Categories
13. Social Networks

Social Networks

Networks are a feature of living things and some of the artificial things that they create. Individual people, organisations, and the relationships between them form a network known as a “social network”. Unfortunately, however, this term is now popularly understood as referring to social media on the internet. The term also tends to imply interactions involving the exchange of information. Strictly however, a social network can be between not only individuals but also between organisations of any size. Furthermore, the relationships involve not only the exchange of information, but also the transfer of energy, materials, money or any other satisfier or contra-satisfier. This usually takes place in the form of a two-way trade.

It is worth mentioning at this point that not all social networks are desirable. They can, for example, be criminal or drugs networks. They can also comprise self-interested individuals or organisations with influence over politicians.

Historically, the factors that have governed whether there is a relationship between two people, or two organisations have been:

  • geographical, i.e., whether geographical proximity and other factors such as trade routes have enabled communication and the exchange of satisfiers or contra-satisfiers; and
  • whether the level of disagreement has permitted co-operation, has resulted in negative competition, or has resulted in an unwillingness to interact.

With the advent of the internet and globalization, geographical factors have become less of an obstacle.

The analysis of a social network is carried out using a diagram. Individuals or organisations are plotted as nodes, and the relationships between them are plotted as links. The latter are also sometimes referred to as edges. Software and statistical techniques are available to optimize such diagrams, but little is available to carry out further analysis and, for example, make predictions. For the present therefore, analysis is largely a process of visually inspecting the diagrams.

From them, it can be possible to identify the following.

Communities or clusters have a greater number of internal connections than external ones. People or organisations are attracted to one another if they can co-operate. In this way they form clusters. Examples are intra-organisational networks, that is, networks within an organisation. They can be formal or informal. Formal internal networks are often both functional and hierarchical because this aids our understanding of them. Informal networks are less so. From the diagrams it can be possible to identify both intra-organisational and inter-organisational informal networks  that might otherwise be invisible. Such informal networks are organisations in their own right, and can act as holons in a simpler model. Communities or clusters tend to have a relatively homogenous culture, i.e., the same shared values and beliefs. Internal interactions reinforce their paradigms and worldviews and can cause them to become entrenched. External contact with conflicting worldviews, especially those that pose a threat, can lead to further reinforcement.

Structural holes occur when there are relatively few connections between two communities or clusters. They can be caused by geography or other difficulties in communication. Also, they are often a result of two communities or clusters having too great a difference in their values or beliefs. However, if two clusters can interact because their differences are not too great, then both may benefit.

Marissa King, professor of organizational management at Yale University, describes, in her 2021 book “Social Chemistry”, three different ways in which people approach social networking. Although these ways are particular to social media on the internet, they are also of more general application. They are as follows.

Expansionists have large networks with many connections. In more general networks, the  node that they form is referred to as a hub. Managers and leaders form hubs in formal organisations. As is well known in the advertising industry, hubs are a useful tool for quickly disseminating information to a community. However, according to the anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, there is an upper limit of 150 on the number of social connections that an individual can maintain.

Brokers bring together people from different communities. They act as a bridge over structural holes and can act as intermediaries when there is disagreement. As mentioned in the previous article, if such disagreement is not too great, then the communities can achieve a consensus that may be of benefit to both. Thus, brokers can be creators of value.

Convenors build dense networks with many interconnections. For this to be possible common values and beliefs must be shared, and a convenor is instrumental in this. Shared values and beliefs enable greater co-operation. However, they also make a community more resistant to change, and so, structural holes are more likely to form around it.

Individuals or organisations who fulfil these roles can also be identified from a network diagram, as demonstrated below.

However, social network diagrams do not describe the nature of the information, energy or material that is being transferred from one node to the other. Nor do they describe the effect of any changes to these transfers on the recipient. To fully represent a network of interacting organisations it is therefore necessary to describe the links in more detail. A way of doing so is described in the articles that follow. The result is a causal network diagram.

Categories
12. Understanding Social Complexity

Understanding Social Complexity

Holons and Nested Hierarchies

We understand the world in terms of holons and the relationships between them. A holon is any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself. We recognise holons because they recur in different circumstances or environments, and so, we can draw a boundary around them that distinguishes them from their environment.

Holons exist in nested hierarchies. That is, every holon comprises several lesser holons and every holon is also part of a greater one. For example, particles are components of atoms, atoms components of molecules, molecules components of planets, and so on.

In the case of human society, the holons are individuals and organisations. Individuals are components of organisations, organisations are components of parent organisations, parent organisations are components of grandparent ones, and so on.

Figure – Family relationships between organisations in a hierarchy

As we progress downwards through this hierarchy of organisations, functional differentiation takes place. That is, the function or purpose of an organisation is broken down into the interacting component functions of child organisations. Alternatively, component functions can be carried out by other unrelated organisations through a process of trade.

Simplifying Social Complexity

In a stable society, functional differentiation naturally increases with time, and alongside it, social complexity. Up to a point, the efficiency with which any overall function is carried out also increases. However, there may be an optimum beyond which efficiency begins to decline.

If a system is complex and comprises too many components and relationships for the human mind to comprehend, then we attempt to simplify it. We do so by seeking fewer larger holons that bundle together components into recurring and recognisable patterns. Fortunately, society is structured in a way that makes it easy for us to find such holons. If we were, for example, to attempt to understand and predict the future of a nation by considering the relationships between individual citizens, then complexity would be so great that we would be unlikely to make progress. However, individual citizens form part of organisations such as sectors. If these sectors are taken as our holons and the relationships between them considered, then a far less complex model results.

