Last month my colleagues and I completed a pilot of what well may be the most interesting project of my life. It was the pilot of a new type of MOOC that pushes the MOOC design envelope by blending a globally transformative platform with an eco-system of deep personal, locally grounded learning communities.
It’s been a while since I’ve been pondering the fifteen properties of wholeness as expressed by Christopher Alexander. Although I have yet to read one of his book, his work has transpired up to me already through the well know pattern languages.
Being found of Systems Thinking and the transdiscplinarity this permits, I couldn’t help but wonder how these 15 properties could apply to mind and mental models as well, and how it could inform our feeling of wholeness or explain when we feel like being one and belonging to a bigger, encompassing one as well. Sounds like spirituality to me, although I consider myself an atheist!
Of course, feeling also attracted to radical constructivism and social constructionism, I can safely affirm that you both are influenced by what you distinguish in the world around you and that you construct what you’re looking for. So, I hope the interpretation I give below (which is purely empirical… or my own construct) may be useful both as a way to construct that feeling of wholeness than as a way to find where it may exist when you didn’t feel it in the first place. Now, back to constructivism: where’s the difference between building and finding-and-constructing at the same time?
Here is my inner travel through the fifteen properties of wholeness. Fancy a trip with me? Here we go… Read more »
It’s with great pleasure that I propose below the first translation of our french leaflet regarding the #labso. That will be the base for the translation of the official website (http://labso.org/) once we find the time to do so.
The source document will be uploaded to some shared repository as soon as possible as well. Meanwhile, feel free to drop us a note if you have comments, requests or else @nicolasstampf or @alexis8nicolas.
Enjoy: QUAD LabSoTech v1.2 EN
I’ve been told a very old study, dated back ni 1948 reported a negative correlation between designing and resisting to a change: the more you participated in designing a change, the less you resisted it.
Of course, we all know this (albeit still try to push our ideas onto others, making them resisting), but knowing it’s really old facts, with measures is really interesting to me.
I don’t have the full paper yet, but below is the information I was given about it. Update: I did finally found it, see bottom of this paper. Thanks to Patrick Hoverstadt for the references!
First systems thinking reading during commute this year, and it’s already an excellent paper from SSI Review “The Dawn of System Leadership“. Thorough and with gems inside, I can only urge you to reserve some time to read it (it’s longer than a classical blogpost, but it more than deserves the time invested)!
The Core Capabilities of System Leaders identified in the article are:
- the ability to see the larger system;
- fostering reflection and more generative conversations;
- shifting the collective focus from reactive problem solving to co-creating the future.
The article also mentions Appreciative Inquiry, which is quite rare in the systems thinking field not to be mentioned.
Also mentioned is Otto Scharmer’s “Theory U” which starts with three openings:
- opening the mind (to challenge our assumptions),
- opening the heart (to be vulnerable and to truly hear one another),
- and opening the will (to let go of pre-set goals and agendas and see what is really needed and possible)
Ironically (well, maybe not so in the end) is the link I made in the past between the Strengths of people and Simon Sinek’s three circles in this blogpost and the work we’re developping with Alexis Nicolas in the Labso (laboratory of social technologies) (in bold are the new additions to the previous article):
- Why <–> Purpose <–> Vision (heart) of where you want to go
- How <–> Mastery <–> Ideas (mind) of how to get there
- What <–> Autonomy <–> Experience (hand) that proved to work in the past that can support you going forward
2015 seems to be off to a very good start!
Je me permets de commencer cette nouvelle année d’une part en vous la souhaitant tout à fait excellente, voire décoiffante et d’autre part en vous renvoyant vers l’excellent post de MOM21 “Nous ne croyons pas au Père Noël“.
Et si plutôt que de parler d’entreprise libérée, nous parlions d’entreprise libérante ?
Encore bonne année à tous, qu’elle vous montre le chemin de votre libération personnelle !
The Club of Rome and “Limits to Growth” book have warned us since when I was born that without a drastic change, humanity is doomed. Indeed, a point of non-return was passed over in the 80s, so we I guess we all have to cross fingers and hope for an innovation to save us all.
Meanwhile, I was thinking out loud on LinkedIn/Systems Thinking World and happened to have posted the following, which I think might be of interest to readers of this blog.
I think there’s a system at play in humans on a second level that is absent in animals (and insects) [the discussion was about Insect Economies]
Animals interact on a ground level with their environment and are structurally coupled with it (Maturana). When there’s food available, they use it. When the resource is exhausted or below a *practical* level corresponding to their natural ability to gather/use it, they just stop, either through migrating to better places, which indeed let time for nature to rebuild itself or they breed less, or even they disappear altogether.
Humans on the contrary are able to adapt themselves to a higher level to their environment. When their usual way of using resources isn’t sufficient enough, they invent/innovate a new/different/better way of doing it, and exploit the resources further (usually through tools). The result is that nature goes beyond a point of being able to regenerate itself (overshoot and collapse? Mentioned here). When we achieve this point, we usually either move elsewhere (find a new oil natural tank) or innovate to use another kind of resource.
Indeed, it’s always a search for more, with (as far as I noted for now) more and more negative longer term consequences.
So, from a systemic perspective, I’d say that what allowed humanity to prosper up to now is its capacity to think at “upper” levels and have a new kind of adaptation to change, where animals are more limited. It might well be what will put humanity at risk in the longer term, unless we evolve one layer further up.
I thus see 3 tendencies for now:
- continue humankind as usual (the 90%)
- embrace decrease/frugal economy (ie, consume less and less, the 9%) – in which I place initiatives such as The Commons
- embrace thinking to a higher level (the 1%?): systems thinking, the human project (http://www.thehumanproject.us/) and similar.
Despite being attracted with the third option, I’m wondering whether this direction is the good one given that it showed such poor results to date (incredible progress but with an exhausted planet in the end).
I just stumbled upon this marvelous piece of read: Why projects don’t make sense.
Just spot on, I love this!
Moreover, when Allan says
Destroying team destroys knowledge – knowledge has value, knowledge exists in heads not documents
I would further add that knowledge exists in the interactions too (social constructionism). Destroy relationships, destroy knowledge.
Here’s a nice blog post about the Vanguard Method (it calls itself “systems thinking” which I don’t quite agree, but hell, the result’s good, so who really cares? Besides, nobody really knows or can define what ST *is*)
Next time people in your organization complains about a lack of time, have them count the marbles!
This is an affirmation and my own experience is totally opposite of it (well, if I focus on some specific aspects).
A more acceptable affirmation would be for me: “people like or dislike change depending on the situation, but disliked changes seem to be more memorable and thus people speak more of them“.
Think of any day or your life and how things were different from the previous day: there were probably a zillions things different. Can you really say you disliked them all?
Most went unnoticed. Some were disliked, and some were liked.
Provided it’s a change they want.
Now think about the change people resisted and the one they happily followed: what were the differences?
I’m rarely definitive in my statements, but “people resist change” is the most ridiculous sentence I just keep listening all day long since I happen to see just the opposite again and again. At least this sentence is wrong stated that way.
And of course, believing the sentence is the very start of a self fulfilling prophecy… I believe “People resist change”, so I don’t bother exchanging with them and I just force my changes onto them and hire change management to handle whatever dissatisfaction and resistance will happen, and since it does happen, I was right acting that way from the beginning.
One of the saddiest thing in life, mind you…