The systemic-constructivist, cybernetic attitude to effectively mastering phases of transformation.
Matter of opinion: “ You can never have problems with the same mindset solve , through which they were created. “(Albert Einstein )
If reading the header and subtitle makes you frown, or if you just can’t begin with the words, you’ve come to the right place with this blog and probably in good company. Nevertheless, please allow yourself and me a few minutes of your valued attention to present this explosive topic in a simplified way so that these perspectives can perhaps help you in everyday life in dealing with complex situations.
Perspectives and terminology. There are many theories and approaches – which of them are “right” or “wrong” is for me a categorization and evaluation that I do not presume. In my personal understanding, the theory is cybernetics According to Norbert Wiener, former professor of mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), it is an “old” theory, but more contemporary than ever before. The word cybernetics itself comes from the ancient Greek “cybernetes”, which means something like “helmsman”, and was already used by Plato for a lot of things related to the subject of “steering by the state”. To describe in simple terms – what the title of one of his important works from 1949, “Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine” says – one would have to quote the British cyberneticist Stefford Beer, who died in 2002: “People want ten words – you can’t say it. ” An attempt at a description in a few words could be started in such a way that Norbert Wiener deals with the problem area of Dealt with regulation and information processing in technical and organic systems and worked out the key question of how complexity can be understood and managed. We are still asking ourselves this question after 70 years …
Cybernetics is also considered to be a bridge between the sciences due to its diverse applicability. The term also became known through the ten pioneering “Macy Conferences” held in New York between 1946 and 1953. This was a gathering of numerous scientists from various disciplines such as psychology, physics, neurophysiology, mathematics, biology, anthropology, etc., in order to develop the new scientific “Meta-discipline cybernetics “as well as defining a common language. Back then, interdisciplinary collaboration was a new, inspiring experience for many of the scholars. This enabled bigger things to come about, and the scientific collaboration between America and Europe could be promoted. This is how it was described by the Viennese physicist Heinz von Foerster, who presented his book “Das Gedächtnis – eine quantum mechanical investigation” at the conferences. Foerster understood that Cybernetics as a perspective and way of approaching a class of problems by one Seeks connections and does not highlight differences. If you look at various questions and problem areas today – from the climate to political events to the pandemic – you notice that the analysis of connections and interactions to capture the complexity is still ignored. It is better to look for a parameter and manipulate it as long as possible – that seems easier.
Towards the end of the Macy conferences, Foerster wrote a book entitled “The Human Use of Human Beings” about the problems that arise in the automation of human society, in particular about philosophical, religious and ethical considerations for the future development of cybernetics. Even then, he was grappling with the question of whether future machines would be smarter than those who built them, and whether machines will dominate people. Another hot topic.
As the founder of management cybernetics by applying cybernetics to every type of organization and its management applies to Stefford Beer. He not only described the natural laws governing the viability of biological and social systems, but also defined the common nature of all natural and man-made organizations, their complexity, the consequences of this and their consequent management. I.In the 1970s he tried to transform Chile into a cybernetic state in order to bring about peace and prosperity there.
Mastering complexity. Here we are at the next frequently used term. Complexity derived from Latin (complexum / complecti) means something like “to embrace, embrace, multilayered or interweave”. In any case, complex is the opposite of simple in the sense of definable and manageable. Peter Ulrich, economist, summarized complexity as follows: The complexity of a situation is characterized by the variety of influencing factors and the extent of their mutual interdependencies, and these are characteristics of difficult-to-structure decision-making situations. In short: if you want to grasp and master complexity, you have to deal with the parameters in a system and the corresponding dependencies, interactions and influences in order to be able to make valid decisions.
However, the complexity of a system increases with the number of elements, the number of links between these elements and the functionality and unmanageability of these links – and that doesn’t work linearly (which we should have understood at the latest with the currently prevailing pandemic). It is therefore clear that the complexity in the control and management of systems has increased massively due to influences such as internationalization, information and communication technologies, etc., and management with tried and tested methods is often not (no longer) sufficiently possible. We have to record and map more and more IT-supported, significantly more process-based interaction and control is necessary in work organizations. And we inevitably have to devote ourselves to understanding how it works – albeit a complex matter!
