Categories
Admin

New Forum

“Humanity is a mystery. It needs to be unravelled, and if you spend your life unravelling it, don’t say you’ve wasted your time.” Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Most of humanity’s problems, such as war, poverty, and climate change, are self-inflicted. Sustainable, long-term solutions can only be found by unravelling Dostoevsky’s mystery of humanity. But this can only be done through an honest, rational, objective, and scientific understanding of human nature.

For two years, I have been posting articles on this subject on my website, Quora, and LinkedIn and now have a significant following. Originally, I considered repeating the articles on Facebook. However, I have concluded that my website is not the best place for you to have your say, or for you to contribute to the discussion. So, I have decided to create an open Facebook forum where I will merely post links to new articles and join any discussion. You can find it at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/325990503088660/

You are free to post your own views, articles, criticisms, or whatever there, subject, of course, to Facebook’s rules.

Please join the debate.

Categories
10. Culture and Interaction Style

Culture and Interaction Style

Culture

Culture is learned and comprises values, norms, beliefs, knowledge, and symbols. It is, therefore, information. A culture can be shared by the members of any organisation small or large. Culture, especially values, along with inherited predispositions affect a person’s behaviour, and thus, the “style” of interactions between and within organisations. The style of interaction also affects the culture of an organisation and there is, therefore, a degree of feedback between the two.

The social environment in which an organisation operates has a strong bearing on its culture. However, not all organisations operate within a single environment. Some, for example, operate globally. Furthermore, not all individuals or organisations concur with the culture that prevails in their environment. Leaders of an organisation also have a strong influence over its culture. These factors can result in conflicting values, the consequences of which will be discussed in a future article.

Interaction style

Organisations are predisposed to interact in one of three basic styles: co-operation, for example, helping one another over the finish line in a race; positive competition, for example, running as fast as we can to be first over the line; and negative competition, for example, kicking the legs out from one another on our way to it. This predisposition is based on past experience and  learning from others in the community but actual interaction style also depends on circumstances.. In the case of co-operation and negative competition, the two organisations interact directly with one another. Co-operation involves an equitable exchange of satisfiers; negative competition involves an exchange of contra-satisfiers. However, in the case of positive competition, the two organisations do not interact directly, but rather with a third party. This is usually a precursor to co-operation between the third party and the successful competitor.

In practice, the predispositions of organisations are often a mix of the three interaction styles, each predominating in different circumstances, as shown in the diagram below.

The style of interaction is usually, but not necessarily, defined by the attitudes of the component organisations or individuals directly involved in the interaction and te circumstances. However, more senior leaders can have an influence through their leadership style, the culture they promote within the organisation, and their distance from the interaction.

Interactions can be vertical, i.e., between individuals or organisations above and below one another in a hierarchy. They can also be horizontal, i.e., between individuals or organisations at similar levels, but on different branches, of a hierarchy. Thus, for example, the interaction between a manager and a junior member of staff is vertical, and the trade between nations horizontal.

Vertical Interaction Style

Vertical interaction is a special case of interaction in general. True leadership and followership are co-operative, but this form of interaction does not always exist between senior and junior individuals or the components of organisations. A leader must be accepted by followers to gain their willing support. If the leader is appointed by a bottom-up process, i.e., if followers agree their leader, then co-operation will normally ensue. However, if a leader is appointed by a top-down process, then co-operation is not inevitable, and positive or negative competition may occur. Examples of top-down appointments include not only appointments made by senior managers, but also business takeovers and the invasion of nations.

In positive competition, the two parties do not interact with one another but compete for satisfiers from a third party. An appointed leader and an unwilling follower may, for example, both compete for recognition by a more senior person.

In negative competition, contra-satisfiers are exchanged but the leader or parent organisation is normally in a more powerful position, and thus, able to coerce the follower with threats of contra-satisfiers. Fortunately, extreme examples of such behaviour are now largely illegal, but mild versions persist in many organisations.

The style of vertical co-operative interaction varies on a scale. At one end is the personal contract, i.e., trading of personal benefits, such as power, wealth, and influence for support. At the other end of the scale is Rousseau’s social contract, which states that followers are willing to give up some of their rights in the communal interest. However, the definition of communal interest can vary, and so the social contract can be defined in several ways. Thus, this definition should be revised as follows: people are willing to support a leader, and thus, give up certain rights if that leader acts in a way that delivers benefits to:

  • the individual supporter (personal contract);
  • the supporting team (team contract);
  • the sub-organisation (sub-organisational contract);
  • the organisation (organisational contract);
  • the super-organisation (super-organisational contract);
  • the nation (national contract);
  • humanity (species contract); or
  • the ecosystem (environmental contract).

The style of contract sought and offered will depend on the follower’s and leader’s attitudes. In general, the weight given to each type of contract, i.e., its relative influence on their interaction style, generally decreases from personal, to social, to species, to environmental. This decrease is consistent with the multilevel selection theory of evolution. We place greatest weight on immediate personal interest, but do not neglect our longer-term interests gained communally. The actual weights applied by an individual or organisation depend on their attitude. Generally, those with a right-wing attitude will place greater weight on the personal contract, and less weight on other contracts, than those with a left-wing attitude.

