A nicely ambiguous cartoon from Gaping Void. One of those ones that sets you back a bit and forces you to think. It has been on my mind recently, in part because a lot of the Cognitive Edge ideas are now taking off. SenseMaker projects are coming in, web references increasing, in effect a phase shift of acceptance. As the number of people who take up an idea increases, so the question of purity arises. The problem that arises then is that of purity, to what extent do you hunt down and route out error?
OK there are some obvious errors some of which irritate me. Others one sits back and says how could anyone think that? I had an example of that today, someone had needed to deal with an academic who thought we deleted all stories after we captured them (in SenseMaker™ that is). In fact we never delete any, that is the strength of narrative research, you don't loose the data as you write each report it retains its utility over long periods of time. In turn that increases your sensitivity to outlier events. So that has to be corrected, but politely and the source of the confusion sorted so we don't explain things badly again (I am assuming it was an error on our part).
With a complex (sic) set of ideas and concepts it is more than likely that people will pick up on the aspects they understand. Or (a common variant) having been successfully mentored through their first project, carry on repeating that project (as a recipe) rather than apply the principles uniquely in a new situation. I teach that as the difference between recipe book users and chefs which is a good metaphor.
At the same time, some people will add to and develop methods consistent with the principles - I saw several examples of that with Narrative Lab our in South Africa last month. Evolution is necessary, more minds and practices brought to bear is a good thing. However that evolution can sometimes be inconsistent with the core principles, making falcons into pigeons (see below). Some people cannot get away from old consultancy ways and models.
So when to intervene, when to stand back, if correction is needed how to make it? `Purity rituals of exclusion are common in human systems (astute readers will know the reference in the title), when should they be applied? What is the balance between evolution and compromise? Any ideas out there?
Nasrudin found a weary falcon sitting one day on his window-sill. He had never seen a bird like this before.
‘You poor thing’, he said, ‘how ever were you to allowed to get into this state?’
He clipped the falcon’s talons and cut its beak straight, and trimmed its feathers.
‘Now you look more like a bird,’ said Nasrudin
Comments (7)
I am laughing here, I hear where you're coming from... I think.
In the end, perhaps your role is not to Defend the Truth but to be an influential disruptor and you may have to delight in having so many unintended consequences.
You could see all these mutations and reinterpretations as further proof of your ideas about complex systems and just wallow in a profound sense of vindication.
I don't know about you, but I think the Buddhists get the last laugh. The Tao that can be named is not the Tao. Etc.
Posted by Johnnie Moore | September 25, 2009 7:23 PM
Posted on September 25, 2009 19:23
I would describe this as the "leader's dilemma".
An insight that has served me well over the years (and also provided some comfort at times) is the notion that: "It is a wise person who can learn from fools".
Regards, Ivan Webb (Tasmania)
Posted by Ivan Webb | September 26, 2009 11:08 PM
Posted on September 26, 2009 23:08
After reading and annotating (for my personal use only) the many Cynefin papers and listening to every podcast posted here on Cognitive Edge I'm hard pressed to see why I should try to modify Cynefin. I explored it at length in my KM Master's degree Capstone paper (with extensive attribution to your work) and applied it to two areas: climate science and radiobiology.
The Cynefin framework can be applied to so many areas that 'grokking' the how of applying it is more the challenge than trying to change it. It requires a change in mind set (a KM phase shift) on the part of the user rather than trying to change the framework to make it more palatable to entrained scientific management thinking and habits.
One very valuable outcome of using the Cynefin framework is that is allows you to finally 'manage' an abundance of information. Management has always been about managing shortages or limited resources (people and resources). Yet the information age requires you to somehow 'manage' an abundance of information from all over the network. Cynefin provides the answer to 'managing' massive amounts of information while still influencing the outcome, albeit without the top-down, command-and-control limitations dragged over from 100-year old management practices that are wholly inadequate to the task.
Posted by Mike Sivertsen | September 28, 2009 7:40 PM
Posted on September 28, 2009 19:40
I support what Mike Siversten has commented, altho' I'd change this:
Cynefin provides the answer to 'managing' massive amounts of information while still influencing the outcome
to this:
Cynefin provides coherent and practical ways to process and interpret' massive amounts of information while still influencing the outcome
Posted by Jon Husband | September 30, 2009 3:46 AM
Posted on September 30, 2009 03:46
Another thought occurred to me:
I suspect 'purists' believe (at some level) that they are participating in an fully ordered system. It is difficult for them to get 'some skin in the game' because its unordered aspects challenge their beliefs. For example, there will be aspects of any engineering project where one would hope the engineers would be purists. But there will other aspects of the same project where things are not so straight forward. Knowing which is which can be very important to the project's success.
Posted by Ivan Webb | September 30, 2009 10:17 PM
Posted on September 30, 2009 22:17
Dave, this runs back to your post on Drivers and Modulators. It seems to me that the zealots you are describing are modulators - stuck to the pole of the magnet and unwilling to change. Evolution is a behavior, changing to survive although one can't necessarily predict whether the change leads to fitness or a dead-end. Evolution in this way is a driver, the flux between poles of the magnets. In an n-body universe, one that is complex and not simple, we can see the resulting patterns as "knowledge" in SNA and concept maps. And Sensemaker visualizations?
Posted by tony joyce | October 1, 2009 2:01 PM
Posted on October 1, 2009 14:01
Excellent add Jon - here is an updated version with your edit and some I felt were needed. That last sentence is now ready for Dave's next brochure :)
"One very valuable outcome of using the Cynefin framework is that is allows you to finally 'manage' an abundance of information. Management has always been about managing shortages or limited resources (e.g., people, time, money). Yet the information age requires you to somehow 'manage' an abundance of information from all over the network. Cynefin provides contextually sensitive, coherent and practical ways to process and interpret massive amounts of information while still influencing the outcome, albeit without top-down, command-and-control limitations dragged over from 100-year old management practices that are wholly inadequate to the task.
Posted by Mike Sivertsen | October 9, 2009 8:57 PM
Posted on October 9, 2009 20:57