CHANGE. UNREASON— WHAT *TODAY'S* REASON CANNOT ACCEPT. THE BRAIN AND MUSCLE OF A CORPORATION.
------------------------------
Excerpted and re-mixed from: https://www.pangaro.com/ashby+design-for-self-regenerating-corporation.htm Caution: ---- the bad example of Einstein. See Bergson's Duration and Simultaneity for a rebuttal of Einstein's confusion.
Excerpted and re-mixed from: https://www.pangaro.com/ashby+design-for-self-regenerating-corporation.htm Caution: ---- the bad example of Einstein. See Bergson's Duration and Simultaneity for a rebuttal of Einstein's confusion.
----------------------------
Consider the context of efficiency, minimizing bio-cost, a low level of learning, the now-domain of reason. In that context, a major regenerative [anti-aging] corporate change, a new truth is relative unreason. It is very threatening, and consequently is dismissed.
The desirability of regenerative change is frequently invoked in the political sphere in organizations: ‘we must change, we must be a learning organization, the only constant thing is change’, etc. In the context of the personal self-interest of the speaker, this all sounds good; but, in practice, talk about change does not make the distinction between old and new language, and does not enter the field of action. One could ask, do the CEO and his like-speaking administration believe that they should be eliminated by natural selection?
Survival depends on the detection and correction of errors. But what of the second-order errors, where a discontinuous change, a different class of behaviors, is required to survive, and the current language is not capable of expressing the error? When new errors fall outside the local limitations of language, the social system is at risk. The corporation is doing the wrong things, its version of the truth is faulty, and the individuals inside the corporation ‘don’t know that they don’t know’ [von Foerster 1973].
Example. The mode of productivity of the ‘Old Economy’, the Industrial Age (up to 1970), was based on the reduction in the cost of a unit of work. This is simply an amplification of the muscles. This was discussable, thinkable, and all the cogent actions of the corporation reflected this truth: the business plan, investments, and market strategies. However, there has been a major shift, noticed but not yet explained by Alan Greenspan and other economists, because:
- The mode of productivity in the ‘New Economy’ is based on the reduction in the cost of reducing uncertainty. This is simply an amplification of the nervous system. [Good luck switching!-]
Single-loop learning: detect and correct errors, as confined by the existing belief system, in order to dynamically stay essentially the same. For example, `productivity depends on lower-cost work, so we must invest in more efficient machines.’ [Or have a new logo, smoother than the 20 year old one].
· Double-loop learning: detect and correct errors in the belief system itself. The process requires the development of a new set of Social Essential Variables, which means a change in the business theory—a change in ‘the truth’—and a change in the interpretation of ‘productivity now’, for example, to lowering of cost of reducing uncertainty.
Each of three classes can be construed as the domain of an individual or a group, that is, each class of change is carried out by a different type of individual. This is because the belief system, the values, self-interest, and overt behavior of these three classes are quite different. For example, individuals focused on changes for efficiency have no ‘space’ to consider the issues of invention. It is outside their style and focus, no less outside their language. Lifestyles, ‘life meaning’, the way in which they achieve satisfaction differs markedly.
Coming to a new understanding is hard. Consider the bio-cost to a single individual to learn a new language, change an entire belief system, change what is considered the truth, change the manner of making a living—all factors which are conserved [Maturana, Varela 1992].
Now think of such a change at the social level, which is on the order of a 2n-type problem because the system is relational—each subsystem has to interact with all others, and each subsystem has internal relations of the same order. Consider these circumstances and reflect on the total bio-cost—time, energy, attention, stress—to change what is in place, while staying alive.
The forces that maintain the status quo in the social system are huge. Here are three possible ways to bring about regenerative change in the face of them.
1. Machiavelli/(coronavirus?): We kill the Prince and all those around him that speak the truth as he does. The new Prince brings with him the new truth. This, for example, is what happened at IBM when Lou Gerstner became CEO in the 1990s where he made huge changes at great social cost—the sale of social assets in the form of layoffs for thousands of employees, including those that spoke the old truth.
2. Philosopher Prince: There may exist a ‘Prince’ who has a dream and owns the truth, and who can move the entire strategic discussion from his existing position. The approach is to allow the old and still to build the new. As unlikely as this sounds, it does happen, as for example famously in the case of Nokia, which began as a totally different company, holding discussions about wood, rubber, manufacturing electrical cables, etc. Based on the CEO’s ability to change the truth, there evolved discourses about cell phones and social communication, and thereby a new business was conceived. A new truth, a separate new social system, was created.
3. By Design (the Queen)?: We believe that it is possible, based on the understanding outlined in this presentation, working from Ashby through to Foucault and Maturana, that it is possible in principle to bring about regenerative change in an existing organization, including a change in the mode of productivity from mass/energy solutions to information solutions—as we put it earlier, from reduction in the unit-cost of work, to reduction in the unit-cost of reducing uncertainty. We don’t know that this has ever been done—and we think we have shown the reasons why it is so unlikely, especially without the insights and prescriptions that arise after years of living in and reflecting on the organizations in question. The normal structure of the corporation excludes a route of internal, transformative change ‘by design.’ R&D is subject to the existing Prince and is limited by the language of the Prince. The Prince is constrained by his need to portray a bright future right now. He lives in the land of efficiencies and urgency of today, where he defines his self-interest and his history and the history of the organization. If the Prince does not know that he does not know, he therefore thinks he knows. But, have no doubt, if not inside then, someone outside the current social system will take the leap, hastening the selecting out of the old system.
