Dichotomy or Dialectic
[Human Systems Management 4 (1983)]
Jamshid Gharajedaghi
Social change is the result of an interacting
network of various social tendencies, and relationships of many different kinds.
There seems to be no single 'leading factor' which is always in the forefront
and the relationship cannot always be reduced to a simple dichotomy - of either
conflict or cooperation. In a given system interactions between opposing
tendencies can take many forms including: conflict, competition, cooperation and
collaboration, which may coexist simultaneously. Actors in a social system may
cooperate with regard to one pair of tendencies, compete over others, and be in
conflict with respect to different sets at the same time.
However, the 'HOW'
and 'WHY' questions of social transformation, the concept of conflict, its role
in the process of change, and, finally, the challenge of converting a win/lose
struggle to a win/win strategy, are still among the major concerns for designers
of social systems.
In this context, it is my contention that the
continued treatment of multidimensional realities as uni-dimensional concepts -
simple dichotomies or continua - is not only at the core of the confusion and
dilemmas, but also represents a fallacy into which many people of good will
often fall. The point is that sets of opposing tendencies - assumed to be the
prime producers of change - are, in fact, two sides of the same coin; they
coexist and interact continuously.
In this paper I will make an attempt
to organize my understanding of social dynamics by elaborating on the concepts
of :
1. AND/OR relationships,
2. Change of phase and mode of
organization; and
3. Integration and Differentiation.
Then I will
discuss a framework which I hope will be useful and instrumental in 'dissolving'
the dilemmas generated by win/lose struggles which presently dominate the social
environment.
1. AND/OR Relationships
In viewing AND/OR
relations in the context of social dynamics, we are concerned with processes,
not states. We are dealing with opposing tendencies, not opposing states.
This distinction is central for understanding the concept of dialectic and the
processes of social change. Although a person cannot be alive and dead at the
same time, she;/he can display tendencies toward both. A purposeful individual
has different ways of dealing with conflicts: she/he can either solve,
resolve, absolve, or dissolve them [1]:
To solve a
conflict, is to select a course of action what is believed to yield the best
possible outcome for one side at the cost of the other, a win/lose
struggle.
To resolve a conflict is to select a course of action
that yields an outcome that is good enough and minimally 'satisfices' both of
the opposing tendencies, a compromise.
To absolve a conflict is to
wait it out, to ignore it and hope that it will go away.
Finally, to
dissolve a conflict is to change the nature and/or the environment of the
entity in which it is embedded so as to remove the conflict.
Selection of
any/one of these courses of action depends on how the relationships between
opposing tendencies are formulated. There seems to be at least three ways in
which these relationships are conceived.
Firstly, there is the
conceptualization of conflicting tendencies as two mutually exclusive, discrete
entities. Here conflicts are treated as dichotomies which are usually expressed
as 'X' or 'NX' (See Figure 1). This represents an 'OR' relationship, [2] and
thus a wine/lose struggle which calls for a solution of the conflict. The
loser is usually declared wrong and eliminated.
Secondly, there are uni-dimensional conceptions
of conflict situations. Here conflicting positions are formulated in such a way
that they can be represented by a continuum. Here there seems to be many shades
of gray between black and white. This calls for compromise or resolution
of the conflict (Fig. 2).
A compromise is therefore a mixture of ideas of
both poles of tension. It might seem to be a kind of integration, but this is
usually quite superficial. It usually contains elements of the two extremes but
it does not provide a new framework that can encompass both
poles.
Thirdly there are multidimensional conceptions of conflict, in
which interaction between opposing tendencies is characterized by an 'AND'
relationship. In contrast to "OR', the 'AND' relationship recognizes the
mutual interdependence of opposing tendencies. In this conception, the
opposing tendencies not only coexist and interact, but also form a complementary
relationship. (See Figure 3). A complement is that which fills out or completes
a whole [3]. The complementarities are not necessarily a pair.
Many complementarities may coexist, reflecting
the essence of co-production and the producer-product concept. [4]. This
formulation requires a dissolution of the conflict.
