Upload File

are social identities viable systems? · complexity,€systems€acquire€new...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Are Social Identities Viable Systems? · complexity,€systems€acquire€new properties€through€the€phenomenon of€emergence.€Selforganization, selfproduction,€selfreference,€are
1
Beer, M suggests that a multi-dimensional approach is more effective Who says? Recognition of complexity of organisations Who says? Which is based on Decartes Pretence of knowledge CT: Premise Who says? We frequently use Theories based on Reductionist and deterministic thinking CT: Premise Observations on living systems does not work with complex social systems CT: Premise Theories eventually fail because evolving systems grow more complex and then do not respond to changes in the environment with simple controls CT: Premise System Theory builds social structures using autopoiesis Autonomy and autopoiesis are linked in social communities that have radical autonomy CT: Rebuttal Autopoiesis is not a key mechanism of the VSM which is allopoietic CT: Counter Premise Kanouse suggestion that Butler's theory of identity is more relevent has similariites to Luhmann and provides an interesting suggestion that combining the theories makes sense Key Aspect of VSM Role and Group identity Koestler's notion of the holon allows the system and meta system can be viewed as a totality CT: Rebuttal Schwarz Meta System provides construct for complex ontological relationships CT: Rebuttal The system and its meta-system have different ontologies and are therefore not compatible. CT: Counter Premise The VSM is based on Variety, a cybernetic principle, which limits the communications to syntactic means only. Critics argue that semantic and pragmatic communication are needed to show social systems such as power, trust, etc CT: Premise Luhmann's System Theory is a dominant system model of Society but is criticised for the almost total removal of the individual CT: Premise Systems Theory has a high level of abstraction which makes it difficult to model individuals CT: Premise System Theory has struggled to represent Human Behaviour as shown by the history of its development CT: Premise System Development is also shown by Schwarz increase in the salience of one identity reduces that of others fused identities Internalised identities Provides a framework for issues such as power and politics within a systems perspective Issues not readily apparent in the VSM CT: Premise Abstractions have different salience that reflects self belief Appears similar to not automatic but context driven CT: Premise Appears similar to Brier connects motivation/intentionality , autopoiesis and semiosis. CT: Premise the meta-contrast principle contends that people “maximize the ratio of intergroup to intragroup differences increased Salience of in-group leads to greater out group homogeneity CT: Premise Depersonalisation Determined by key factors Perceiver readiness Clear identity from other groups clarifies norms and reduces uncertainty and anxiety CT: Premise Strategies to boost SE Based around Self Esteem CT: Premise Individuals assume a group identity through depersonalisation CT: Premise Appears similar to Functionalist approach to identity for categorisation leads to a failure to examine the causes for selection CT: Counter Premise Comparative fit SET fails to provide adequate reasons for people's behaviour with tyranny CT: Premise Key Aspect of VSM Key Aspect of VSM Key Aspects of VSM Can the key tenets of SIT be matched to a revised VSM model at different levels of recursion to show individual, group and meta-group behaviour within the structure of the VSM so we have a more complete model of "human nature" CT: Premise Social identity theory provides the current most complete and holistic model of human nature CT: Conclusion Defined by Influenced Communications and knowledge processes CT: Premise The use of Critical Systems Heuristics in the construction of a VSM can overcome misuse of the system CT: Premise, Rebuttal allows for human nature by questioning the intention Applying Schwarz model as adapted by Yolles/Brier to the VSM adds semantic and pragmatic communications and enables Luhmanns expectation structures to occur through autopoietic communications CT: Premise, Rebuttal The VSM can be applied to Schwarz's Three Domains Model along with Brier's Cybersemiotics giving Phenomenal, Neoumenal and Existential Domains connected through Autopoiesis and Autogenesis to provide the mechanisms for Luhmann/Habermas communications models CT: Conclusion Yolles 2006 defines Schwarz's 3 Domains in terms of social cognitive properties and sociality Luhman's Theory provide mechanisms for the development of social structures: they provide a template in which a model of human behaviour could operate CT: Conclusion Matches Schwartz's Three Domains System Meta