Systems Thinking

A Case for Second Order Learning

Jamshid Gharajedaghi

The learning Organization, Vol. 14 November 6 2007

Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0969-6474

During the last 50 years, our worldview has gone though a profound transformation in two critical dimensions. Not only there has been a fundamental shift in our understanding of the nature of the organization from a mindless mechanical system to a purposeful socio-cultural system. But also, there has been a discriminating shift in our way of knowing: from analytical thinking, the science of dealing with independent sets of variables, to systems thinking, the art, and science of handling interdependent set of variables.

Unfortunately, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, our newly found insights have had very little influence in our choices. A dominant analytical culture, with a scientific tag, has kept reproducing the same set of none-solutions all over again.

Effective use of these discriminating conceptions requires not only a clear understanding of the notion of self-organization, but also unambiguous recognition of the shortcoming of the analytical thinking. Unfortunately, the task is not just an academic discourse but demands second order learning, enormous emotional struggles and huge cultural challenge. Engagement in this process, in addition to competence, requires courage.

Socio-cultural-systems and Self-organization

The formidable second law of thermodynamics states that universe as a close system has a tendency toward elimination of all distinctions. Thus, the ultimate state is sameness & randomness, (a chaotic simplicity). Entropy (S), the measure of randomness & sameness will therefore always increase.

However, open systems, are neg-entropic and move toward organized complexity

According to quantum theory universe is continuously expanding with increasing order and complexity. In this context even sub-atomic particles show open systems behavior and self-referencing tendencies

In addition Living systems theories maintain that open systems, are self-organizing. They exhibit a tendency to move toward a predefined order.

The central insight of Santiago Theory (Maturana &Varela 1980) is the identification of cognition, the process of knowing, with the process of life

For Capra (2002, page 34) “The organizing activity of living systems, at all levels of life, is a mental activity. The interactions of a living system with its environment are cognitive interactions.”

Stuart Kauffman sees Self-organization as the co-producer of the stunning biological complexity around us. “Molecules of all varieties join in a metabolic dance to make cells. Cells interact with cells to form organism; organism interact with organism to from ecosystems, societies. Where did this grand architecture come from? For more than a century, the only theory that science has offered to explain how this order arose is natural selection. But in crafting the living world, selection has always acted on systems that exhibit spontaneous order, Formation of this underlying order further honed by selection needs to be explained as well”. (Kauffman1995 Preface page 1-2)

I have argued extensively elsewhere (Gharajedaghi, 2006 page 122) that to be self-organizing, and to move toward a predefined order, a system must possess means of knowing, an internal image of what it wants to be.

DNA is the source of this image for biological systems whereas culture (shared image) is the source of desired future for socio-cultural systems.

The shared image of the desired future provides default values for all decisions and stands at the center of the process of change. That is why experience with social transformation is fraught with frustration. The triumphant resurgence of old patterns of behavior despite the concerted efforts of change agents is an uninterrupted saga of despair. What seems to make this stubborn insurgency so overpowering is the fact that the set of organizing principles (cultural codes) that make the system to behave the way it does are implicit and in most cases are considered sacred.

The set of implicit, sacred cultural codes or organizing principles responsible for regenerating the existing order is what I metaphorically refer to as “second-order-machine.” Second-order-machine is equivalent to the notion of attractor in Chaos Theory. To produce a change in behavioral pattern of a social system its second order machine need to be dismantled and the attractor in action be redesigned. Otherwise, the existing order will outlive the temporary effects of any interventions.

I have also argued that purposeful, socio-cultural systems are self-evolving. They do not passively adapt to their environments but co-evolve with them. They are able to change the rules of interaction as they evolve over time. But, never the less, in open systems changes do not occur randomly. They are consistent with what has gone on before, with the history, and identity of the system. This phenomenon known as Self-reference is a major obstruction to the development of traditional systems.

For example: the baggage of the past tragedies and unpleasant memories is a heavy burden for the traditional cultures to overcome. The existing distorted images obstruct self-evolving processes.

