(From a discussion in a Systems Thinking forum in LinkedIn this morning.)
I think there is great hope for the future
already visible amid the catastrophic failure all around us of the old
ways that make it harder and harder to believe that "This will work,
just keep doing more of it."
The paradigm needs to change. The pathways we need to take will be
revealed through encouraging feedback to those who take action, again
mixed with hostile feedback from those vested in the old ways.
In systems terms, our solutions lie hididen from us in the closed-loop
IIR-world and cannot even be seen or imagined in the open-loop
FIR-world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_impulse_response
To ask "what path leads there" is like asking, "If you start at the
Empire State Building in New York City, which straight road leads you
directly to Los Angeles?" The answer is "None" but that is not to say
you can't get there from here. No single linear "path" goes from here
to there, but big deal. The path hasn't even been created yet so of
course it's not visible.
As Einstein said, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
While we may appear to have a shortage of food, water, and power, one
thing we do NOT have a shortage of is people. So the question is, are
people a resource or a "sink". If they're viewed as a consumption
"sink", yes, then, we are basically screwed.
On the other hand, if people comprise an untapped resource, then we are saved. I fully believe in the "saved" model.
The legacy "competition" model between people, and ever larger-scale
groups of people, is what is bankrupt -- not the people themselves.
That model does not, empirically, either lead to good solutions, or, in
application, lead to very efficient utilization of available resources
and opportunities. Easily 95% of all effort in most people-structures
at any scale is wasted on internal squabbling.
The larger the structure, the more pronounced this system-effect is.
(An excellent and hilarious, but profound, discussion of the failure modes of large systems is Systemantics, by John Gall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
)
At the same time, very significant research and practice in the
creation of high-performance, high-quality, ultra-high-reliability
systems in aircraft cockpits, intensive care units, fire-fighting, and
military situations have shown, repeatedly, that CORRECTLY organized
teams based on COOPERATION and mutual-respect can and DO function
spectacularly better than those based on the legacy model of
competition.
In management terms, "Theory Y" organizations are profoundly more robust
and sustainable than "Theory X" organizations, make better decisions by
far, and are far more fun to work for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y
I'd suggest focusing on the key elements of what is it that causes large
systems to "go wrong" and become, de facto, corrupt, out of touch,
dysfunctional and blind? And, can that be changed by a STRUCTURAL
DESIGN change, such that the VERY SAME ELEMENTS (people) doing what
appear to be the very same activities, now suddenly WORK instead of
failing.
As systems thinkers, we know perfectly well that outcomes are as much
functions of the STRUCTURE as the COMPONENTS. We know, from empirical
examples, that high-reliability teams CAN be made out of low-reliability
people, in the right context.
Are humans "incorrigibly selfish and mean"? Only in structural contexts
that use feedback to push them into those behaviors. In the correct
structural contexts, people are "incredibly strong, supportive, and
capable of heroic and inspired action."
We, in systems thinking worlds, hold the keys to unlocking that buried
power that is so vehemently and emotionally denied and attacked by
proponents of "theory X".
===
Let me addend to my prior comment that there is an illusion that very rich people will oppose cooperation among underlings or people in general because they fear that, united, the oppressed will arise and overthrow them.
To some extent this is incomplete thinking and needs to be exposed. It is akin to saying "I'm glad I don't like ice cream, because if I liked it, I might eat it, and I hate it!"
If you take an incomplete model of a cooperative enterprise and treat it as "cooperation internally in order to COMPETE better externally", then, yes, be concerned, very concerned, if the staff compare notes and unify.
BUT, if you take a complete model, of "cooperation internally in order to be strong enough to cooperate externally as well", then there is no threat to the existing very rich.
Once people realize that we live in a sea of WEALTH, not a sea of shortage, then there is no motivation to organize in order to redistribute the existing wealth (i.e., revolt and take it away from someone else so that we have it, or to "distribute" it more "fairly" or "evenly.")
A revolution in deed, attempting to redistribute wealth, will certainly be met with hostility. This is not surprising.
A revolution in mind, realizing that more wealth can easily be created so there is neither need nor motivation to threaten someone else's existing wealth, can be met with at least neutrality.
In fact, creating wealth-creating structures of people could be WELCOME by the wealthy, who, frankly, are very hard pressed to know where on earth to INVEST a trillion dollars with any hope of getting a positive gain.
New human structures, a systems-approach to altering the outcomes of human behavior, does not require humans to become something they are not. There is no magic, other than the incredible power of structural feedback.
But I think it can help, from day one, if it is made clear that this is NOT a "revolution" with all that implies. It is an evolution, and a win-win approach to the future.
Wade
