30th November 2006 | Draft
Distinguishing Levels and Patterns of Strategic Obsolescence
-- / --
Annex 1 of
Governance
through Patterning Language: creative cognitive engagement contrasted with
abdication of responsibility (2006)
Introduction
Strategy 1: Denial and positive thinking
Strategy 2: Polarization and demonization
Strategy 3: Pre-emptive / Defensive appeals
Strategy 4: Filtering and gatekeeping -- beyond denial
Strategy 5: Project Logic
Strategy 6: Patterning capacity challenges
Introduction
The intention here is to present a sequence of governance strategies, which
continue to be widely used but reflect various forms of inadequacy in response
to recognized challenges. The sequence is ordered from those most frequently
used and understood through to subtler and more complex strategic patterns.
The approach is designed to highlight the need to move beyond cognitive detachment
from strategies to one requiring a higher order of cognitive engagement in
strategies (as explored in Annex 2: Creative
Cognitive Engagement: beyond the limitations of descriptive patterning).
Strategy 1: Denial and positive thinking
The most obvious strategy is that of denial. Many see the leadership of different institutions, from which leadership is expected, as being in denial. This takes a variety of forms:
- news management may simply be used to suppress problematic information and to highlight information indicative of progress
- emphasis may be placed on the degree of incremental achievement, of marginal improvement, and on the selective presentation of information to note genuine examples of improvement however unrepresentative they may be
- so-called "positive thinking" may be used to legitimate the case
for seeing "the glass as half-full" rather than seeing "the
glass as half-empty" (cf Being
Positive and Avoiding Negativity: management challenge of positive vs
negative,
2005 ).
It has been argued that an extreme example of this has been Donald Rumsfeld:
Rumsfeld had become one of the chief
engines of the notion that insisting on a particular version of reality
in Iraq would somehow
cause that version to be manifested. It was the power of positive thinking,
as applied to geopolitics, and by 2005 it had gone too far
for a slew of retired generals, who joined the call for Rumsfeld to
resign (Oliver Burkeman, Rumsfeld's
Progress, Guardian, 10 November 2006)
Essentially positive thinking avoids situations to which it may not
be able to claim to be successful, obliging others to deal
with them when they reach crisis proportions. As an example of dualistic
thinking, positive-negative makes the point that in order to be positive,
the negative must be held at bay, preferably by denying its very existence
or framing it as totally inappropriate. It effectively becomes dependent
on negativity elsewhere (***).
These approaches effectively make of my world a Potemkin society (cf Globalization
within a Global Potemkin Society, 2000 ). They:
- encourage those in conditions
of deprivation and pain to see the positive side of their lives rather than
empowering them to act to remedy their condition,
- encourage those responsible
for withholding remedial action to view their action as appropriate in providing
learning opportunities,
- make me dependent on secretive agencies and secret services to expend unaccounted
funds on keeping the "scenery" in place,
- allow me to believe that my attitude is appropriate
to the condition of my planet.
Just what is it that I am denying?
Strategy 2: Polarization and demonization
The challenge of polarization and dualistic thinking has long been widely acknowledged (cf Documents relating to Polarization, Dilemmas and Duality). It has been central to the mode of operation of religions down the centuries. The recent consequence has been the incoporation of this thinking into the emerging strategies of faith-based governance (Future Challenge of Faith-based Governance, 2003). "Our" religion is always that of the "good" people (whatever the human vunerability to "sin"), whereas "their" religion is always that of the "evil" people (whether or not this is simply framed as "misguided"). Demonization readily prevails in the organizations of crusades and jihads against the unbelievers.
Such polarization acquired an acute form in the justification for the "war on terror". The dimensionality of civilized discourse has been reduced to the binary limitations of "Us-or-Them" logic -- even for the best and the brightest (Colin Powell, Hilary Clinton, etc), from whom more might have been expected (cf Being Bushed: multiple personality disorder in a globalized religious flatland, 2001). It is possible that this strategy has been deliberately adopted by them in order to simplify the challenges of controlling a complex society -- widely acknowledged to be ungovernable.
Identifying "terrorists" as demonic simplifies the governance challenge of prioritizing and mobilizing resources (cf Promoting a Singular Global Threat -- Terrorism: Strategy of choice for world governance, 2002). There is no question of recognizing the much-cited wisdom of the Walt Kelly Pogo cartoon: 'We have met the enemy and he is us'.