Transforming a conflict
seen as uni-dimensional into one that is seen as multidimensional is a
dialectical process. In this interpretation of dialectic, which corresponds to
the systemic concept of co-production, each one of the opposing tendencies is
represented by a separate dimension, resulting in a multidimensional scheme
(Figure. 3(b).).
In the uni-dimensional conception of conflict - the
conflict situation is formulated in such a way that a gain for one tendency is
invariably associated with a loss for the opposing side, a zero-sum-game (Fig.
3(a)). But the multidimensional conception of conflict characterizes a
non-zero-sum situation, in which a loss for the one side is not necessarily a
gain for the other. On the contrary, this formulation permits both opposing
tendencies not only to coexist but also to increase or decrease simultaneously.
Therefore, lose/lose, as well as win/win, in addition to
win/lose struggles are strong possibilities.
Using a
multidimensional representation one can see how the tendencies previously
considered as dichotomies can interact and be integrated into something quite
new. The addition of new dimensions makes it possible to discover new frames or
reference in which opposing sets of tendencies can be interpreted in a new
ensemble with a new logic of its own.
Note that in classical logic,
contradictions are also considered to be relative to a domain and converts the
contradictory pairs to complementary ones. Therefore, … "The usual dichotomy
of 'x' or 'not x' never seems to display the general, because neither of the
above is always so prominent an aspect of the social system." [5] By going a
step further, we have the possibility of converting contradictions to
alternatives. For example, consider the concern for stability (morphostasis) and
change (morphogenesis). A unidimensional conception of these tendencies and
subsequent classification of social theories based on their orientation toward
one OR the other, as done by Burrell and Morgan [6], will lead to a dichotomy of
'sociology of regulation' [7], versus 'sociology of radical change' [8].Table
1:
On the other hand, if we recognize that the
interaction between the tendencies for stability and change are among important
dialectical phenomena, then their representation by a two-dimensional scheme
will lead to four categories instead of two (see Table 1). Note that the two
previous dichotomous categories are represented only in quadrants (2) and (4) as
special cases in each of which a high concern for one tendency is coupled with a
low concern for the other, and vice versa.
In the individual context, the
work of Gerald Gordon [9] and his colleagues regarding the study of the factors
conducive to innovation, provides additional supporting evidence for an 'AND'
relationship. Gordon and his colleagues see the following two abilities as
complementary to an individual's propensity to innovate: the ability to
differentiate between objects which seem to be similar - and the ability to find
similarities between seemingly unrelated matters (see Table 2):
On the other hand, the constant struggle between
groups of people who somehow see quite different 'clear and urgent' necessities
in dealing with different aspects of social realities - the urgency of
production versus that of distribution, the desire to protect the rights of
victims versus the rights of the accused, individual choice versus collective
choice [10] - is the manifestation of the need to develop a new framework which
would allow the creation of a win/win environment and dissolution of the
conflict situation. Churchman's concern with the 'environmental fallacy',
Boulding's rejection of suboptimization ("the name of the devil is
suboptimization"), and Ackoff's concept of "separately infeasible parts making a
feasible whole" , are reflections of the same principle. But dissolving a
conflict, as mentioned before, requires a change in the nature of the
environment of the entity in which the conflict is embedded. This is a
qualitative change reflecting a new mode of organization for the entity or
its environment. The next section tries to clarify this point.
2.
'Change of Phase' and 'Mode of Organization'
One of the commonly
accepted principles of dialectic is that "a quantitative change will result in a
qualitative change". This statement does not mean that an increase in quantity
of a given variable will result in a qualitative change in that variable itself.
Qualitatively there is no difference between one pound of a billion pounds of
sugar. However, when the state of the system depends on two or more variables, a
quantitative change in one variable alone, beyond a critical point, will
result in a change of phase in the state of the system. This change is a
qualitative one, representing a whole new set of relationships among the
variables coproducing the state of the system.
Suppose the state of a
system (water) depends on two variables (pressure and temperature). Under
constant (atmospheric) pressure, if the temperature of water increases (a
quantitative change) from 33°F to 211°F, no qualitative change in the state of
the system (liquid water) is observed. However, when the increase in temperature
exceeds the critical point (in this case 212°F, (the boiling point of water), a
change of phase from liquid to vapor occurs. This is a qualitative change in
the state of the system, representing a new mode of
organization.