Categories
09. Disagreement: A Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis

Disagreement: A Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis

The Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis of Disagreement

Disagreement between two parties is caused by conflicting values and beliefs. The extent of disagreement varies on a scale from all values and beliefs conflicting to none.

If there is no disagreement, then co-operation comes easily. Neither party’s values or beliefs are altered by the relationship, and their normal behaviour remains unchanged.  For this reason, stagnation also occurs.

If there is too much disagreement, then co-operation becomes impossible. This is because the adaptive effort required of an individual or organisation outweighs the benefits of co-operation. In such circumstances the two parties will not voluntarily interact. They may, however, engage in positive competition directed at a third party. If obliged to interact, then they will normally engage in negative competition, and this may ultimately lead to conflict.

However, between these two extremes lies a Goldilocks Zone. If there is “just enough” disagreement, then the two parties will either compromise or work out a consensus that enables them to cooperate, and progress will be made.

This principle applies to the internal relationships within an individual, external relationships between individuals, and relationships between organisations, including businesses and nations.

As individuals, we are content if there are no internal conflicts between our own beliefs or values and those that we must subscribe to. However, we do not develop, grow, or mature. If there are some manageable conflicts, then we can reconcile them and in so doing, we grow. However, if there are too many, then this causes distress, indecision and, in extreme cases, mental ill health. We can sometimes manage extreme internal conflicts by ignoring their existence, rationalising, etc., but we cannot escape them, and they can affect our decision-making and behaviour.

When two individuals interact, total agreement enables us to co-operate, and we are easy in one another’s company, but we do not grow from the relationship, and can become bored with it. Just a little disagreement, however, challenges our values and beliefs, causes us to review and perhaps revise them, and thus, we grow. If there is too much disagreement however, the effort of revising our mental schema becomes too great. Thus, we will often ignore or avoid one another. If obliged to interact, for example regarding property ownership, then we can become intractable and may engage in heated, or even violent argument. Academic and religious differences are examples of intractable beliefs that can lead to very heated disagreement.

When two organisations interact the same is true. Their values and beliefs are a part of their organisational culture. The equivalent of the individual’s mental schema is the organisation’s culture and institutions, which, while some modification is possible in the case of minor disagreements, can be immovable in the case of major ones.

There are two foundations for this hypothesis, the British psychologist, Frederik Bartlett’s (1886- 1969) theories of remembering, and evolutionary theory.

In his 1932 book, “Remembering”, Bartlett explained that we hold knowledge, which of course includes values and beliefs, in mental schemata. He also showed experimentally that we remember those things that are consistent with our existing schemata, and forget or modify those things that are not. This is because our memory comprises biological connections between brain cells and, any change requires the physical removal and reconstruction of those connections. Thus, revising our values and beliefs requires significant biological effort.

Regarding evolutionary theory, in biological evolution, genes can mutate at random, due for example to copying errors when cells split, virus infections, or the effect of radiation. If there is no mutation, then any asexual offspring will simply be clones of the parent. If there is a little mutation, then this can be harmful, neutral, or beneficial to the offspring. If there is too much mutation at one time, then it will almost certainly be harmful. However, minor neutral or beneficial mutations can accumulate over time. This ultimately leads to speciation, that is, several species that cannot interbreed arising from a single one.

Social evolution emulates biological evolution, but rather than using genes, it uses memes, i.e., our values and beliefs. In the same way as biological evolution some “mutation” of memes is necessary for social evolution to take place. A little disagreement can be accommodated within a culture and helps it to develop. “Mutations” that are beneficial or neutral are retained and those that are harmful are abandoned. However, eventually, minor beneficial or neutral differences accumulate to a point where they cannot be accommodated and the culture divides. When the human population was relatively small, these new cultures could migrate and put geographical distance between them. Religious minorities, for example, migrated from Europe to America. In this way conflict was minimised and different cultures spread across the world. However, in the present-day, unoccupied territory is hard to find, if it exists at all. Furthermore, complex economic interdependencies bind us to our society far more strongly than was historically the case.  We are therefore more likely to meet and interact with others who hold values and beliefs different to our own. The risk of conflict has therefore increased. Examples include: the Russia/ Ukraine war, which is essentially about authoritarian versus democratic government, and the ownership of energy resources; the cultural divide in the USA; and even the current Western “woke/ anti-woke” debate.

People are, of course, attempting to find ways to extend the Goldilocks Zone. These attempts have met with mixed success, and I will discuss them in a future article. However, for the present, it is sensible to understand that people who have held a belief for most of their lives, and organisations that have long benefitted from a particular form of behaviour will not readily change. Forceful efforts to make them do so will almost certainly be greeted with an adverse reaction. So, it is sensible to walk away from situations likely to lead to conflict if you can. Also, if you wish to bring someone around to your views, then it is best to present your arguments at a slow and steady pace, and in chunks that can be easily consumed.

Finally, the way in which we disagree is important and guidance can be found at http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html with a helpful diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#/media/File:Graham’s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg

The Relationship between the Goldilocks Zone Hypothesis of Disagreement, Groupthink, and Spreadthink.

With thanks to Matthew Shapiro for highlighting this relationship.

