|
i The [CDE] model has theoretical implications for human systems because it provides a simple, comprehensive, and consistent approach to understanding human system behaviors in widely diverse contexts. The model has practical implications as a coherent framework to compare and contrast a variety of traditional and innovative organizational interventions.
p.1 A complex adaptive system (CAS) consists of a large number of interdependent agents whose interactions over time establish system-wide patterns of behavior (Dooley, 1996). This process of structure development is variously known as emergence (Goldstein, 1999) or self-organization (Prigogine, 1988). Scholars and practitioners have investigated the process of self-organizing in human systems by observing and recording its progress (Guastello, 1995), designing computer simulation models (Kaplan & Glass, 1995), and describing outcomes of the process (Bak, 1996). These investigations have been sufficient to indicate that human systems do spontaneously generate structures, but they have not produced an integrative model to explain how the processes progress.
p.3 To intervene wisely, it is not sufficient to know that a system has self-organized or that it is self-organizing. In order to influence the path of self-organizing, the practitioner must understand how the emerging patterns are determined by the interactions of the agents in the system. In order to investigate the process, researchers must have a theoretical model that establishes reasonable hypotheses about the mechanics of the self-organizing process in human systems (Lichtenstein, in press).
p.3 This study investigates a model (CDE Model) for self-organizing in human systems. The purpose of the model is to provide a set of meta-variables that describe the emerging dynamics of a human complex adaptive system. Because this model is simple and integrated, it will support organization development practitioners who want to understand the self-organizing nature of their systems. The model will support design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions that work with self-organizing processes to help increase system-wide coherence of human systems.
p.4 If a complex adaptive systems view of human systems dynamics is to be a useful and enduring paradigm, rather than a fad (Stacey, et al., 2000), a coherent model will be required. The model will reliably describe the behavior of complex human systems, integrate insights from a variety of disciplines, and differentiate among the wide array of models and tools used to intervene in human systems.
p.5 The purpose of this study is to propose and investigate a model that describes the conditions that shape the rate, path, and outcomes of self-organization in human systems... it brings together the principles of existing and diverse theoretical models of self-organization from mathematics, physical and social sciences to establish a hypothesis about hos the system-wide patterns emerge... it provides a simple model to help participants in CASs understand the complex processes and outcomes of self-organizing... it provides a foundation for responsible action within a CAS... Hypothetically the model may be informative for understanding and action within human systems at any scale and in any context.
p.6 The study is a theoretical contribution to the field of human systems dynamics, a field of research and practice related to processes that generate and maintain structures and relationships within human collectives.
p.9 the current theoretical grounding of the work will be based on literature drawn from the fields of nonlinear dynamics, complex adaptive systems, and chaos theory.
p.16 The [CDE] model of the conditions for self-organizing human systems emerged over a period of twelve years and myriad experiences.
p.16-18 From 1972 through 1976 this writer studied the Great Books at St. John's College in Santa Fe, New Mexico... Of the many queries posed during this researcher's education at St. John's, two major questions arose that were related to the development of the model for self-organizing systems. The first is framed in Plato's Sophist and concerns the relationships between same and different, being and not being, and knowing and not knowing. The creative tensions between and among these pairs generates, for Plato, the reality that we use to make meaning as a society. These same distinctions appeared to be central to the self-organizing dynamics observed as groups tried to work together. How do differences enrich understanding? How do similarities hold groups together? How can agreement be reached on what does and does not exist as relevant to workplace practices? Of what can one be certain, and what remains unknowable at this time and place? Ultimately these questions made their way into the model as significant "differences," "containers," and transforming "exchanges."
The second fundamental question dealt primarily with change and its causes. Hegel (1807) introduced the possibility that change emerged from the creation and engagement of opposites. The thesis generates its antithesis spontaneously. Engagement between thesis and antithesis results in the emergence of the synthesis. The dialectical mode of creation became, for this writer, a model of emergent behavior that helped to describe the mechanism of exchange between significant differences resulting in new, system-wide patterns of meaning or behavior.
p.27 Self-organization is the process by which a system generates new system-wide patterns over time based on the system's internal dynamics... As a structuration process, self-organizing differs from others because the new patterns are not designed outside and imposed on the system, but they are generated by the interactions of the system's agents with each other over time. Because system boundaries in a CAS are multiple, fluid, and massively entangled, the "internal interactions" happen at various scales and interlocking patterns emerge at various places across the system and throughout the time period of the self-organizing process.
p.31 Not all self-organizing processes, however, lead to coherent behavior at a particular level or scale.
p.32 Perhaps, at some level of system structuration, the same conditions shape self-organizing in both human and physical systems
p.32 Self-organizing processes are essentially value neutral. There is no guarantee that the results of an emergent process will be better or worse than the previous state or any other alternative state.
p.33 As a guide to action and evaluation, these three criteria serve to distinguish successful interventions from unsuccessful ones... Ultimately, fit with the environment is the gauge of survival and success for self-organizing systems
p.34 The research and on-going experiences described above led to the emergence of a model to describe the rate, path, and outcomes of self-organizing processes in human systems. The model establishes a set of three meta-variables whose coupled interactions, through time, shape the patterns that emerge from nonlinear dynamics in human systems. The meta-variables, defined as the conditions for self-organizing in human systems, constitute three dimensions: Container, significant difference, transforming exchange.
p.38 Agent attention or focus determines which dimension is significant at any moment and how difference along that dimension will affect the system. Many differences can exist in the system at one time and not be active in shaping the self-organizing process.
p.40 The three conditions are meta-variables for system definition... The conditions will also be different from one time to another in any one of these domains, but every self-organizing system must have locally-determined characteristics that hold it together (container), establish a potential for change (significant differences), and transfer resources from one part of the system to another (transforming exchanges).