Catastrophe theory [11], dealing with the
mathematical formulation of the same principle, also reveals that at the
singular point (Y"= 0), the state of the system displays catastrophic behavior
(a cusp). The formation of the cusp signifying the change in phase (Figure 4)
is, of course, not inevitable. It also depends on the behavior of the other
variables affecting the system state. For example, in the case of water
discussed above, the critical point at which vapor is formed changes with
variation in the pressure. If both temperature and pressure are raised
simultaneously, the cusp is delayed, and the catastrophic change of phase does
not take place at 212°F. Extension of this physical analogy to social phenomena
requires a note of caution, and the appreciation of the following distinction is
especially critical.
As I have argued elsewhere [12], in contrast to
social systems which are information/knowledge-bonded, physical
systems are energy-bonded. As the energy level determines the mode of
organization in physical systems, the knowledge level defines it for social
systems. Therefore, the role of knowledge in social systems can be said to
be analogous to that of energy in physical systems.
The significant
point, however, is that knowledge, unlike energy, is not subject to the first
law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy). One does not lose
knowledge by sharing it with others. On the contrary, its dissemination
increases the knowledge level of the entire social system. This important
capability - the creation of knowledge - will be shown to enable a social system
to constantly recreate its structure, and makes it possible for a change
of phase to occur in a social system without a significant sign or catastrophic
cusp. Nevertheless, it can be said that a change of phase in physical systems
(solid-liquid-gas) is analogous to a change in mode of organization in social
systems, (feudalism, capitalism, and socialism), but the analogy ends
there.
In the social context, a quantitative change in a variable also
produces a qualitative change in the state of the dependent system. However,
this change is produced through a reformulation, or more precisely, a
reconceptualization of the variables involved. To explain this further, let us
look at a related concept, that of typology. Social typologies can be used to
clarify why different modes of organization display quiet distinct behavior
regarding the same social phenomenon, providing one is aware of their underlying
assumptions and limitations.
A proper way of developing typologies,
which corresponds with my intentions here, requires that the relevant variables,
which together define the state of the phenomenon under study, be identified and
each one conceptualized as a separate dimension. A dimension represented by an
arrow, is usually used to reflect a quantification of a variable on a given
scale - it measures a characteristic (or behavior) specified by the operational
definition of the variable involved. Segmentation of this scale into two regions
of low and high is usually based on an assumption that the low or
high value assigned to the variable will have a significant impact on the
behavior of the system which is coproduced by that variable.
In this
context, the point of distinction between low and high is not arbitrary (Figure
5). It signifies the level at which the behavior of the dependent system is
qualitatively affected - corresponding to the critical point in physical
phenomena (change of phase). This is to say that if variable income has an
effect on the behavior of an individual, there seems to be a critical level of
income at which a change in lifestyle is observed, and the behavior of the
individual is qualitatively affected.
Although locating the singular point (Y" =
0) in the social context is the major problematique of this conception, even in
the absence of sufficient knowledge, the awareness of its existence and its
implications is useful in understanding the nature of the qualitative
differences observed in the behavior of the system based on the degree of the
emphasis (or concern) put on one or the other dimension. If we recall the
previous example, i.e. concern for stability and change, we note that the
behavior of the system not only depends on two variables but also on the type of
relationship (AND/OR) which exists between them. For example, the interaction of
a high-concern-for- change with high-concern-for-stability produces a completely
different mode of behavior than the one produced either by a high concern
for change coupled with low concern for stability, or the one produced by a high
concern for stability coupled with low concern for change (See Table
3):
The high/High (Quadrant 3) represents the
behavior of an ideal-seeking-system, searching for stability through change.