The terms groupthink and spreadthink are normally used in the context of decision-making by groups of individuals who have convened to address an issue of interest. Groupthink applies when all members have common beliefs and values regarding the issue. In these circumstances, it is relatively easy for the group to come to agreement. Spreadthink applies when the members have such different beliefs and values that agreement cannot be reached. Between the two is a goldilocks zone in which some effort is needed to reach agreement, but the outcome better addresses the issue.

However, the concept of spreadthink can be defined more generally as “the inability of a group of individuals, organisations, or even nations to agree on matters they have convened to address, due to irreconcilable differences in their values and beliefs”. The concept of groupthink can be generalized in much the same way.

There is a relationship between the goldilocks zone hypothesis and both groupthink and spreadthink. Extreme spreadthink can be defined as super-optimal disagreement between every pair of members of the group. That is, disagreement that is greater than that of the goldilocks zone. Extreme groupthink can be defined as sub-optimal disagreement between every pair of members of the group. That is disagreement that is less than that of the goldilocks zone.

In practice, however, both extremes are rarely encountered. It is rare for all interactions between group members to be ones of full agreement. It is also rare for all interactions to be ones of irreconcilable disagreement. The latter does not mean, however, that a group will be effective in addressing their issue of interest. For example, there may be sufficient interactions lying within or below the goldilocks zone to form two or more sub-groups – each subgroup comprising members with common relevant values and beliefs. These sub-groups then become components of the group. Super-optimal disagreement between them can cause a failure to address the issue of interest. It can also cause the group to split. It can even cause conflict.

The concepts of the goldilocks zone, groupthink, and spreadthink are clearly important in explaining social interactions at all levels, from the individual to the nation. I think that they warrants further investigation, therefore.

Categories
08. Values

Values

Values are beliefs about what is important to us individually, or to society as a whole. That is, what we believe to be “good” or “bad”. When values are shared by a group of people, they form a part of that group’s culture. They play a significant part in motivating our behaviour. Each comes with a set of norms, i.e., what we believe to be good or bad behaviour. Values are also information, and so, they can be true to reality or erroneous. If the latter, they may not be good for us individually or for society.

We are not born with values. Rather, we merely have an innate drive to satisfy our personal needs as efficiently and effectively as we can. For example, a young child will cry in distress when it is hungry, thirsty, or experiences any other form of discomfort. Freud referred to this aspect of our personality as the “Id”, and it remains at the core of our being throughout our lives.

Humans have an unusually long childhood compared with other animals of similar body mass. This is thought to be related to the number of neurons in our brains, and thus, the time it takes to become mentally capable of independence. Our long childhood creates a significant overlap with older generations. Throughout it, most learn that we must often co-operate with others to satisfy our needs. Values that enable us to co-operate in this way are passed on to us by our parents and other adults with whom we interact. However, depending on the nature of our upbringing, we may either internalise such values or not. That is, make them an integral part of our psyche. If they are internalised, they tend to remain with us throughout our lives and act as our conscience, which Freud referred to as the “super-ego”.

However, there are some who do not internalise such values. This may be due to random mutations in the variable genome that make it difficult to do so. Alternatively, it may be that early mutations making internalisation possible have not been inherited. However, another very significant factor is childhood upbringing. Parents may not have passed on such values, or may even have passed on contradictory ones such as “looking after number one” or “the end justifies the means”. Unsurprisingly, therefore, such children grow up with little more than an inherited self-interest. In extreme cases, this can take the form of psychopathy, narcissism, or dark empathy, and will be discussed in future articles.

According to Freud, another aspect of our personality, the “ego”, uses reason to balance the demands of the id and super-ego, thereby optimising our behaviour in our best interests. It enables a balance to be struck between the two extremes of immediate self-interest and our longer-term interest gained through co-operation with others.

We are attracted to groups that we feel will enable us to satisfy our needs. These needs are not only our normal ones of survival and existence, relatedness to others, and personal growth and development. Unfortunately, it can also include anti-social needs such as the need for dominance, greed, sex, etc.

Values vary from group to group. To be accepted as a member of a group, we must accept its values. However, this can lead to internal conflicts. Our internalised values or lack of them may not match those of the group. Thus, to gain the benefits of group membership, we have learnt to put on a mask. That is to overtly display values that we do not necessarily hold. This may be an inherited trait that is more dominant in some than in others. So, for example, if one wishes to join a group to gain power and dominance, then one will at first disguise this motivation and express group values in order to gain followers. However, Carl Rogers believed that the internal stress of the mask can ultimately lead to mental ill health. Certainly, it is difficult to sustain in the longer term. So, if someone seeking power has held a mask in order to gain it, then they will drop it as soon as they have sufficient power to coerce their followers. I am sure that you can think of examples from present day politics.

This ability to wear a mask and present a false impression of our values and beliefs is, of course, the foundation of our ability to lie and provide misinformation. In turn, such misinformation and the variety of values are the reason why society is so complex and difficult to predict. This will be discussed further in the next article.