Strategy 3: Pre-emptive / Defensive appeals
There are explicit calls for "new ideas", "new thinking" and "new
paradigms". Many are on offer as proprietary models or under the patronage
of their originators (perhaps to be heroically and humorously caricatured by
the movie "Those
Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines") -- or even within
secretive societies of elites. For some it is only a question of learning appropriately
from such sources -- and overcoming misguided resistance to the dissemination
of their insights.
There is a belief in the capacity of "creative intelligence", notably
of the "cultural creatives" or
even of the "indigo
children". Networks
and centres of "excellence" are
estabished to facilitate their activity. However, their remedial capacity in
response to the conditions of the planet would appear to be marginal at best
-- however much one may hope for the multiplier and synergy effects of their
initiatives as they accumulate (Meta-challenges
of the Future: for Networking through Think-tanks, 2005) . On the
other hand, many hope for divine intervention and welcome the deteriorating
planetary conditions as more likely to evoke such intervention.
Curiously these appeals enable institutions to effectively "outsource" the
creativity for which they are appealing. In particular they make those manifesting
some degree of creativity responsible for proving (with their own resources)
the relevance of their creativity to the mindset of the instititution making
such appeals. There is no question of the institution empowering itself to
detect creativity, and "out-of-the-box" solutions, irrespective of whether it
is in response to some such appeal. This process builds significant lags into
the institutional response to change -- and legitimates the tardy rate at which
it does so. It is a design for postponement and incrementalism -- with results
evident in the track record of many institutions claiming to be at the forefront
of change (as with the Vatican policy on contraceptives, notably in relation to AIDS).
The challenge has been well described by John
Ralston Saul (Voltaire's Bastards:
the dictatorship of reason in the West, 1992; The
Unconscious Civilization,
1995), but most succinctly as a form of Le
Chatelier's Principle by
Stafford Beer (The Cybernetic Cytoblast: management itself. Chairman's
Address to the International Cybernetics Congress, September 1969) in the following
terms:
Reformers, critics of institutions, consultants in innovation, people in sort who "want to get something done", often fail to see this point. They cannot understand why their strictures, advice or demands do not result in effective change. They expect either to achieve a measure of success in their own terms or to be flung off the premises. But an ultrastable system (like a social institution)... has no need to react in either of these ways. It specialises in equilibrial readjustment which is to the observer a secret form of change requiring no actual alteration in the macro-systemic characteristics that he is trying to do something about
In what secret forms of "equilibrial adjustment" do I indulge in order to ensure that I am affected by only a minimal need to change?
Strategy 4: Filtering and gatekeeping -- beyond denial
Once denial is no longer feasible, and appeals are elciting a response, a variety of techniques may be employed to control the amount of problematic information which it is necessary to consider and on which it may be necessary to act. Many of these are catalogued elsewhere as constraints on critical
thinking. They include:
- Uncritical dependence on authority: This means reliance on others, whether eminent in the academic, religious or political arenas -- or as celebrities. This tendency is notably exploited by the process of seeking endorsement. This is exploited in the marketing of products and people as a means of providing a form of guarantee and setting a fashion trend that it may be unwise to buck. What is this dependence on my prefigured authorities effectively preventing me from seeing?
- Uncritical dependence on the "chosen": In this case the authority is provided as the consequence of some unusual process, typically selection to some elite body (freemasons, Club of Rome, Bilderberg, Davos, etc), acknowledgment of having been "born again" through some initiatory process, or recognition of unusual talent (eg Mensa)
- Uncritical dependence on peers: Here the reliance is on others of one's profession, "tribe" or community. Typically it takes the form of dependence on "old boy networks" and ensuring that I do not move beyond what they hold to be credible. Again what is this dependence effectively preventing me from seeing?
- Unquestioned interpretative criteria: These may follow, or underlie, the previous points through which my sources of information are effectively "managed". It may encourage "tunnel vision" and "group think"
on my part -- and discourage "lateral thinking", and "thinking outside the box".
- Communication filtering:
The above circumstances encourage various forms of information filtering which I tolerate:
- institutional gatekeeping, as a continutation of the historical pattern of "court chamberlains" and the need to cultivate secondary processes of access through "courtesans". This pattern is most clearly evident in the behaviour of lobbyists around governmental and intergovernmental decision-making bodies
- e-mail filtering: This is the electronic variant of the previous point through which access is carefully managed, notably through the use of "blacklists" and "whitelists" -- effectively defining excluded communications as "spam", namely "unsolicited", irrespective of the urgency of their content.