While the Low/High (Quadrant 2) reflects a radical system interested in a change
at any price; it can be reactionary or progressive depending on the direction of
the change sought. Sometimes the action of a radical system is motivated by the
excitement of destruction without any concern for its consequences. The High/Low
(Quadrant 4) on the other hand, represents a conservative state, preferring the
status-quo, therefore a concern for regulation and compromise. However, the
Low/Low (Quadrant 1), represents anarchy, with a low concern for (indifference
to) change, coupled with a low concern for stability, opposed to any form of
Government, interested only in 'autopoiesis', which is a form of
self-regulation.
Therefore, with different combinations of levels of
concern (low or high) of the various tendencies, different modes of organization
will emerge. Each mode represents a new system whose behavior can only be
understood in its totality.
The typology of management style developed
by Blake and Mouton [13] as shown in the following table, also underlines this
conception, by demonstrating that although '1,9' and '9,9' styles both reflect a
high concern (9) for people, the manifestations of these concerns are different
(See Table 4).
The '1,9' is a paternalistic leader, whose
concern for people is basically a concern for their weakness. Therefore he
assumes a protective role, while the '9,9', is a leader whose main concern for
people stems from a respect for their ability. This requires a different role,
the role of motivator and facilitator.
To sum up this understanding of
social transformation, and to generalize the concepts presented thus far, we
turn to a brief discussion of differentiation and
integration.
3. Differentiation and Integration
The
existing patterns of social transformation and the subsequent creation of
successive modes of organization, involve:
1. an active process of the
generation and distribution of knowledge;
2. a process of learning and
adaptation;
3. the creative process of discovery of a new dimension with all
of its implications; and
4. the painful process of reconceptualization,
reformulation and integration of all the variables involved in a new ensemble,
with completely new relationships and characteristics of its own.
The
development of social systems is unlike the physical pattern, which is conceived
to be a uni-dimensional movement toward increased complexity in the structure of
matter. It is also unlike biological evolution, which reflects a two-dimensional
movement toward complexity and order. It is conceived to be at least a three
dimensional phenomenon of purposeful transformation in the direction if
increased integration and differentiation. An appreciation
of the interdependence of the following tendencies - which have been
conveniently groups under the two generic terms of differentiation and
integration - is the key to understanding the critical processes in the
development of social system.
Differentiation represents artistic
orientation with emphasis on intrinsic (stylistic) value systems, signifying
tendencies towards such things as: increased complexity, increased
variety, increased individual autonomy (individual choice), and
morphogenesis (creation of new structure. Integration represents a
scientific orientation with emphasis on extrinsic (instrumental) value system,
signifying tendencies toward such things as: increased order, increased
uniformity and conformity, increased collectivity (collective choice), and
morphostasis (maintenance of structure) (See Figure 6.)
In Figure 6, the third dimension - purpose - has
been omitted for simplicity. It will be discussed later in terms of agreement or
disagreement between social actors, on the compatibility of their ends, means or
both.
The emerging tendencies shown in the graph, that is the tendencies
toward innovation, learning and adaptation, socialization (parity),
participation, and organization, cannot standalone. Together they form the
whole, and coproduce a process called development. In addition, these tendencies
are involved in and constitute the developmental processes for all of the social
functions. These functions are the generation and dissemination of
knowledge, power, wealth, value and beauty [14]. Thus a holistic
view of societal development requires that all of the five social functions
develop interdependently, utilizing all of the five complementary processes
outlined above.
The concept of 'overdetermination' introduced by Louis
Althusser [15] is an indication that some of the 'new left' thinkers recognize
the interdependency and multidimensionality of social functions. So much so that
Althusserian interpretation of dialectic is in line with and a reflection of the
systemic concept of coproduction. As Boulding [16] points out, the systemic
vision of social dynamics is:
"…unfriendly to any monistic view of human
history that seeks to explain it by a single factor, whether this is a
materialistic interpretation, as in the case of [classical] Marxism, a simple
theistic interpretation, as in biblical Judaism, or in eschatological
interpretation in terms of some simple denouncement … The simple rhetoric of
class struggle and revolution, therefore must be regarded as an essentially
minor element in the ongoing process of human and societal evolution, although
it is sometimes important as a special case under particular circumstances."
Depending on the characteristic of a given culture, the orientation of
its organizing group, and the relative emphasis put on integrative or
differentiative tendencies, varieties of different modes of organization are
observed in a social system (see Figure 7).
