexity/emergence/co-evolution exist at all levels and we can seek to understand it, but it is by its nature, very hard to control. So you look at systems thinking or even optimization to manage even if you can’t control.
For example, take a business. Sales incentive systems are a way we try to influence behavior towards a particular goal. Now anyone who has designed or implemented those programs can tell you that you’re never 100% sure how people are going to respond. But you assess, you manage and you optimize. CAS would rightfully identify all the new and surprising things that salespeople do (uh oh), but then what? Where do you go from there in actually attempting to improve and change?
Point being, CAS always struck me as more realistic, but not altogether that manageable (obviously). So you look at these other modes of thinking and say, “This is obviously an abstraction and it won’t tell the whole story, but let’s at least look at this one part of these flows and address that.” Not perfect, highly abstracted, but literally manageable.
What sort of modeling/simulation tools do you use to support your flavor of complexity thinking?
I haven’t found any that operationalize theory into practice. Have you?
Unfortunately I haven't really either. There are plenty of great tools for scientific and academic researchers, but none that I'm aware of that would meet the needs of business leaders/practitioners.
I do suspect it's just a matter of time until the right tools emerge!
I’m not optimistic ;-)
So? How can this be then put into textbooks or any kind of solid medium material and taught, in a non-shamanistic non-oral-only way?
That's the $64K question isn't it!
Absolutely fantastic! I use systems theory to make leverage and extractive vs regenerative systems more accessible to the public (and why we have wealth inequality), but you’ve definitely put me onto weaving this in
This is the choose your own adventure part that honestly makes it fun because there’s no blueprint really (even though everyone wants that certainty) you just have to experiment!
I apologize for coming out of the gate hot. I'm working on these ideas elsewhere, linguag.substack.com/p/they-shoot-horses-dont-they, and am swimming in the process. First, I applaud your effort. What we are discussing here is exactly what we should be doing, talking about evidence and process. I absolutely understand your perspective and i wonder if the micro/macro frame might apply in this case. My perspective is to embrace the complexity and make the most of it in the imperfect pursuit of knowledge, the micro, and you are focusing on communication, how to apply the product of micro analysis to the information needs of decision makers. I agree, I don't see a conflict. I'm very drawn to your phrase "emergence, uncertainty, and limits of control in organizational life." I think there is further room for discussion as I believe my purposeful language model does a good job of balancing both uncertainty and knowledge building.
Awesome - I appreciate your POV, your reply, and I sincerely look forward to the exchange of ideas. Cheers! Aarn
For my perspective, the author simply has a limited expectation of systems thinking. I think it's a mistake to say that a system's perspective assumes a complete understanding and complete control. My approach to systems is the opposite, that the goal of complete control is an illusion. The problem with the classic approach to systems is that it ignores the role language plays in the process. If you fully incorporate the role of language, by definition you're fully incorporating the unconscious as a variable, which goes a long way to filling in the gaps. For me, looking to chaos for the answer starts to brush up against religion. Rather than focusing on the unknown dynamic of variables is if they need to be fixed, it seems the best approach is to accept that language is a finite tool incapable of capturing the infinite.
I think we may be talking past each other. I wasn’t saying that all systems thinkers believe in total control. My point was that when systems theory is applied in organizations, it often gets used as if control and predictability are achievable, and that’s where it breaks down.
That’s why I lean toward complexity: not because systems thinking is “wrong,” but because complexity gives boards and executives a more practical way to work with emergence, uncertainty, and limits of control in organizational life.
Totally agree.
The really malignant consequence of systems thinking is that as the world shifts to a different attractor than your model was tuned to, there is enormous pressure to use capital and political pressure to change the world to maintain the model fiction (regulation, starving competitors, monopolistic behavior).
Systems being what they are, and reality being the truculent beast it is, it doesn’t just change its mind under the pressure. Instead, forces grow as the enterprise resists the change until, when it finally capitulates, the forces unleashed by correction to the attractor are hideous.
Love love love this. Thank you for sharing! This is where I’ve been playing for a little while now — embracing volatility and following what emerges.
So. We are now giving up on 3 million years of history of Humanity trying to adapt its environment to suit itself?Because that's what I am getting from this.