A list of content that inspires or encourages a more profound thought. Expect no form, structure, or reasoning here.
This place is also vital to provide references and drive attention to the areas that have led me to these concepts. I want to be very clear; I am on a personal journey to explore the application of Complexity Theory, Emotional Intelligence, and Meditation as a set of skills to define a meta position for leadership.
Why is "theory based practice" a useful approach when transforming culture?
Practice without theory is random chance. Theory without practice is ineffective.
- Traditional management consultant practices often suggest that when professionals apply a technique it will yeild the results they sought to achieve. This is type of practice fails often because the practice being shared is provided without context in a context specific world.
- Recommends that to build methods and tools that are coherant to what we understand from biology. In other words, effective management science should be designed and applied in such a way that leans into how the mind, body and the environment work.
- Do things consistent to the theory's presented by complexity science, instead of a method.
- Naturalizing Sense Making: The process of establishing an understanding of the world for the sake of acting in it.
- Basing management practice in natural science allows for the management practice to be validated through a scientific approach.
When you declare your purpose you cannot trust how people respond.
You are better reinforcing things which go in the right direction once they start to move than declaring what you want. The more important you are the more certain you are to get what you asked for even if reality does not match it. (Cobra effect)
- Butterfly effect: Something very small in one occasion combined with other very small things can create a large effect.
When is a system ready to change, because only them should you do novel things.
- Hawthorne effect: Single pilots are more or less dangerous because they are guaranteed to work yet they cannot scale. Cynefin teaches us to run multiple micro pilots that contridict each other.
Dave Snowden: | Agile to agility | Miljan Bajic | Episode #7
In complexity you describe the present you identify where you can move so you start your journey with a sense of direction and you don't have goals because goals means you focus on goal achievement and you'd miss opportunities you would find on the journey.
When you give a team a deadline someway or another they magically achieve it, when you ask them to apply their best endeavors somewhere or another you never get anything.
Shifting systems towards equity by applying everyday patterns. I understand equity as fair or equal.
They describe Public Service organizations as patterns of relationships, resourcing, and power. These patterns have served human systems well, but they have also dealt damage to others and continue to do so. Instead of filling gaps or handing out solutions, the shift focuses on providing education and enablement.
This sounds like we want to spend more time coaching people, not simply trying to patch their lives with the things they are missing.
"So if we want to change systems, then we need first to observe or at least begin to understand the patterns underpinning it"
System change starts first by taking the time to understand the system by seeking out the patterns that support it. (Question: what types of patterns will we find? How will we know we have appropriately classified a pattern?)
The term "Structures" was offered to describe the components of a system that keep an organization together.
The Visible + Experienced over Invisible + Experienced diagram is quite informative. The descriptions of Structures, Practices, Spaces + Interactions, Behaviors, Mindsets, and Values are all worth referencing.
We prefer systems that can flourish over those that can survive.
We have to have a sense of the current state of a system before performing experiments to move it along on its journey to flourish. We mistake naivety or poor results as dysfunctions in the design, but instead, these should be considered the new starting point. What is the next possible state for this system to bring it closer to self-sustaining on the merits of the broader organization? I fear more often, plans displaying a lack of maturity in their target objectives will be shunned or rejected before they are nourished and provided the materials they need to reach the point of self-reliance.
Natures Design: The Biology of Survival
- Provides definitions and figures that define the difference between Ontological and Epistemological Emergence.
Stuart Kauffman - Is Emergence Fundamental?
- Emergence is underappreciated, added adjective, "Radical Emergence."
- Traditional evolutionary thinking relies on hindsight but cannot predict what could be possible.
- Not all possible combinations of things can or will ever occur.
- I first heard the terms "Ontological Emergence" and "Epistemological Emergence," Ontological Emergence is a novel concept that is not reducible to its constituent parts. (I need to spend more time with Ontology and Epistemology - be warned, I may have these terms confused)
- Possible adjacent niches: Cryptography, Virtual Reality. The difference between these modern adjacencies is they are vying to be depended on in a meaningful way. The existence of these possible adjacent niches fosters an environment for, dare I say, radical emergence - as participants, however, may not be precisely apparent to us.
- What role do "imagination" and "curiosity" play within these definitions?
- "Nobody could have seen the invention of Facebook when the computer was invented."