[Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?

[Roger Davies]

Hi Cheri,

It helps me to define a system as something that has a predictable outcome
to a given stimulus. That's maybe a little different from how it's defined
in some systems thinking texts. I define an organization as something that
can react differently depending upon any number of stimuli. There is
predictability in a system but there can be many predictable cause and
effect relationships. An automobile is a very complex system but it is not
an organization.

Cause and effect is narrow in scope and definable in a system but has a
multiplicity of possibilities in an organization. I do not think that we
have the ability to model every possibility of outcome within an
organization. It is therefore not possible for us to exactly define cause
and effect relationships within an organization even if they exist. There
are behaviors (effects) that appear more frequently than others but none are
guaranteed. 

We apply systems to our organizations in order to try and generate
consistent outcomes (laws, regulations, customs, quality systems, etc) but
very few, if any system, can be applied in every circumstance. My own view
is that a defined system would ultimately be unnecessary if everyone shared
a sufficiently deep set of values and the ability to make good decisions
based on those values. It's still very hard to break away from the system
idea though. But I think that's what's necessary in organizations and what
John was getting at. We have to focus on none-system values and behaviors in
order to move organizations sustainably forward. Some activities need
systems some don't. I think that we should be looking for consistently good
decision making rather than repeated, dogmatic decisions forced by applying
strict systems. It's still measurable, the focus is very different though.

It's a big subject and requires a good theoretical argument to demonstrate
why it's different from a system way of thinking and why it's more effective
in certain cases. We need to apply a system perspective where it's valid and
an organization perspective where it's valid. Too often we cling to system
thinking due to a lack of alternative and an inherent degree of comfort with
the idea that we can predict the outcome (and if it goes wrong it wasn't our
fault). Does that make sense?

Roger


-----Original Message-----
From: Cheri Torres [mailto:cheri at mobileteamchallenge.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:49 AM
To: 'Roger Davies'; 'Nancy Stetson'
Cc: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: RE: [Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?


Roger,

To Nancy's point, perhaps the difficulty in seeing beyond a cause and effect
model is the same struggle in understanding integral systems (at least it is
still a struggle for me).  Cause and effect, for me, belongs in the paradigm
that resonates with dualism--linearity--parts of a whole--time and
space--mechanistic thinking.  The paradigm associated with social
constructionism--synergy--whole as greater than the sum of the
parts--generativity does seem to call for a different way of assessing or
understanding.  

I think we will always be able to see or point to correlated aspects of
change processes that may look like cause and effect, and yet I wonder
whether we are missing the real "mechanism" because we are looking at the
parts and not at the dynamics of a system that allows for emergence.

What do you think?

Cheri