Categories
07. Functional Differentiation

Functional Differentiation

In sociology, the term “functional differentiation” describes progressive specialisation within a society. This concept has long been well understood, but was brought to prominence by the American sociologist, Talcott Parsons, and the German one, Niklas Luhmann. Functional differentiation is a major contributor to increasing social complexity, and a feature of Western society today. When a society is relatively stable, ever-increasing knowledge and population leads to ever more specialisation, and organisations to carry out specialised activities. Up to a point, functional differentiation generally leads to increased efficiency, and is therefore beneficial to society. Unfortunately, however, it also leads to increasing communication distances, and thus, an increased risk of miscommunication. It also leads to ever more complex functional dependencies, i.e., reliance on a greater number of other organisations for the inputs needed to carry out one’s own function. This leads to an increasing risk of organisational failure. Functional differentiation can also lead to a reduced understanding of the roles of others, and thus, to potential conflict, and potential failure of the parent organisation. Finally, as will be discussed a future article, it can lead to an increasing risk of mental ill-health.

So, unless these disbenefits can be reduced, by for example improving information technology, there may be an optimum level of functional differentiation beyond which the benefits begin to decline.

The academic sector provides an example of functional differentiation. This is summarised in the diagram below.

Our increasing knowledge has led to an increasing number of goods and services, and thus, to greater trade. This, in turn, has led to increasing social complexity which, alongside greater knowledge, has led to the formation of academic silos. Specialists now share knowledge mainly only with other specialists in the same discipline. There is a relative lack of cross-disciplinary sharing. This has developed to the point where the knowledge in one field can be incomprehensible to those working in another. As a consequence, our ability to identify inconsistencies between different branches of knowledge has reduced. Furthermore, our ability to draw on knowledge from one field to enhance that of another has also declined.

Specialisation will always be necessary. However, there is also now a pressing need for generalists, i.e., people with the knowledge and understanding of more than one speciality to carry our this cross-disciplinary work. Whilst the latter is now widely understood, the academic world has become highly institutionalised and is difficult to change. Limited moves are being made to introduce cross-disciplinary courses, but these are often little more than a year spent in another department. The following article in The Guardian provides further information: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2018/jan/24/the-university-of-the-future-will-be-interdisciplinary

To date, however, relatively little work is being done to develop cross-disciplinary comparison techniques or to train students in their use, and this needs to change. Ironically, cross-disciplinary comparison is itself is a speciality and includes, for example, logic, epistemology or the theory of knowledge, causality, systems science, and poly-perspectivism.

So, there are ways to tackle the downsides of functional differentiation in the academic world. Similar techniques can be applied elsewhere.

Categories
06. Behaviour is a System

Behaviour is a System

Human behaviour, whether that of an individual or that of a larger organisation, is a process. So, together with its inputs and outputs, it can be regarded as a system. The diagram below describes this system.

The behaviour system is part of a nested hierarchy comprising other systems. They are arranged as follows. The control component, in the case of an individual, is his mind, and in the case of a larger organisation, its leader. Together, the mental and physical resources that they directly control, i.e., the body of an individual or the people in a larger organisation, comprise the operational system. The operational system, together with the resources that it owns, comprise the resource system. Finally, the behaviour system comprises the resource system plus actual behaviour.

These systems operate in the following way. Paragraph numbers refer to those in the diagram.

  1. The environment comprises everything that is not a part of the system. It includes both the natural and the social environments. Inputs from the environment enter via the operational component. These inputs include risks and opportunities. The relevant parts of the operational component are, in the case of an individual, his physical senses, or in the case of a larger organisation particular individuals. For example, an individual may perceive a wasp as a threat of injury, or a government may see another nation as an opportunity for trade.
  2. Information from the environment is passed from the operational component to the control component, i.e., the mind or leader, where decisions are made. The operational component monitors the state of resources and satisfiers, i.e., those things that satisfy the individual or organisation’s needs. It also passes this information to the control component. For example, an individual may recognise that food in the refrigerator is running low, or a business that its stock of spare parts is too high.
  3. In return for this information, the control component makes decisions, and then, passes instructions to the operational component. These instructions are based on a risk, cost, benefit analysis that uses the value of satisfiers or contra-satisfiers and the resources required to create them. The value allocated to a satisfier or contra-satisfier depends on the interaction style of the individual or leader, i.e., whether they are co-operative, positively competitive, or negatively competitive. A negatively competitive individual may conclude that shoplifting is the way to fill their refrigerator. A government with a co-operative style may see a trading alliance as the way to improve their economy.
  4. Resources are acquired from the environment and become part of the resource reserves of the system, i.e., its property. They can be matter, energy or money. Resources can be acquired directly from the natural environment, or through trade with other individuals or organisations. Early humans were hunter-gatherers and acquired their food directly from nature. Today, however, many of us buy our bread from a baker or supermarket.
  5. The activities of the operational component, together with resources taken from reserves, act as inputs to the operations process. These inputs are satisfiers for the process. The operations process converts these resources into outputs. So, for example, an individual may cook the food in their refrigerator to create a meal. A business may assemble parts, or mix constituents, to create a sellable product.
  6. Some of these outputs are satisfiers for the operational component. We may, for example, eat part of the meal we have prepared to satisfy our personal need for sustenance. Similarly, governments and businesses pay the people who carry out their function.
  7. Other outputs can be satisfiers or contra-satisfiers that are used to trade for resources from other individuals or organisations. So, we may trade our labour for pay or provide a meal to friends in return for their friendship. Businesses do, of course, provide goods and services in return for payment. Alternatively, outputs can be operations on the natural environment to acquire resources, e.g., mining, hunting, or gathering. All behavioural outputs are constrained by the physical resources available, for example, an individual’s physical abilities. They are also constrained by the operational resources owned, for example, the financial capital of a business.
  8. Finally, behaviour can be observed, and so, the system of which it is a part outputs information to the environment. We can, for example, watch a football match or observe government activities, and thus, criticise them.