In addition to affecting the dynamics of the whole, each of the conditions affects the other two in unpredictable ways.
p.41 The interdependencies among the three conditions are unpredictable... but some patterns of dependence can be anticipated... each of the conditions shapes the self-organizing process, each is also shaped by the process as it progresses. As patterns emerge, they exaggerate or weaken the container, differences, or exchanges that are possible. These new conditions then affect the future iterations of the self-organizing process.
p.43-44 The CDE model... First, it provides a description of what happens in self-organizing processes between initial and final states... to establish the path (sequence of events), speed or outcome patterns of the process. Second, the CDE Model provides a description that is sufficiently abstract to be generalizable. The meta-variables [JLJ - container, differences, exchanges]... relate... to the underlying relationships that shape the process, regardless of context. Third, existing theories focus on one or another of the conditions (container, difference, exchange) to the exclusion of others. For example, Stacey's "complex responsive processes" (2001) focus on exchange, attractor reconstruction (Guastello, 1995) focuses [on] differences, patches (Kauffman, 1995) focuses on containers. The CDE model, however brings all of these conditions into a single explanatory model.
p.44 The path of the self-organizing process depends on the massively entangled containers that exist between and among the system agents... The speed of the self-organizing process is shaped by the three conditions as well.
p.45 weak exchange relationships among agents have limited effectiveness, so more exchanges are required to establish the new pattern. Because each exchange takes place in time, the total time of the self-organizing process is extended. On the other hand, small and clear containers, minimal magnitude and number of differences, and tight exchange relationships speed up the self-organizing processes.
p.45 Container, difference, and exchange are the conditions that shape the path of the self-organizing processes. Self-organizing is the process that moves from one state of coherence to another.
p.46 Containers, differences, and exchanges are the meta-variables in the context that influence individual exchanges to form system-wide patterns over time. The path, speed, and outcomes of the self-organizing process are shaped by the system containers, differences, and exchanges, so they constitute the "conditions" for self-organizing... In the absence of any one of the conditions, the self-organizing process would not generate any new system-wide patterns, so all three of the conditions must be necessary to the self-organizing process.
p.47 The CDE Model is also sufficient to shape the path, speed, and outcomes of the self-organizing process. All of the critical factors that are present and shape the behavior in the self-organizing process of human systems function as one or another of the conditions. All factors either establish a system boundary (container), support transfer of information, material, or energy (exchange), or articulate tensions in the system (difference).
p.50-161 [Study... long]
p.160-161 In addition to supporting the stated hypotheses, other insights emerged from the study. They are summarized below.
- No single condition or combination of conditions can be relied upon for predictable success in all instances.
- Interventions that affect the conditions for self-organizing can shift the coherence of the system in unexpected ways or at unexpected scales.
- The relative strengths of competing containers influence the success of interventions based on the CDE Model.
- CDE Model interventions can be successful at various levels of organizational structure (concept, team, institution, or community).
- Any of the three conditions can be used to design successful interventions.
- Multiple intervention methods can be used to influence the conditions for self-organizing.
- CDE Model interventions can be successful in a variety of environments, including non-profits, government, for-profits, religious, and informal organizations. [JLJ - what about machines playing games? Hmmm...]
p.162 The CDE Model provides an integrated, flexible, and simple foundation to support development of organizational theory, practical understanding of specific organizational contexts, and effective design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions intended to enhance the effectiveness of organizational processes.
p.165 In at least the final third of the instances, the CDE Model was used as a predictive tool to support design and implementation of interventions.
p.168 Practical Implications
Many aspects of organizational development have emerged as practices with conflicting or incoherent theoretical foundations. The CDE Model can provide a theoretical grounding to organizational intervention that is simple, flexible, and generalizable... Because the CDE Model involves meta-variables to describe the dynamics of self-organizing processes, it can be generalized across types of organizations, levels of organizational interaction, disciplinary languages, and cultural contexts... Whatever the specifics of a given situation, the nonlinear and emergent dynamics of the CDE Model serve to describe the paths and products of the system as it emerges.
p.169 the conditions for self-organizing can be used to evaluate the readiness of a system for a new level of self-organizing coherence. The current states of the conditions for self-organizing and the stability of the previously self-organized structures will provide information about what interventions are likely to be successful in a given context at a given time... In terms of evaluation, the CDE Model can also be used to define, measure, and investigate the characteristic of "organizational effectiveness." In a given situation, the containers, differences, exchanges, and level of coherence can provide insights into productive ways to operationalize the concept of organizational effectiveness... This approach will generate new ways... to articulate possible interventions that positively affect effectiveness of an organization internally and in relationship to the larger environmental system of which it is a part.
p.178-179 Is the CDE Model applicable to self-organizing processes in physical systems? ...Though the current study is limited to the process as it appears in human systems, perhaps the conditions can be generalized to provide a coherent and integrated model for complex adaptive systems behaviors when the agents have no conscious or rational awareness of their interactions and their environments.
p.179 In summary, the CDE Model provides a simple and generalizable framework to describe the emergent behavior of human collectives.
p.180 Conclusion This study has introduced the CDE Model for the conditions that shape self-organizing in human systems and investigated how the model was used to assess, intervene in, and evaluate eighteen organizational development instances. This limited research sample has supported the hypothesis that the CDE Model is useful in studying and intervening in the complex dynamics of human systems.
|