- surveillance and espionage: This is the interventionist approach to
obstacles to access, typified by widespread electronic surveillance (purportedly
for "security" reasons) as well as to ensure competitive advantage
- Controlled public consultation: Acknowledgement of the previous processes, sensitivity to criticism of institutional non-transparency, and the challenge of the democratic deficit, leads to a variety of consultative processes
which are however handicapped by the unexamined consequences of the following:
- criteria whereby the process is designed to include and exclude certain categories of communication -- namely who gets to talk and who gets to be heard
- tokenism in the presentation of the process as participative, notably at the highest level ("fireside chats")
- process of selective filtration of question and/or answer (as in many emerging institutional blogs)
- avoiding consideration of any feedback, despite emphatic assurances to the contrary
- Pattern of excuses
(credible denial of culpability): Various
excuses may be deployed to avoid responsibility for problematic filtration of information
that later proves to have been relevant:
- claims of information overload and lack of resources to process it, without considering alternative means of handling the phenomenon
- claims of not having been informed, despite an "open door" policy
- claims that meeting rooms were not available in the foreseeable future for any adequate consultation (a speciality of the European Commission)
- Recovery and appropriation procedures: These are deployed after external circumstances have forced institutional recognition of a challenge or a possibility. They take the form of awarding prizes, accolades, positions and funding to those who have pioneered the innovation, making it clear that this has always reflected the insight of the awarding institution. This is effectively a form of endorsement primarily to safeguard the role and image of the endorser -- as a "cath up" device to claim a position at the forefront of change.
The consequence of the above is to create a pattern of communities "gated" by
communication processes (cf Dynamically
Gated Conceptual Communities, 2004 ). In the light of any concerns about
a democratic deficit, or the exclusion of information on new challenges or opportunities,
this raises the question of:the collective value of what gets filtered out (cf
Practicalities of Participatory Democracy with International Institutions: attitudinal, quantitative and qualitative challenges, 2003 ):
- when and where does such gating occurwho are those "left behind" by this process?
- why do they avoid buying into such processes?
- how might the processes be redesigned to increase their involvement and benefit from their contribution?
- what unforeseen perspectives may they represent -- including first warning of imminent disaster (*** canaries vs whilstleblowers)
- treatment of all warnings as unsolicited communications ("spam") inappropriately referred (or "peer reviewed")? .
How do I adjust my filters -- to what end? To what should I be "open" and
to what should I be "closed" (Orrin E Klapp, Opening and Closing: strategies of information adaptation
in society, 1978). By what modes of interaction am I currently
overwhelmed?
Strategy 5: Project Logic
As highlighted by Stafford Beer's recognition of Le Chatelier's Principle (above), once an institution acknowledges an issue or the possibility of a programme of action, a number of processes may be deployed to minimize the effectiveness of any response:
- Constrained framework: Projects within institutions are typically undertaken
according to the "in-the-box" logical framework of procedures established
over decades, and inherited from other institutions. Such procedures are
typically designed in conformity with a certain unquestioned mindset whose
relevance to other cultures and circumstances is considered obvious -- despite
the poor track records in such settings.
- Focus on projects defined as feasible by precedent: Appropriate expertise
can readily be called upon to determine the inefficacy of proposals for new
initiatives or research in the light of past experience. In the absence of
precedents, new initiatives are necessarily framed as unfeasible -- especially
those that are "out-of-the-box". This process notably favours the controlled
development of "closed-system" technology as an extension of previous innovations
(as in the case of aerospace or fundamental science spectaculars), where uncontrollable parameters
and negative feedback can be ignored or designed out. It precludes
investment in the more complex "open system" challenges of deprived communities,
religious conflict, sustainable development and environmental conservation
- Game-playing: Careers in institutions are readily advanced or handicapped
through management of projects irrespective of their efficacy. The art (as
in tennis) is to oblige the innovator or change agent to do as much of the "footwork" as
possible. Proposers with limited resources are effectively forced to "jump" through
as many "hoops" as possible in promoting their project and soliciting
(public) funds for assistance -- hopefully to the point of exhaustion. Thereafter, as is well-recognized, reporting
procedures provide every opportunity to give project participants the "run-around" --
justified by the claimed need for transparency (typically resulting from past abuses in the funding institution).