Organisations are recursive. Every organisation comprises several lesser ones. Every organisation, together with others, is also part of a larger one. This recursion continues downwards to individuals and upwards to all of humanity. This model describes the behaviour of every individual or organisation in that structure. So, it may provide the basis for a systems psychology of both individuals and organisations. Notably, it provides a basis for social learning theory which postulates that we emulate role models, that our behaviour is reinforced by the approval of others, i.e., satisfiers, and extinguished by their disapproval, i.e., contra-satisfiers.

The model may also be a basis for dynamic models of society, thereby enabling predictions to be made.

Categories
05. A Summary of Social Systems Theory

A Summary of Social Systems Theory

In this short series of articles, I will summarise the basic principles of Social Systems Theory. Full details are given in previous or subsequent articles.

The fundamental component of society or holon

The term holon was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book, The Ghost in The Machine. It refers to any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. In social systems theory the fundamental component or holon of society is the organisation, that is, any group of people who work together with a common purpose. Organisations can be of any type and can range in size and extent from an individual, through clubs, businesses, sectors, political parties, governments, nations, and groups of nations, to the global community.

Family relationships between organisations

All organisations form a nested hierarchy. The structural relationships between them are similar to those in a family and the same names can be used. Thus, for example, child organisations are components of a parent one, and parent organisations are components of a grandparent one. Two organisations that are components of the same parent are known as sibling organisations. This nested hierarchy continues upwards until an isolated organisation or the global community is reached.

Every organisation comprises a number of component or child organisations, and this nested hierarchy continues downwards until individual people are reached.

Recursion

Recursion means that similar rules and principles can explain the behaviour of organisations irrespective of their size. Thus, for example, a department in a government agency has a leader, and so too does the entire agency.

The control component

All organisations have a control component, e.g., leadership or management, to co-ordinate their activities. Due to recursion, control components have their own control components until we arrive at the individual person. This creates a leadership or management hierarchy comprising individuals. It is natural to select leaders using a bottom-up process, i.e., followers choose a leader thought to be best qualified to co-ordinate their activities. However, managers are also frequently chosen by a top-down process whereby senior managers select junior ones thought to be best suited to the role.

Needs, satisfiers, and contra-satisfiers

All organisations have needs similar to those of individuals. These needs are prioritised using the same categories for individuals identified by Abraham Maslow and Clayton Alderfer, i.e., ERG or existence, followed by relatedness, in particular family relatedness, followed by growth. These priorities are consistent with the multilevel selection theory of evolution. This holds that we place greatest weight on personal survival and reproduction, followed by that of the community upon which we depend, followed by people more remote.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs, for example, food for hunger, or resources for manufacturing. Both individuals and larger organisations endeavour to gain satisfiers as efficiently as possible. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, are those external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of our needs and which we endeavour to avoid.

The applicability of systems science, function, and causality to organisations

All organisations are systems and comprise inputs, processes, and outputs. The fundamental principles of systems science apply to them, therefore.

Causality also applies to organisations. The combination of an input and the process is equivalent to a cause. The combination of the process and an output is equivalent to an effect. An organisation’s processes and outputs are also referred to as its function. Because causality applies to organisations we can, for example, say that a number of necessary causes or inputs are together sufficient for an effect in which the organisation carries out its function of producing outputs.

Matter, energy, or information is transferred from every organisation’s inputs to its outputs. This takes place within the region of space-time defined by the organisation’s process. Thus, the latter provides the overlap in space-time needed for a cause to be related to an effect.

All organisations comprise a group of people who work together with a common purpose. This purpose is also the organisation’s function, and the ability to carry out its function is an organisational need.

The applicability of motivation theory to organisations

All interactions between individuals, organisations, and parts of them comprise an exchange of satisfiers or contra-satisfiers for each other’s needs. These satisfiers and contra-satisfiers also take the form of matter, energy, or information. A satisfier or contra-satisfier received is an input, and one provided is an output. Thus, motivation theory also plays a key role in social systems theory.

The applicability of information theory to organisations

Information passes between organisations and flows within any organisation’s processes. Thus, information theory plays an essential role in social systems theory. Fundamentally, information is organised or structured matter or energy that we recognise due to its recurrence. It can exist “at source”, i.e., as the original structure perceived in the physical universe. It can also be translated into various symbolic forms capable of being transmitted, stored, or remembered. Importantly, information at source is, by definition, always true. However, information acquired in other ways, for example, from another organisation, can be false.