Unlike the Prince, the Queen lives in the land of new semantic spaces. She is well aware of the new spaces for discovery that are being opened. She is aware of their potential and can speak new language.
Consider the context of efficiency, minimizing bio-cost, a low level of learning, the now-domain of reason. In that context, a major regenerative [anti-aging] corporate change, a new truth is relative unreason. It is very threatening, and consequently is dismissed.
The desirability of regenerative change is frequently invoked in the political sphere in organizations: ‘we must change, we must be a learning organization, the only constant thing is change’, etc. In the context of the personal self-interest of the speaker, this all sounds good; but, in practice, talk about change does not make the distinction between old and new language, and does not enter the field of action. One could ask, do the CEO and his like-speaking administration believe that they should be eliminated by natural selection?
Survival depends on the detection and correction of errors. But what of the second-order errors, where a discontinuous change, a different class of behaviors, is required to survive, and the current language is not capable of expressing the error? When new errors fall outside the local limitations of language, the social system is at risk. The corporation is doing the wrong things, its version of the truth is faulty, and the individuals inside the corporation ‘don’t know that they don’t know’ [von Foerster 1973].
Example. The mode of productivity of the ‘Old Economy’, the Industrial Age (up to 1970), was based on the reduction in the cost of a unit of work. This is simply an amplification of the muscles. This was discussable, thinkable, and all the cogent actions of the corporation reflected this truth: the business plan, investments, and market strategies. However, there has been a major shift, noticed but not yet explained by Alan Greenspan and other economists, because:
- The mode of productivity in the ‘New Economy’ is based on the reduction in the cost of reducing uncertainty. This is simply an amplification of the nervous system. [Good luck switching!-]
Single-loop learning: detect and correct errors, as confined by the existing belief system, in order to dynamically stay essentially the same. For example, `productivity depends on lower-cost work, so we must invest in more efficient machines.’ [Or have a new logo, smoother than the 20 year old one].
· Double-loop learning: detect and correct errors in the belief system itself. The process requires the development of a new set of Social Essential Variables, which means a change in the business theory—a change in ‘the truth’—and a change in the interpretation of ‘productivity now’, for example, to lowering of cost of reducing uncertainty.
Each of three classes can be construed as the domain of an individual or a group, that is, each class of change is carried out by a different type of individual. This is because the belief system, the values, self-interest, and overt behavior of these three classes are quite different. For example, individuals focused on changes for efficiency have no ‘space’ to consider the issues of invention. It is outside their style and focus, no less outside their language. Lifestyles, ‘life meaning’, the way in which they achieve satisfaction differs markedly.
Coming to a new understanding is hard. Consider the bio-cost to a single individual to learn a new language, change an entire belief system, change what is considered the truth, change the manner of making a living—all factors which are conserved [Maturana, Varela 1992].
Now think of such a change at the social level, which is on the order of a 2n-type problem because the system is relational—each subsystem has to interact with all others, and each subsystem has internal relations of the same order. Consider these circumstances and reflect on the total bio-cost—time, energy, attention, stress—to change what is in place, while staying alive.
The forces that maintain the status quo in the social system are huge. Here are three possible ways to bring about regenerative change in the face of them.
1. Machiavelli/(coronavirus?): We kill the Prince and all those around him that speak the truth as he does. The new Prince brings with him the new truth. This, for example, is what happened at IBM when Lou Gerstner became CEO in the 1990s where he made huge changes at great social cost—the sale of social assets in the form of layoffs for thousands of employees, including those that spoke the old truth.
2. Philosopher Prince: There may exist a ‘Prince’ who has a dream and owns the truth, and who can move the entire strategic discussion from his existing position. The approach is to allow the old and still to build the new. As unlikely as this sounds, it does happen, as for example famously in the case of Nokia, which began as a totally different company, holding discussions about wood, rubber, manufacturing electrical cables, etc. Based on the CEO’s ability to change the truth, there evolved discourses about cell phones and social communication, and thereby a new business was conceived. A new truth, a separate new social system, was created.
3. By Design (the Queen)?: We believe that it is possible, based on the understanding outlined in this presentation, working from Ashby through to Foucault and Maturana, that it is possible in principle to bring about regenerative change in an existing organization, including a change in the mode of productivity from mass/energy solutions to information solutions—as we put it earlier, from reduction in the unit-cost of work, to reduction in the unit-cost of reducing uncertainty. We don’t know that this has ever been done—and we think we have shown the reasons why it is so unlikely, especially without the insights and prescriptions that arise after years of living in and reflecting on the organizations in question. The normal structure of the corporation excludes a route of internal, transformative change ‘by design.’ R&D is subject to the existing Prince and is limited by the language of the Prince. The Prince is constrained by his need to portray a bright future right now. He lives in the land of efficiencies and urgency of today, where he defines his self-interest and his history and the history of the organization. If the Prince does not know that he does not know, he therefore thinks he knows. But, have no doubt, if not inside then, someone outside the current social system will take the leap, hastening the selecting out of the old system.
Unlike the Prince, the Queen lives in the land of new semantic spaces. She is well aware of the new spaces for discovery that are being opened. She is aware of their potential and can speak new language.
Comments
Post a Comment