A social system can move from a state of
chaotic simplicity toward organized simplicity, which in
comparison with chaotic simplicity is a state containing less variety, more
uniformity, stronger bonds among elements, produced by emphasis on integration
at the cost of differentiation. It can also move toward chaotic
complexity, a state with increased variety, reduced wholeness, increased
diffusion produced by increased differentiation at the cost of integration. Or
it can move toward organized complexity, signifying a higher level of
organization achieved by movement toward complexity and order
concurrently. Note that movement toward complexity and order represents the
essence of the negentropic processes we find in living systems, where instead of
entropic processes of increasing levels of disorder, higher levels of complex
order are observed. This mode represents the systems view of
organization, i.e. purposeful systems with purposeful parts - information
and culture-bonded systems with the capacity for structure creation as well as
structure maintenance [17].
Furthermore, one can speculate that for a
given culture there is an upper and lower limit for integrative and
differentiative processes, respectively. Within the boundary of a given culture
the variety of different orientations can be observed. The existence of 'left'
or 'right' in every social group and political party is the manifestation of
this phenomenon.
In a flexible social system, oscillations of lower
amplitude occur without disruption within the critical cultural boundaries, as
periodic shifts in governments, e.g. between Labour and Conservative parties in
the UK, or Democrats and Republicans in the US, demonstrate. But in a polarized
society, if a rigid orientation tries to cross the critical cultural line, a
violent and destructive reaction will move it back to the other extreme,
producing further frustration and greater oscillations, and, finally, cusping
into a change of phase. Retrieval from such a situation is then extremely
problematic, and the relationship between members is irreparably damaged as
happens in societies which are thrown into a perpetual state of civil disorder
(Figure 8).
Therefore, corresponding to every level of
differentiation, there exists a minimum required level of integration below
which a system would disintegrate into chaos. Conversely, higher levels of
integration require higher degrees of differentiation in order to avoid
oppression. This leads to the conclusion that the periodic oscillations and
disruptions witnessed in a social system are basically produced by dichotomous
treatment of dialectical realities.
To remedy this situation, we need to
understand how a uni-dimensional formulation of conflicting tendencies can be
transformed into a multidimensional one so that a feasible whole can be
coproduced by infeasible parts. The remaining parts of this paper addresses this
question.
4. Distinction between a dialectic and a
dichotomy
So far, we have argued, that the AND relationship
denotes dialectical interactions between opposing tendencies, while the
OR refers to dichotomous reactions between them. The question now is:
under what conditions are opposing tendencies dialectical and when do they
form a dichotomy? In understanding this distinction and the implications of
dialectic and dichotomy in a social context, the concept of purposeful systems
developed by Russell Ackoff [18], is central.
According to Ackoff, social
systems are purposeful systems with purposeful parts. The parts as well as the
whole have a choice of both ends and means. Therefore, interaction between
purposeful parts can take many forms, including conflict and cooperation. In
conflict, each part, by its presence, reduces the expected value of the outcome
for others. The opposite is true of cooperation. However, it is by the following
definition of competition that Ackoff provides a key insight for understanding
the concept of dialectic.
Competition:
A and B are in
competition when a lower-level conflict serves the attainment of a commonly held
higher-level objective for both A and B [19].
This leads us to the
proposition that, in general, the purposeful actors (individually or in groups),
by agreeing or disagreeing with each other on compatibility of their ends,
means, or both, can create the following four types of relationships (Table
5):
1. Cooperation: Compatibility of both ENDS and MEANS;
2.
Competition: Compatibility of ENDS, incompatibility of MEANS;
3.
Collaboration: Incompatibility of ENDS, compatibility of MEANS;
4.
Conflict: Incompatibility of both ENDS and MEANS.
Using this
conception, dialectic seems to be similar to competition. It represents a
conflict situation, in which contradictions in lower-level tendencies become the
means for the creation of higher-level orders; a type of love-hate
relationship.