Direct interaction can only take place if two organisations are aware of one another, and for this to be the case, information must pass between them. However, organisations can be aware of one another but not interact. These criteria simplify the web of interactions in a social system.

Culture & interaction style

The ways in which individuals and organisations interact are determined by their culture and interaction style. These topics will be covered in a forthcoming article.

Categories
10. The Evolution of Knowledge

The Evolution of Knowledge

Introduction

In this article, I describe the evolutionary stages in the development of human knowledge. Many of these stages took place in our ancestor species. The first almost certainly began in relatively simple animals, and subsequent stages followed on as complexity increased. At each stage, an increase in the sophistication of the ancestor’s brain would have been necessary to accommodate the new ability.

The process is summarised in the diagram below.

The recognition of holons or meaningful entities

The term “holon” was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book, The Ghost in The Machine. Another term for “holon” is “meaningful entity”. Both terms refer to any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. We recognise such entities by virtue of the static or dynamic structure that forms them, and by the recurrence of instances of the same structure at different times, in different places, and in different circumstances. This recurrence enables us to draw a boundary around each instance which distinguishes it from its surroundings.

The recognition of holons requires memory. We must be capable of encoding in a mental form what we perceive with our senses. This is so that we can compare what we have experienced with what we may experience in the future. It is notable that the repetition of a meaningful entity or event reinforces our memory of it, whilst a lack of recurrence causes the memory to fade.

The recognition of equilibrium states

The next stage in the evolution of knowledge was the recognition of equilibrium states. That is states that persist for a period, and which also recur. For example, traffic lights have several static equilibrium states: red, red and amber, green, amber, and back to red. As most motorists know to their frustration, traffic lights also have dynamic equilibrium states: not operating, operating slowly, or operating quickly.

The recognition of causal relationships between holons in equilibrium states.

There can be recurring relationships between holons in a particular state, and these form the basis of causality. For example, traffic flows through green traffic lights, but is static at red ones. The ability to recognise recurring relationships is of great benefit to an animal’s ongoing survival. It enables it to predict events from experience, seize opportunities, and avoid threats.

However, with this ability also comes the ability to imagine and speculate. Thus, not all knowledge and beliefs are empirical and derived from the environment. When empirical information is absent knowledge can also be a consequence of the speculative juxtaposition of holons.

The development of language

In the case of humans, and to a limited extent some higher animals, experience can be passed on via language. This involves encoding, as speech, items of information held in memory. We are a social species and natural language has evolved alongside our cognitive abilities. Language enables us to share information and co-ordinate our activities, and this conveys an evolutionary advantage. Unsurprisingly, natural language reflects holons, their equilibrium states, and the causal relationships between them. This structure is represented in the form of sentences containing a subject, i.e., a holon, and a predicate, i.e., an equilibrium state. Causality is reflected in compound sentences, such as “If sentence A then sentence B”.

With this ability also came the ability to communicate not only speculative information but also deliberate misinformation. Unfortunately, unless the speaker explains its source, it is difficult for the recipient to know whether the information communicated is true.

The development of writing

However, spoken language is transient. Speech does not linger and is gone as soon as it has been spoken. The brain is still necessary to store information, therefore. During our early development we relied on aural tradition. Individuals would remember knowledge and pass it to others through speech, stories, or songs. In so doing they would reinforce their own memory and prevent it from fading. However, we then developed writing. This is another form of encoded information, and it is notable that many alphabets are, in part at least, phonetic. Thus, written language encodes spoken language, which in turn encodes memorised information. The development of writing enabled us to store information externally and refer to it when necessary. Furthermore, written memory does not fade, and so, we became able to recognise holons and causal relationships that recur less frequently.

The development of formal languages

The next stage comprised the comparatively recent development of formal languages such as mathematics, chemical formulae, Feynman diagrams, etc. These present written information in a condensed form and enable predictions to be made by manipulating it with formal rules that always apply.

Paradigm changes

Human knowledge has evolved through a series of paradigm changes. The development of present day rational, scientific knowledge began in ancient times, in particular with ancient Greek civilisation. The ancient Greeks produced knowledge of major importance including the works of Archimedes, the great mathematician, inventor, and experimenter. An example of Archimedes work is the case of the crown of King Hiero. Archimedes was able to determine the volume of the crown by immersing it in water and measuring the volume displaced. From this and the weight of the crown, he was able to determine its density, and thus, show that the goldsmith had cheated the king by mixing gold with silver.

However, metaphysics, i.e., speculative knowledge with no empirical basis and often in the form of religion, superstition or mysticism, has hampered progress. The methodology of the Middle Ages was to give equal, and sometimes greater weight to speculative theological knowledge over that gained from observation and experiment. This resulted in, for example, the so-called sciences of alchemy and astrology. To a limited extent this brake on progress still exists today, and metaphysical explanations are often proffered for physical events. For example, the World Values Survey found that in 2017, 33.6% of the United States population agreed or strongly agreed that “whenever science and religion conflict, religion is always right.” In other countries this can be as high as 98.8% (Egypt) or as low as 2.8% (Japan).

A significant paradigm change occurred in the Renaissance era. It required that any knowledge produced by imagination must be confirmed by empirical data and that any predictions should be testable. Thus, the scientific method was invented, and this change resulted in the modern disciplines of physics, chemistry, geology, geography, etc.

