Miracles and Nasty Surprises

What Is This Blog?

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:21:47 +0000

This blog is an experiment in presenting an academic work for public commentary. We have taken the web introduction to our book Miracles and Nasty Surprises (found at http://remedy101.com) and converted it into smaller segments. Each segment is available for commentary (call this the talmudic approach).

The book authors (Hugo Letiche, Michael Lissack, and Ron Schultz) reserve the right to contribute their own commentary, to comment on the comments received, and to moderate the comments for relevance.

We welcome your contribution.

Coherence

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:16:53 +0000

Miracles and Nasty Surprises (MITPress forthcoming) looks at the role of coherence and emergence in organizations. Coherence is regarded by many psychologists as critical to day to the day productivity and effectiveness of individuals. Both scholars and managers have adapted this belief to the world of management and organizations. Coherence is regarded as a sign of a well run organization. But, the concept of a coherent thought defined as how well an idea holds together as a single entity gradually breaks down as the scale shifts to individuals, groups, and ultimately larger organizations.

The Role of Emergence

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:16:26 +0000

Adapting to and dealing with emergence is perhaps the most important task facing managers and organizations. Coherence as traditionally defined interferes with that task. We wrote Miracles to begin to address the consequences of the mistaken idea that coherence — in activities, in purpose, in carrying out one’s individual or the organization’s tasks — can be measured by the degree of conformity between the activity, purpose, or task in question and some predefined definition. By restricting the concept of coherence to measurement against definition (what we will call ‘ascribed coherence”) managers and organizations implicitly are restricting their ability to deal with the unknown, the uncertain and the emergent.

We provide another perspective on coherence. Our perspective is rooted in the felt experience of coherence and in the importance of emergence. We call it “emergent coherence.”

Our Reasoning

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:15:45 +0000

This introduction to the work walks you through some of our reasoning. We wish to emphasize that our book is not a discussion about truth. We are not making truth claims. Richard Rorty tells us, “Knowledge is not a matter of getting reality right, but rather a matter of acquiring habits of action for coping with reality.” (By using this quote we are not suggesting we endorse a Rortian point of view. Rather more restrictedly, we like the quote and find it helpful.) In common parlance such coping mechanisms are called “models.” This book calls for managers and members of organizations to make use of some very different models as part of their coping mechanisms.

Characteristics of Our World

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:13:40 +0000

Let us begin by describing some of the characteristics that people attribute to the world we live in. It is not an all-inclusive list, and its components may actually conflict with one another, but people use each of these descriptions in describing the world. To some, the world is God-given, fixed and stable. To others, it is slowly evolving. To still others, it is alterable by man … filled with the unpredictable, emergent, chaotic or random. What Kind of World Do We Live In?

· God Given, Fixed and Stable· Slowly Evolving· Alterable by Man· Filled With the Unpredictable· Emergent· Chaotic· Random

This list can be separated into categories. These categories are distinguishable on the basis of the models that we use to simplify reality. To managers, to people concerned with organizations, the list breaks down such that they are most comfortable with the top four items. The world might be God-given, fixed and stable. Maybe it’s slowly evolving. Clearly, if something happens it’s alterable by man. The challenge of management, the thing they hate the most, is that it’s filled with the unpredictable. Complexity theory suggests that the bottom four elements seem to be more applicable. The emergent, chaotic and random can be added to “filled with the unpredictable”. There is thus a divergence here between what complexity theory suggests is important and what managers believe is important. Remember, this difference is not about truth claims. It is about how we cope with reality.

Codes

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:13:05 +0000

Part of coping has to do with how we use words. In terms of language, the things that appeal to managers also are things that allow us to make use of codes. Codes are items that, in theory at least, have a one-to-one mapping with something in a hypothetical lookup table. If one was omniscient and could write the lookup table that encompassed the entire world and thus knew everything, in theory, there should be a code that would match every item and could be looked up. We do not believe that such a codebook exists.

But, we observe there are plenty of people, especially managers, who when they speak seem to believe in that codebook. Such people speak as if they are speaking in code, and as if everyone listening has a copy of the codebook. When they use a word, they believe that all of their listeners know exactly what was meant because, in theory, this codebook is out there. With that belief, the manager is free to speak in code. Indeed, if the world were fixed and stable or only slowly evolving, there is even a reasonable possibility that the codebook could work. Codes can be looked at as an ascribed label. One can assign a label to something, and it’ll match the codebook.

Cues

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:12:29 +0000

Complexity theory has its own approach to language. The complexity approach to language suggests that many of the signs we exchange are not codes, but cues. This approach suggests that the meaning is triggered inside the head of the perceiver and that there is some set of history, background, culture, environment, context in which the perceiver is operating. When the cue is given, the cue triggers meaning. Cues do not have one-to-one lookup tables, so cues are very different from codes.

We believe that managers and organizations need to recognize the power of cues.

Explanations

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:11:55 +0000

People differ in what they accept as constituting an “explanation.” There are people who believe that explanation consists of assigning or ascribing a label to something, and once one knows what category it’s in, one has explained it. There are other people who are far more concerned with understanding mechanism. How do things work? How do things come to be? To the first group, explanation is equivalent to ascribing a label, and once one has the label, the label has explained something. The second group vigorously disagrees. Labels are not mechanisms. These people need narratives that can deal with the emergence of the context. An explanation or a mechanism that works in a fixed world may not work in a changing world. People in the second group thus need to keep having narrative retold in current context. We believe that the ascribed label “coherent” is not enough.

Themes

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:11:16 +0000

The astute reader will notice that so far in our narrative management, codes and ascribed labels have all gone together. Complexity theory, cues and emergent narratives have all gone together.

Making Sense of the World

remedy101 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:10:09 +0000

We believe that one traditional function of management is to create intentional coherence. To do this, management attempts to provide enough labels and codes to the organization and its members so that an observer might ascribe the label “coherent” to the organization and its activities. This perspective suggests that the use of labels helps people to have some actionable view of the world. We go back to the Rorty quote. We need a way of reducing the world enough that we can cope and act. Labels form a very valuable role in limiting the world. From the traditional management perspective, one engages in activity for the purpose of applying intention and having it be coherent. Complexity takes a different view. Emergence happens. Activity occurs in a context where emergence happens.