In fact, this is what we do in practice. Furthermore, it is very likely that we structure society in this way to better enable us to understand it. For example, the field of international affairs uses nations as its holons, political science uses sectors, management theory organisations within parent organisations, and social psychology individuals. We do this intuitively, rather than as a consequence of any formal systems theory. However, the fact that social systems theory predicts what takes place in practice is strong support for the former’s validity.

Categories
11. The Cause and Benefits of Social Complexity

The Cause and Benefits of Social Complexity

Frustration

In physics, the term “frustration” refers to an entity that is subject to conflicting forces and there is uncertainty about which option it will settle upon. Professor Giorgio Parisi has carried out Nobel Prize winning work on frustration in spin-glasses, i.e., materials in which the magnetic orientation of the components are random, can alter below a particular temperature, but are frozen above it. This results in an amorphous structure that is one example of a complex system. Professor Parisi’s work has shown that reliable predictions on the statistical properties of a complex system can be obtained by modelling it several times and comparing how the different models behave.

Further details can be found in the following article in The Conversation online magazine: https://theconversation.com/my-phd-supervisor-just-won-the-nobel-prize-in-physics-heres-how-his-research-on-complex-systems-changed-science-169297

Professor Parisi’s website is at http://chimera.roma1.infn.it/GIORGIO/index.html and many of his papers can be downloaded free of charge from Academia.

The concept of frustration can be applied to society. It occurs when we are faced with situations in which different cultures apply. Different values and beliefs, forming a part of those cultures, will dictate different behaviours. This leads to cultural or ethical dilemmas that we must manage. In such circumstances the behaviour of an individual or organisation is unpredictable. However, whatever choice we make propagates through society and this is the principal cause of social complexity.

If we were all to behave in the same manner according to the same values and beliefs then, like a crystalline material such as diamond, society would be simple and relatively predictable. However, differing values and beliefs mean that we do not, and so, society is more like an amorphous material such as glass. It is complex and unpredictable.

Individuals or organisations often agree with the values and beliefs that prevail in their environment, e.g., with those of the business in which they work or the nation in which they live or operate. If so, they will usually remain within that environment and support it. However, they also often disagree with the prevailing values and beliefs. For example, in a vertical interaction, the rights given up by an individual or organisation may be thought too great or too little. Thus, the culture of an individual may conflict with that of a business in which he or she works. Also, for example, the culture of a business organisation may conflict with that of a nation in which it operates. In these circumstances “frustration” exists and the individual and business must find ways of dealing with it. There are several ways of doing so, and this leads to the complexity and unpredictability of society.

The individual may, for example, attempt to leave the business or the business may attempt to move to a culturally more compatible nation. However, if they are unable to do so, then the following alternatives exist.

  • We have true values and beliefs that have become internalised over time. We are also capable of presenting apparent values and beliefs to those with whom we interact, i.e., we wear a mask. This is true not only of individuals but also of organisations of any size. Thus, we may wear a mask for one aspect of the dilemma but act in accordance with the other. For example, we may give an outward display of compliance but, if safe to do so, practice non-compliance. For example, when Stalin died many Russians put up blackout curtains but celebrated behind them.
  • Alternatively, we may rationalize in favour of the value and belief system in which we are obliged to operate, attempt to internalize those values and beliefs, and thus, remove the dilemma.
  • Alternatively again, we may attempt to alter the culture in which we are obliged to operate. For example, organisations that disagree with the values and beliefs of the nation in which they operate can propagandise in favour of their own values and beliefs, thus altering the nation’s culture over time and removing the dilemma.

It is worth noting that a dissenting organisation will, knowingly or not, attract members who agree with its values and beliefs, thereby reinforcing them.

Cultural Evolution

Frustration in society has an evolutionary basis, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be totally eliminated. It serves an evolutionary function and so it may, in fact, be undesirable to do so. Utopias stagnate.

An important aspect of biological evolution is random mutation. This gives us a variable genome that causes individuals to differ. These differences, in combination with differences in our environment, cause our cultures, and hence our values and beliefs, to differ. As explained above, these differences in values cause social complexity, part of which comprises dissenting sub-cultures. These sub-cultures are random mutations of a social nature and form an important aspect of cultural evolution. However, just like random mutation in biological evolution, social mutations are most often harmful, often neutral, and only occasionally beneficial. They exist within a broader social environment and, if they are seen to be harmful, they will become extinct. If they are neutral they will probably persist and perhaps become beneficial if the environment changes. However, if they are seen to be successful in satisfying human needs, then, because culture is information, they will propagate, ultimately altering the parent culture. Thus, providing frustration exists, society evolves in a similar way to biological organisms. Just as isolation and random mutation account for the great biodiversity in the world, isolation and frustration account for its great cultural diversity.

Points to note, however, are:

  • Success and failure can be falsified.
  • Success for one organisation can be failure for another.
  • If new values are consistent with those we already hold they will propagate more readily (Bartlett). If they are inconsistent, they will propagate more slowly (Kuhn).

Frustration is inevitable therefore, and something that we must learn to live with if society is to progress. Idealists should note however, that an ideal global society is neither possible nor desirable. Pragmatists, on the other hand, should note that this is not an excuse for failing to strive for one. This is a difficult concept to come to terms with but nevertheless represents the reality of the human situation.

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.