Although each tendency tries to pull the system in its
desired direction, the presence of the opposing tendency is also required to
attain the system's end. The interdependence of the opposing tendencies are such
that the seeds of the destruction of any system lies in the success (or the
dominance) of one of the tendencies over the other.
In summary, a
dialectic is a conflict in tendencies that share a higher-level
objective. It is a conflict of means, not ends. A dichotomy is a conflict
in ends and means, a zero-sum game and a win/lose struggle.
To the
extent that members of a social system share a common image of a desired future,
and agree on common ends, they are able to engage in mutually advantageous
relationships. The interaction of opposing tendencies does not result in a state
of frustration and immobility, which would happen if the tendencies were
dichotomously related.
Changing a dichotomy (win/lose dynamic) to a
dialectic (win/win environment) One of the important characteristics of a
win/lose struggle is the possibility of its conversion to either a lose/lose or
a win/win environment. In the realities of present complex and highly
differentiated social systems, the emergence of a lose/lose environment is not
only highly probable, but it is an increasingly dominant
reality.
Nowadays, winning requires much greater ability than ever
before. It has become easier for any group to prevent others from winning than
to win themselves. Increasing numbers of small special interest groups are
diluting the strength of the traditional power centers. Even many disadvantaged
minorities have been forced to learn how to prevent the opposing sides from
winning. But the illusion that increasing losses for the other side is
equivalent to winning, is THE reason for prolonging the struggle and playing the
game to a lose/lose end.
Ironically, it is the awareness of this high
probability for lose/lose that becomes instrumental in converting a win/lose
struggle to that of a win/win. This is easily confirmed by understanding the
reason why the players in the famous prisoner's dilemma [20] chose the win/win
strategy to avoid a lose/lose end. Here again the awareness of the possibility
for lose/lose and the dynamic interaction of players creates a meta-game leading
to a win/win.
On the other hand, ends and means are interchangeable
concepts; an end is a means for a further end. Changing a dichotomous conflict
to a dialectical one requires finding higher-level objectives shared by
lower-level conflicting tendencies. This will transform the lower-level opposing
ends to conflicting means that share a higher-level objective, thus a dialectic.
The search for finding a shared higher-level end can continue up to, and
include, the ideal, when ends and means converge and become the same [21]. The
probability of finding a shared objective increases by moving to higher and
higher levels, and is maximized at the ideal level.
Now, if even the
ideal level cannot produce a common end for conflicting tendencies, the the
conflict is considered non-dissolvable within the context of existing world
views. In this situation, dissolving the conflict requires a change in world
views. This change can happen as a reaction to frustrations produced by failure
of the existing assumptions to deal with the emerging realities of a new era, a
march of events nullifying conventional wisdom. Or, it can happen by an active
learning and unlearning process of purposeful transformation.
It is important to realize that more often than
not, the conflicting tendencies agree on an objective as a means to another
conflicting higher end (collaboration). These are the cases in which a
dichotomous conflict is converted to a dialectical one, only to be succeeded by
another dichotomy at the higher level [Figure 10]. To have a dialectic leading
to another dialectic, requires an agreement at the ideal level (Figure 11). But
the ideal is not a fixed concept, an absolute. It is subject to constant
reformulation by the members of the social system, reflecting their desires and
fears of the here and now. Therefore, the agreement on the ideal
also has to be reconfirmed accordingly. This is done not by agreement on an
absolute ideal state, but on creation of an ideal-seeking system, capable of
purposeful transformation to higher levels.
5. Summary
It
is my contention that the ability of a social system to redesign its structure,
redefine its function, and form and AND relationship between the opposing
tendencies, creates a capacity for a purposeful transformation toward higher
levels of differentiation and integration. It results in the possibility that a
change in organization mode could take place without an observable cusp, or even
a significant sign. This represents a new challenge - designers of a social
system must be alert to the possibility of a change in mode of organization. If
serious crises are to be avoided, critical assumptions regarding the nature of
the relationships among relevant variables must be repeatedly checked and
verified. Constant verification is required even for those relationships that
have been established experimentally over and over again, and are accepted as
indisputable facts.