In a more familiar context, consider the education and/or healthcare system where peer evaluations and strong self-referential values have produced a dominant closed culture that keep reproducing the existing order despite numerous calls for reform.

As long as organizing principles of a dominant culture remains un-challenged behavior of all the social-units originating from this culture will remain unchanged.

To development, these systems need to go through an active process of unlearning and redesign.

Unlearning is an iterative, and collective process of the second order learning that demands freedom to question the sacred underlying assumptions. But, many traditional societies lack the freedom to question their sacred cultural codes. Most are subject to enormous intimidation by traditional forces. Questioning a sacred practice is often treated as an insult and is punishable by death. Sometime intimidating forces, present such a monumental obstruction to development that paying any price to remove them might be justified. So much this is so that even tragic intervention of outside power, if it results in dissolving the entrenched intimidating forces, may prove to be a welcome tipping point for potent cultural evolution (Japan & Turkey provide sobering examples for this arguments).

Cultural intimidation, and ensuing self-censorship has been the most destructive tools of dogmatic ideologies, left or right, throughout history. Emancipation, according to Habermas, takes place whenever people are able to overcome past restrictions that had resulted from ideological distortions.

Analytical Thinking and Complexity

Complexity is a relative term. It depends not only on the Number but also most importantly on the Nature of interactions among the variables involved. Open loop, independent variables with linear relationships are considered simpler than closed loop, interdependent variables with nonlinear relationships.

Analytical thinking is preoccupied with independent variables. It stubbornly assumes that the whole is nothing but the sum of the parts.

However, increasingly we are finding out that our independent variables are independent no more and that the neat and simple construct that served us so beautifully in the past is no longer effective.

Unfortunately our cognitive ability has evolved around assumptions of independent variables, open loop thinking (unidirectional causality) with linear relationship. We do experience extreme difficulties in visualizing the behavior of interdependent variables or the outcome of nonlinear feedback loops.

Barry Richmond, in a reference to the fact that we have been applying the same set of non-solutions to the crucial social problems such as drugs, poverty, crime, illiteracy and mal-distribution of wealth for most of the last fifty years without any positive results, concludes:

“The way we think is outdated. As a result, the way we act creates problems, and then we are ill-equipped to address them because of the way we think.” (Richmond 2001 page 3)

It seems we are trapped in a vicious circle; even our highly regarded mathematical tools are not doing the job.

Stephen Wolfram has a similar observation: “The idea of describing behavior in terms of mathematical equations works well where the behavior is fairly simple. It almost inevitably fails whenever the behavior is more complex. Degree of difficulty encounter in mathematical representation of a phenomenon increases exponentially by the degree of its complexity. Indeed, there are many common phenomena about which theoretical science has had remarkably very little to say.” (Wolfram, 2002, chapter 1 page 3)

He then demonstrates how systems too complex for traditional mathematics could yet obey simple operational rules and how remarkably simple iterative algorithms capture the essential characteristics of nature’s mysterious ability to produce complex phenomena so effortlessly.

Furthermore, analytical thinking has very little to say about: life, love, happiness, success, and many other important emergent properties that do not yield to any one of the five senses. Emergent properties are Properties of the whole, product of the interaction of the parts, outcomes of dynamic processes produced online real-time.

Systems Methodology

I have found the Interactive design, the centerpiece of Ackoff’s systems methodology to be a perfect platform to integrate and use the critical contributions that three other contemporary conceptions have to offer, In my experience, the depth and richness of Interactive Design, the beauty and magic of Iteration of Context, Structure, Function & Process when combined with the dynamic power of Operational Thinking, and understanding the implication of Self-organization create a competent and exciting systems methodology that goes a long way in dealing with emerging challenges of seemingly complex & chaotic socio-cultural systems.

Distinctive claim of systems thinking is ability to see the whole. But contrary to a widely held belief, the popular notion of a multi-disciplinary approach is not a systems approach. In fact, the ability to synthesize separate findings into a coherent whole seems far more critical than the ability to generate information from different perspectives. Analytical thinking assumes that understanding structure is sufficient to understand a system. For synthetic thinking function is the key for seeing the whole. The dynamic thinkers on the other hand, looks to the process, the how question, for the necessary answer to define the whole. It is my contention that structure, function, process represent three aspects of the same thing and with the containing environment form a complementary set. Together they define the whole or make the understanding of the whole possible. Structure defines components and their relationships; function defines the outcomes; and finally, process explicitly defines the sequence and dynamic interactions of activities that produce the outcome.