The present-day situation

These disciplines first began their development in an era when our scientific knowledge was still very limited, and specialisation was unnecessary. Thus, at their foundations they are relatively consistent with one another. However, in the present day, our scientific knowledge is extensive, and it is impossible for any individual to know it all in detail. Specialisation has become necessary. This has brought with it problems of communication, consistency between specialist fields, and reduced ability to recognise the inconsistencies necessary for paradigm shifts.

Categories
05. Leadership Competence

Leadership Competence

Competence to lead an organisation requires certain skills. There are hundreds of lists of such skills on the internet, usually prepared by management consultants. We could even pick and choose between them to find the closest fit to ourselves. If I were to compile a complete list of the recommended skills, then their number would probably be in the thousands. No individual could possibly have them all. Fortunately, they can be condensed down into just five basic skills:

  1. experience, i.e., an understanding of the organisation, its function, and its environment;
  2. sound judgement and problem-solving ability;
  3. an ability to inspire subordinates to enthusiastically co-operate in pursuing the organisation’s goals;
  4. an ability to communicate those goals and ways of achieving them; and
  5. an ability to acquire and understand information from sub-ordinates.

There are, of course, many ways in which those skills manifest themselves in a leader. For example, the ability to inspire followers can be through confidence, humour, likeability, setting an example, and so on. However, if any one of the basic skills is absent, then mistakes are inevitable, and some may cause the organisation to fail. So, I will discuss each skill in turn, giving reasons for why they may be absent. The topic is enormous and there are many such reasons. So, I will concentrate on just a few of the most significant ones and how they can be addressed.

Experience

The main reason why leaders lack experience is poor recruitment practice. For example, the founders of charities sometimes recruit board members who are friends or family members. The latter often have no experience of the goals of the organisation or basic operating practice. Another reason is the personal contract, i.e., trading status for support. Those who support a leader can be promoted to a managerial position despite a lack of experience. Filling a leadership role can also be a simple matter of expediency, i.e., “there is no-one suitable, but we must have someone in post”. Finally, experience can be absent in those whose skills are principally the acquisition of power.

Obviously, a lack of experience betrays itself through the questions a leader asks, and the mistakes that he or she makes. However, there is, a hierarchy of knowledge in an organisation. The higher we are in a leadership hierarchy, the broader but less detailed our knowledge must be, and the more reliant we are on subordinates for any necessary detail. We cannot expect our immediate leader to know the same detail as ourselves. However, to manage effectively, he or she must grasp the basic principles of our roles.

The solution to the problem of lack of experience clearly lies in the processes of recruitment, training, and promotion. We should carefully check that candidates have the necessary experience for a role and are being truthful about it. We should also avoid the need for expedient promotions by training people for greater responsibility.

Unfortunately, senior leaders control these processes. Leaders who lean towards the personal contract will be less supportive of them than those who lean towards the social one. Ultimately, the leader at the top of the hierarchy determines the quality of leadership below him, and so, a vicious circle can form. Self-interested leadership begets self-interested leadership until the organisation ultimately fails.

Judgement and Problem Solving

A leader’s judgement and problem-solving skills can be poor or even absent. The main reasons for this are: inexperience, poor communication, decision overload, personality traits, or mental incapacity. This problem manifests itself when upper management are not making educated decisions or are making very bad decisions despite the resources available to them.

Inexperience was discussed in the previous section. Communication will be discussed in the next.

Decision overload can be avoided by delegating less critical decisions to subordinates. However, if a leader tends toward the personal contract rather than the social one, then the leader’s trust and the abilities of the subordinates may not allow this. Thus, the leader who tends toward the personal contract risks either decision overload or poor-quality decisions by subordinates.

Personality traits include indecisiveness. They can also be due to mental incapacity, extreme age, low IQ, brain tumours, etc. These problems can all be tested for. However, senior leaders again control the process. Those who tend towards the personal contract are more likely to reject testing. So, a vicious circle prevents its introduction.

Inspiring Subordinates

The absence of an inability to inspire followers can be due to lack of experience and poor communication, as discussed in the relevant sections. There is no doubt that personality traits that inspire trust and confidence are also an important factor. But charm alone will not inspire subordinates. Experience and good decision making are also necessary.

Another factor is a lack of focus on the goals of the organisation, and the concentration of leaders on day-to-day operational activities. If this occurs, subordinates will fail to understand the goals of the organisation and will be unable to contribute to them. Furthermore, if managed in too much detail, they are less likely to take responsibility for operational activities or suggest improvements.

Finally, we are all motivated to satisfy our needs. Nothing inspires subordinates more to achieve an organisation’s goals than the promise of personal benefits. However, what has been promised must be delivered if subordinates are not to lose trust in the leader.

Communication

This section discusses the personal communication skills of leaders and the effect that this can have on an organisation. General communication within an organisation will be discussed in a future article. Good leadership communication increases morale, productivity and commitment. Poor communication has the reverse effect and, in the extreme, can lead to failure of the organisation.