Strategy 6: Patterning capacity challenges
Innovation and leadership is obliged to operate beyond the constraining dynamics above. This is achieved by recognition of patterns of behaviour and constraint through which strategic opportunities can be detected. There are various approaches to this:
- Intelligence tests: These may be used as a means of selecting elites for policy positions, think tanks and intelligence services
- Challenging group think: Processes may be designed to challenge intellectual
comfort zones and any tendency to buy into "group think" as the
path of least resistance. Various kinds of "wild cards" may be
introduced to challenge facile patterns of "connecting the dots" and
avoiding recognition of emergent patterns (cf Magic
Eye stereogram pictures;
Edward de Bono, Atlas of Management Thinking, 1981)
- Mathematical techniques: These may be used to predict higher orders of
communication (cf Ron
Atkin, Multidimensional
Man: can man live in three dimensional space?,
1981)
- Folk tales: Sets of folk tales and fables may be used as teaching stories
to help recognize behavioural patterns and situations (Jataka, Sufi, Aesop,
Ashby, etc ***)
- Game patterns: As an extension of techniques for analyzing board and other
games, the set of behavioural games may lend themselves to analysis. An early
example has been the work on transaction
analysis (Eric Berne, Games
People Play: the psychology of human relations, 1964).
- Pattern language: A complementary approach is the exploration of a language of patterns through which various kind of operational response can be designed. The is approach was developed by Christopher Alexander (A Pattern Language, 1977).
- Sets of strategies: The Chinese and Japanese cultures have devoted considerable
attention to identifying and relating the many strategies forming comprehensible sets of strategies.
Sun Tzu's Art of War, Miyamoto Musashi's The Book of Five Rings, or Gao Yuan's Lure the Tiger out of the Mountains; the thirty-six strategems of ancient China
Various conceptual initiatives can be seen as constituting a form of integrative pattern language highlighting strategic opportunities and vulnerabilities (cf Patterns of Conceptual Integration, 1984 ). Examples include:
- Generalization of pattern language: The above approach of Christopher
Alexander has been applied to computer programming. It has also been used
as a template to generate parallel sets of patterns (5-fold
Pattern Language, 1984)
- General systems theory: This approach to systems theory focuses on the existence of models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. Ludwig von Bertalanffy (General System Theory, 1986) argued for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general.
- Personality type coding: Efforts have been made down the centuries to distinguish different personality types, whether through techniques like astrology, the enneagram, or the range of personality theories, types and tests, management-relevant personality styles (eg Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
- Chinese governance philosophy: This has treated as fundamental the insights into patterns of change articulated in the I Ching (or Book of Changes). This has been complemented by the Tao Te Ching.*** Such approaches have also been associated with the early significance attached to "magic squares".
- Sudoku: The current interest in Sudoku can be seen as part of a continuing interest in numeric patterns of this kind (Gil Galanti, The History of Sudoku: from ancient Magic Squares to the Rubik's Cube of the 21st century, 2005)
- Theory of correspondences: This feature of symbolism is based on the assumption that all cosmic phenomena are limited and serial, appearing as scales or series on separate planes; with the components of one series linked with those of another in their ultimate significance, despite their apparently disparate nature. It is fundamental to a magical view of life [more]. One variant of this is Gematria. Correspondences are also a feature of isomorphism between systems in general systems theory (see above).
Such patterns may be understood as more than descriptive "pigeon holes" for clusters of insight. Each pattern in a set may also be understood as a conduit for a distinct form of psycho-social energy most readily understood in terms of the type of "energy" a person brings when functioning in a particular pattern mode. This is increasingly recognized in management teams (cf Meredith Belbin, Management Teams: why they succeed or fail, 1981). Patterns can be used in exploring the interweaving energies in conferences (Energy Patterns in Conferences: weaving patterns of information as a context for higher levels of integration, 1988). Various kinds of patterns have long featured in ritual magic, especially in traditional societies, but notably as adapted to by religions and secretive cults.
One of the weaknesses of pattern detection is that, reinforced by any tendency
to "group think", it encourages "profiling" -- as has been
so evident in the case of "homeland security" and the "war on
terror". In this sense, as a puzzle, every complex pattern has a quick
and simple solution -- that is wrong.
Introduction, Conclusion and References in: Governance through Patterning Language:
creative cognitive engagement contrasted with abdication of responsibility