Systemic and constructivist . If you have made it this far to read this article, you will find that the term system has come up a lot. Basically, the concept of systems goes back to Ludwig von Bertalanffy as one of the most important theoretical biologists and systems theorists of the 20th century, and thus also to the period of the Macy conferences mentioned above. Using general systems theory as an interdisciplinary approach, he tried to find and present fundamental common laws in physical, biological and social systems . Principles of a class of systems such as complexity, balance, feedback and self-organization should also be found in other systems. This means that principles that prevail, for example, in family systems or work organizations also prevail, for example, in states. Like most theories, this system theory has been further developed or specified in, for example, chaos theories, communication theories, etc. Numerous well-known names are to be mentioned here as examples, such as Maturana or Varela, which deal with the Autopoiesis of systems (i.e. the self-creation and maintenance of systems), like Luhmann, dealt with his sociological systems theory in addition to system functionalism in systems in which people interact. Luhmann describes society as the most comprehensive system, which is differentiated into functional systems such as economy, politics, etc. By using differentiation – e.g. right / wrong in legal systems – observe these open systems, and these close by “codes” (own language, special clothing, special rituals, etc.). This phenomenon can also be observed well in work organizations, where e.g. For example, a special language and terminology prevail which make this system “closed” to a certain extent, making it difficult for new employees, for example, to find their way around it at the beginning.
If you are now wondering whether this represented reality is really like that, then you are asking exactly the same question as Paul Watzlawick, a late 20th century Austrian communication scientist. His focus and contribution to the understanding of systems lay on the area of reality as a result of communication and relationships in systems and also on so-called “constructivism” as epistemology. Well-known findings in human communication are, among other things, that we cannot “not communicate” and that communication always has a factual and relational aspect, the latter determining the former.
At this point, at the latest, it is clear that we as individuals are per se a socially complex system, and through our interaction in and with different systems – whether we are children / parents / partners, whether we are employees / superiors, whether we are residents or Are tourists – the complexity that we have to cope with increases. Sometimes we succeed better, sometimes it is more difficult, and in phases of transformation it is particularly challenging due to the high speed and the often lack of perspective. It is systemically like that.
Fell on the dogmmen. Understand organizations as socially complex systems.
The solution lies in redemption. So let us free ourselves from our sometimes prevailing omnipotence fantasies that we can dominate everything and have control, that we can constantly act globally and holistically, whether in the field of health or climate, that we understand everything and have a solution for every problem, or only our personal paradigms are correct and therefore must have general validity. In addition, in many areas we are “operationally blind” and also autopoietic, i.e. system-creating and maintaining. This can be seen particularly well in phases of transformation, such as the current paradigm shift from capitalism as the prevailing constant since the Second World War to whatever new paradigm (socio-ecology, etc.).
A well-known saying goes: “You can only see really well with the heart!” I would also like to add: … and from a distance. It is well known that “you ca n’t see the forest for the trees “. This is only good from a distance, e.g. from a mountain. Therefore, it is also very difficult for work organizations to manage transformation / change internally , because on the one hand there are people in owner / management / expert functions who have created and want to maintain the system in the past, but perhaps “the day after tomorrow” in of the organization are no longer actively involved. At the same time, people act in it with different motives, be it personal self-realization, work as a means of adding value for the financing of personal livelihood, etc. All people as socially complex systems in various roles and functions are part of this system – therefore it is de facto It is impossible to regard the “whole system of the company” as an internal member of the system neutrally from the outside and to redesign or transform it in a purely rational manner. That doesn’t work or only to a limited extent. And beyond that, every socially complex system has a relevant environment that influences its being and acting. So there is still an interaction with the relevant environment, such as with the suppliers “from outside” or the available raw materials or political regulations and even logistical challenges.
In order to record the functioning or the properties, interactions or communication mechanisms in systems – be it in the couple / family area, in work organizations, in clubs, etc. – observation, description and inquiries are the means of choice. This is achieved with the help of an uninvolved observer from the outside in a wide variety of systemic forms and agile methods such as by means of
– Future workshops & strategy forum
– Customer benefit analyzes & core competencies
– System diagnostics and “functional check” of the organization
– Culture and value designs
– Mediation and conflict resolution designs
– Executive sparring and management training
– and much more
In our next blog in the five-part series ” Systhat Pentalogic “, we will explain which dimensions have to be taken into account and how this can work in practice. Weekly with a system – Let’s SYSTHAT !