The main constraint on communication is almost certainly a lack of time. This results in leadership invisibility. The solution is not to work longer hours as this impacts on the quality of decisions. Rather, it is to make time by delegating decisions and work. Leadership is a profession. It is OK to walk around and chat, providing this is mainly focussed on the organisation’s objectives.

Poor leader communication skills can also be due to a lack of transparency. That is, secrecy or a “need to know” attitude. This can result in subordinates believing that the leader has something to hide, uncertainty about the aims of the organisation, and poor decision making at lower levels in the hierarchy. So, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary, transparency will generally benefit the organisation.

A lack of mastery of language and presentation skills can lead to miscommunication, and thus, to poor decisions at subordinate level. However, this can easily be tested for during the appointment process and, if necessary, training provided.

Personality traits, such as a lack of confidence, extreme introversion or extroversion, can also hamper communication. Introverts can suffer information overload when in large groups and find it difficult to express themselves. They are more able to express themselves on a one-to-one basis where there is greater two-way communication. Extroverts, on the other hand find it difficult to take in information. They too can benefit from one-to-one communication. These difficulties can, however, be overcome through training and experience.

A lack of empathy can hinder communication. That is, the leader may not understand or may misinterpret a subordinate’s motives for saying what he does. The leader can also fail to understand the information that an effective subordinate requires. However, empathy can be developed. For example, people who spend more time with those different to themselves develop greater empathy. Reading novels also helps to foster empathy by putting us in the minds of others.

Conclusions

The conclusions are inescapable. Human capital must be developed if an organisation is to be successful. Organisations can fail for a multitude of reasons, but it is leaders who create the necessary conditions. The power of leaders must therefore be constrained by democratic control and the safeguards suggested above put in place. Many of these safeguards do, of course, seem idealistic. Vicious circles prevent their implementation. So, they can only be introduced progressively as opportunities arise. Are we sufficiently culturally advanced to begin doing so? Each country must make its own decision. However, those that do make a beginning are likely to be the most successful and experience least organisational failure.

Categories
04. Self-interest vs. Collective Interest

Self-interest vs. Collective Interest

It is human nature to balance self-interest with community interest. So, all leaders will, to some extent, act in their own self-interest. However, if the balance swings too far in that direction, then the leader will usurp the function of the organisation to the detriment of other stakeholders, such as employees or customers, and it will fail.

The exact balance struck between self-interest and collective interest depends on the personality of the leader. Aspects of personality that can cause leaders to lean towards self-interest include dominance, the habitual pursuit of power and a weak conscience or super-ego.

In their 2016 paper, Dominance and Prestige: Dual Strategies for Navigating Social Hierarchies, Maner and Case state the following. “The motivations that drive people to attain social rank thus play a profound role in guiding their leadership behavior and the extent to which they prioritize the goals of the group over their own social rank.” They also state that “Several studies suggest that leaders high in dominance motivation—those who seek to attain social rank through the use of coercion and intimidation—selfishly prioritize their social rank over the well-being of the group.…Leaders high in prestige motivation, on the other hand, are motivated primarily by the desire for respect and admiration.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260116300144

Some leaders can fully internalise the pursuit and defence of power. It becomes a habitual and unconscious form of behaviour that persists as a need in its own right.

It is easier to climb an existing hierarchy than to create a new one with oneself at the pinnacle. This is not a universal rule, of course, and there are, for example, self-interested leaders who have built empires from a silver spoon passed on by their parents. Nevertheless, once established, an organisation can attract individuals who seek power to satisfy their own personal objectives, for example wealth, fame, or influence.

In the competition to ascend a hierarchy, individuals who are relatively unconstrained by ethical considerations, or are willing to use negative competition, or who have learnt the “rules of the game” have an advantage over others. Thus, they often take control of and corrupt organisations that may have been set up with the best of intentions. There are three personality types that are a particular risk: the psychopath, the narcissist, and the dark empath. They will be discussed in more detail in future articles.

The concentration of power, i.e., the ability to direct resources for the satisfaction of a particular need, in the hands of a few seems to be the greatest source of misery, poverty, and injustice in the world. To cite just one example, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, argued that democracies are less likely to go to war than absolutist states, i.e., states where power is concentrated in the hands of the ruler. In a truly democratic state, leaders require the support of the population if they are to engage in war. The population will, of course, weigh up the advantages and disadvantages to themselves before giving their support. Consider, for example, the popular opposition in the USA to the Vietnam war and, in the UK, to the invasion of Iraq. In an absolutist state, on the other hand, only the advantages and disadvantages for the ruler are taken into consideration and the suffering of the population has little or no bearing on the decision. An example is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Essentially, the decision is a risk/benefit/cost calculation, and rulers frequently have far more to gain than their population. This is, of course, just one example on an international scale, but similar issues exist in all walks of life and at all scales. So, if we wish to tackle poverty, strife, and injustice in the world, then we must tackle its root cause, the concentration of unregulated power in the hands of a few.

Reference: Maner, J.K. and Case, C.R. 2016. “Chapter 3 – Dominance and Prestige: Dual Strategies for Navigating Social Hierarchies, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology”, Volume 54, Pages 129-180, ISSN 0065-2601, ISBN 9780128047385, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.001. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260116300144