The courage to question the most sacred assumptions
are a basic requirement for an active and continuous process of learning and
unlearning which underlines the function of control guarantor in a social
system, and the need for the design of an ideal-seeking
system.
Interactive Planning, developed by Russell Ackoff is a design
methodology for the creation of ideal-seeking systems. It is particularly useful
in an effort to change a win/lose struggle to a win/win strategy. The five
phases of the interactive planning process are:
1. formulating the
mess;
2. ends planning;
3. means planning;
4. resource planning; and
5. implementation and control.
In the phase of formulating the mess
[23] - or defining the problematique - reference scenarios are used to project
into the future an exaggerated version of existing tendencies to create
awareness for a higher probability of a lose/lose outcome, and to find the
possible seeds of the system's destruction. To the extent that the reference
scenarios succeed in presenting a believable lose/lose future, it can generate
the required sense of crisis and the susceptibility to change. Finally, in the
ends planning phase the idealized redesign of the system not only provides a
proper setting for a continuous learning process, but also the vision and
motivation for redesigning the future and the means to bring it
about.
The above principles have been successfully applied in more than
20 different cases of conflict situations. It is beyond the scope of this paper
to describe them here. The most recent was dissolution of a profound
labour.management conflict which had originally led to the closing of more than
forty stores in the Philadelphia area. A win/win situation emerged with the
formation of a new subsidiary and the participative design of this
operation.
NOTES:
[1] See R. Ackoff, "The art and science
of mess management" , in Interfaces 11(1) (1981); and 1978: The Art of
Problem Solving. New York: Wiley, p.13.
[2] This is not an inclusive
OR but an exclusive OR (XOR).
[3] 'Complementarity' is not a logical
concept, nor is it the notion of the whole.
[4] A coproducer, unlike a
cause, which is both necessary and sufficient for the effect to occur, is only
necessary but not sufficient. For a full discussion of these concepts, see R.
Ackoff, 1962: Scientific Method. New York: Wiley, pp.16, 311.
[5]
Churchman, C.W., 1979: The Systems Approach and its Enemies. New York:
Basic Books, p.XI.
[6] Burrel, C. and G. Morgan, 1979: Sociological
Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heineman.
[7] Theories
basically concerned with deep-seated structural conflict and contradictions.
(Burrel and Morgan, 1979).
[8] Theories primarily concerned with
stability and underlying unity and cohesiveness of social systems (Burrel and
Morgan, 1979).
[9] Gordon, G. et al, 1974: "A contingency model for the
design of problem-solving research programs", Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly,
pp. 184-220.
[10] See C.W. Churchman, 1979.
[11] Zeeman, E.D.,
1977: Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers. Reading,
MA:Addison-Wesley.
[12] See J. Gharajedaghi, 1972: "Organization as
information-bonded systems", Industrial Management Institute
Publication.
[13] Blake, R. R. and J.S. Mouton, 1964: The Managerial
Grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co.
[14] For a discussion of
dimensions of social system, see J. Gharajedaghi, 1981: "On the nature of
management of social systems", S3 Papers, Wharton.
[15] Althusser,
L, 1967: "Overdetermination and Contradiction", New Left Review 41.
[16]
Boulding, K.E., 1978: Ecodynamics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
[17] Buckley, Wl, 1967: Sociology and Modern Systems
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[18] See Ackoff, R. and F.
Emery, 1972: On Purposeful Systems.
[19] Ibid.
[20] See
Rapoport, A., 1967: "Escape from Paradox", Scientific American,; and A.
Rapoport, and Ghammah, 1965; Prisoner's dilemma. Michigan: Ann
Arbor.
[21] R. Ackoff, in a discussion of the concept of omnicompetence,
argues that "one can desire nothing without desiring the ability to satisfy it.
The ability to satisfy all desires is an ideal necesssarily shared by all men at
all times." This is a meta-ideal, where ends and means converge and become the
same. (1978).
[22] Ackoff, R. 1981: Creating the Corporate
Future. NY: Wiley.
[23] Vergara, E., J. Gharajedaghi and R. Ackoff,
1980: "Guide to Interactive Planning", S3 Papers, Wharton.
...back