A set of interdependent variables forms a circular relationship. Each variable co-produces the others and in turn is co-produced by the others. Which one comes first is irrelevant because none can exist without the others. They have to happen all at the same time. To fail to see the significance of these interdependencies is to leave out the most important aspect of the challenge. Therefore, to handle them holistically requires understanding each variable in relation to the others in the set at the same time. This demands an iterative inquiry.

On the other hand, multi-loop nonlinear feedback systems that according to chaos theory exhibit chaotic behavior are integral part of our current reality. However, there is order in this Chaos. They seem to produce particular patterns of behavior. Discovering these patterns is the key for recognizing the “Second Order Machine” (the attractor in action) that is locking the system into its existing pattern. In this context, Operational thinking is an ingenious way to overcome the difficulties encountered in constructing and simulating mental models for discovering these patterns of behavior.

I believe that an interactive design process with the aim of replacing the distorted shared image is the most effective learning tool to produce a desired change in the behavioral pattern of a social system.

This daring optimism is based on following assumptions:

· An exciting vision of the future is a powerful instrument of change.

· The success of any action invariably depends on the degree to which it penetrates and modifies the “shared image.”

· Penetrating the shared image is more a matter of beauty than logic.

· Repeated failures to deal with the critical social challenges are not only due to our inability to solve the problem we face but also because of the failure to face the core problem.

· The core problem is the mess, the second order machine responsible for regenerating the problematic patterns repeatedly.

· The mess can only be dissolved. To dissolve a mess system has to be redesigned and the second-order-machine dismantled.

· Designers are to produce the next generation of the system without any consideration for present constraints.

· Design must produce a clear and explicit image of the desired future, removing the fear of unknown. Abstract, motherhood statements will not do it.

· Participation of critical actors in redesigning the future is the uncompromising operating principles of interactive design

· Challenging the establish relationships among people is not an easy proposition. But, people are more likely to accept a change if they had a hand in shaping it.

Further more note that:

· Design is a holistic approach; it requires iteration of structure, function, and process. An iterative process of applying simple rules is at the core of nature’s mysterious ability to produce complex phenomena

· The best way to understand and learn a system is to redesign it.

· To achieve an order of magnitude improvement in performance of any system is to redesign it

An agreement on a desired future is an indication that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and an alternative to the existing mess does indeed exist.

Finally an agreement on an ideal design would irreversibly change the image of the future for all the participants. This is a second order learning and the first step toward recreating the future.

Finally words of wisdom from Donnelly Meadows:

“Self-organizing, nonlinear, feedback systems are inherently unpredictable. They can't be controlled, but they can be re-designed.” “Before disturbing a self-organizing system, watch how it behaves. Study its beat. Watch it work. Learn its history.” “Direct your thoughts to dynamic, not static analysis—not only to ‘what's wrong?’ but also to ‘how did we get there?’ (Meadows 2001, page 1-3)

References

Ackoff R.L., Creating the Corporate Future, John Wiley New York 1981

Capra Fritjof, The Hidden Connection, Doubleday New York 2002

Gharajedaghi Jamshid, Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity, A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, New York 2006,

Gleick, James, CHAOS: Making a New Science. Viking Penguin Inc: New York, 1987.

Kauffman, Stuart, At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press, New York: 1995.

Maturama Humberto, and Varela Francisco, Autopoiesis and Cognition, D.Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland 1980.

Meadows Donella, Dancing with Systems: What to do when systems resist change; an excerpt from her unfinished last book (she died in spring 2001). Whole Earth Winter 2001

Richmond, Barry, An Introduction to Systems Thinking, STELLA, High Performance Systems, Inc, 2001.

Wolfram Stephen. New Kind of Science Canada: Wolfram Media inc., 2002.