When someone asks a fairly
simple straightforward question that requires a fairly simple straightforward
answer, and instead what comes back is something extremely convoluted or
impossibly technical and purposefully theory-laden, you have to wonder if at root
is the post-modernist technique of "bullshit baffles
brains." This appears to be a popular defensive methodology used by
some people as a cover-up to protect themselves against the discovery by others
that they really don't know what they are talking about. It often is a
companion for those who resort to argumentum ad hominem as a normal part of
argumentation, often under the guise of demonstrating how witty, charming and
urbane they really are.
Recently on an online forum
I asked a very simple question to an accomplished expert in his field, who, for
whatever reason, chose to participate in a discussion but was unable to provide
a clear and articulate answer to any of the questions he was asked, even when
asked multiple times.
As part of the discussion,
this expert indicated that he provided a training course for corporate
executives in the area of managing complexity and indicated that it is linked
with decision-making and organization design.
Here's the question I asked,
which begins with me quoting the expert to whom I'm addressing:
You wrote: "What CAS [complex adaptive systems] indicates (in my view) is the need for different organisation forms to handle complex and chaotic environments. That includes things like human sensor networks (or whole or workforce engagement), the use of Crews, self-organising cross silo teams etc. etc. " Can you tell us something about the types of people you recommend companies assign to these teams or networks? Are they a cross section from front-line to executive? Are they usually VPs or executives with considerable tenure and work experience? Are they chosen randomly?
I didn't
think this was a difficult question. It amounts to: how do you select which
employees you will ask to participate in “human sensor networks” or as “crews”?
Surely some
people are going to be better suited than others? Or maybe not. Maybe the person with the responsibility for selecting respondents can just select
randomly. I just assume that there are likely to be established or
emergent criteria pointing to some personal characteristics that prove
beneficial to the manager accountable for generating a solution being sought for which the "network" or "crew" is being
established.
Here is the
answer I received:
Barry, I promised you a response to you question on Crews and Human Sensor Networks. You specially asked "the types of people you recommend companies assign to these teams or networks? Are they a cross section from front-line to executive? Are they usually VPs or executives with considerable tenure and work experience? Are they chosen randomly?". The way a crew works is that people are trained in role and role expectation and entry into the role is normally highly ritualised. We know that the impact of ritual is to change the cognitive activation pattern on the brain and this for a period the identity of the participant. In military and emergency response environments the approach allows people from all levels to participate and interesting allows delegation of authority without loss of status. This, along with modern insights on brain plasticity is one reason why I and others challenge any framework based on progressive or hierarchical concepts. A human sensor network is whole of employee of citizen ship engagement in problem solving using technology to remove barriers of time and space. The goal is to support decision making and understanding. Both of these approaches rely on changing the connections between individuals not on individual capability (although that does come in to some extent). That difference is one of the key switches those of us approach organisations from a natural science perspective are taking. It means that we do criticise ideas of progressive capability to handle complexity (for example).... So I am not sure I can answer you question in such a way as to fit into the paradigm that its formulation implies, but I hope this has been useful.
Sheesh! I didn't think my
question was that difficult! And more importantly, it wasn't answered. Rather, an answer was avoided. Imagine how difficult it must be to select members
of a crew!
In all fairness, I have no
idea what a "crew" or a "human sensor network" is, even
though the author thinks one was provided ("whole of employee or
citizenship engagement in problem solving using technology to remove barriers
of time and space"), so maybe my question really doesn't make any
sense...er...”fit into the paradigm that its formulation implies.”
Actually, I think a “human
sensor network” is akin to crowd-sourcing – aggregating information from
individuals via electronic means – but saying that wouldn’t be appropriately
opaque.
(I am reminded of an
incident I observed when I was in grade eight, when a pretentious six-foot-plus
science teacher brought two boys into the office, holding on to them by the
collars of their winter jackets, and announced loudly for all to hear that "these
two boys were caught catapulting ballistics in front of the school." The
office staff had no idea what he was talking about, so he had to explain that
he had caught them throwing snowballs.)
Anyway, I'm skeptical that the answer
provided to me is a real answer. Perhaps I'm being played with in the manner
that Alan Sokal scammed the journal Social Text with his parody of postmodern criticism of science!
If the explanation provide to me is for real and an example of quality of training business leaders are receiving to
manage complex business problems, I hope these managers are able
to put this stuff to good use in creating value for customers and
shareholders. Hopefully a positive ROI from investment in this training is just
one of the many positive outcomes that will be derived through the removal of
the barriers of time and space.
There are many other examples of this kind of thing -
of highly educated technocrats creating proprietary terminology to
stand for improperly or undefined concepts. Often these constructs are so
abstract and impenetrable as to be rendered useless as valid tools of cognition in helping
us understand and organize information and knowledge for human use.
A convoluted theory that was recently brought to
my attention as being meaningful and helpful in gaining deeper insights into
organizational design is an idea called “panarchy.”
Here’s how the usefulness of panarchy was
explained to me:
Panarchy theory is useful to make object transitional patterning and discern this from transformation, translation, transmission and composition patterns. Seeing resilience and robustness as counterparts contributes to agility, and helps prevent category errors.
The person who posed panarchy as useful asked me
what I thought of it. Here’s an edited version of my reply:
Concepts have to stand for something that exists. They serve as a way for humans to condense and process information. When concepts don't correspond to anything in reality, they are floating abstractions and therefore invalid concepts. When it comes to language, I don't subscribe to making things more difficult and abstract than they need to be, which is what appears to be happening here.
For example, if you say, "It is useful to point to systems in a way that is relevant to a group and meaningful to those who are part of it," I can understand what that means. But when words that stand for concepts are inserted with undefined meaning, and those words only seem to be used to create a lack of clarity, then understanding is completely lost and nobody knows what is being talked about.
That may not be what is happening here, but I have no idea what it means when someone says to me: It is useful to use translation to direct composition to a group through transmission. If, to be understood, they have to say, "well, what I mean is that it is useful to point to systems in a way that is relevant to a group and meaningful to those who are part of the system," then why not just say that in the first place? And do those two sentences really mean the same thing? Nobody knows.
The first explanation provides no meaning. There may be specialized meaning to these concepts, but unless the person you are having a conversation with knows what they are, the words you utter are just sounds, and no communication is taking place.
I prefer simpler language that people can understand. I know technical language is sometimes needed to condense information into higher-level concepts, but for people to understand it, they have to understand all the links back to something that they can relate to -- to real objects.
You indicate that these abstract concepts are non-objects. I'm not sure that one can work with non-objects, as you propose, even conceptually. All valid concepts are a condensation of knowledge about things that exist and can be validated by the evidence of our senses.
Don't get get me wrong. I'm not saying whether or not "panarchy theory" is valid or invalid. I'm just saying in general that it appears to be making things more complicated by introducing specialized language that IMO makes things less clear rather than more clear, at least as you've tried to explain it. I'm not a systems theorist, so I'm in no position to pass judgment on the validity of Panarchy Theory and whether it is epistemologically sound.
I challenge anyone with too much time on their
hands to make sense of this explanation to which I was referred, and then explain in regular language how it provides practical help in
contributing to or achieving any human goal, particularly one related to
business organizations.