Model Sociology and system theories model human behaviour by creating an understanding of general social communication, action and process but they do not model "human nature" trust, politics CT: Premise Viable Systems with closure can be represented by models such as VSM & LST CT: Premise The VSM is a fractal template of structural arrangements of complex adaptive systems CT: Premise Changes the VSM from a first Order system to Second Order one, i.e an epistemology CT: Premise Ross Ashby Law of Requisite Variety Leads to the development by Beer of the VSM VSM frequently used in SSM at Stage 4 for models because it provides a structured methodology for examining organisations CT: Premise Alexander King details the limitation and hegemony of the dualist ontology of Structure and Agency and suggest a return to Weber's Human Relations paradigm CT: Validity, Counter Premise Webber sees the creation of society through the action of human relations CT: Premise Alex Viskovatoff proposes that the Luhmann's theory needs a third concept, that of "rules" as proposed by Gidden's. This is analogues to Habermas' Three Worlds and Schwarz's Three Domains CT: Counter Premise Habermas proposes that agency is the principle component and that human communications based around truth, rightness and sincerity create society CT: Premise Parsons proposed the creation of roles in society through the action of individuals CT: Premise Luhmann sees Parsons’ theory as missing the concepts of self-reference and complexity (diferentiation in particular) Self-reference is a condition for the efficient functioning of systems CT: Premise Luhmann claims Structuration Theory explains the complementary basis of recursivity but fails to resolve the dualism between individual and the social Gidden's proposed the c reation of system and structure (rules) through the Structuration of individuals action CT: Premise Complex Social Problems can be resolved by using the SSM CT: Counter Premise The problems of modelling social systems led to the development of system as a systematic process CT: Premise Have created Provided by Luhmann proposed the c reation of society through the Autopoiesis of communication CT: Premise Provided by Luhmann's System Theory provides a Systems Perspective of Social Systems CT: Premise Has influenced and been influenced by Systems Theory Observer and Observed Complex Open Viable Systems such as networks can be represented by CAS CT: Premise CAS have been used to model Open Societies CT: Premise Are able to adapt and survive in their environment - to maintain their identity CT: Premise for instance the development of a reaction to the scientific approach CT: Premise Particularly with people - who create CT: Premise Explain human behaviour on a continuum from individual to group CT: Premise Tajfel,E WE have a significant body of OD and Organisation Theory CT: Counter Premise But don't we already know how social systems and organisations work? CT: Counter Premise A Reductionist and Deterministic Approach does represent Complex Social Systems well. A holistic and non-deterministic process is preferred CT: Conclusion Because we fail to understand what we are dealing with CT: Premise But the fact that there are a large number of different theories either shows a lack of understanding of the totality of the systems or narrow perspectives, or a constantly changing environment CT: Premise, Rebuttal Who says? No one system predominates - under all circumstances. Indicating a lack of knowledge of the possible states of the systems CT: Rebuttal Who studies the structure of Social Systems? CT: Question The VSM should be able to model individuals and groups as viable systems critics claim that it is vulnerable to autocratic misuse and therefore not truly emancipatory CT: Premise Normative Fit VSSM based on principles of viability established in the VSM, Yolles 2006 p301 Viability is in the eye of the beholder Linking social and organisational systems through viability Unfolding Complexity Depends on how the organisation has been structured Citizenship Luhmann's theory of communication Created by collaboration CT: Premise Legitimacy CT: Premise In Luhmann meaning is not existential Autonomy criticised because a theory restricting itself to external conditions, to "what is learned," cannot adequately account for generative grammar Latest Theories do not fit well with traditional model Participant leadership is important for creating a purposeful organisation but you cannot talk to everybody Are Social Identities Viable Systems? CT: Question Organisational lifespan is very low and organisational change is largely unsuccessful. This could indicate that we do not fully understand the factors that control them CT: Rebuttal Kotter CT: Validity OD Theories and Practitioners CT: Concept Organisational change models CT: Validity Bad Management Theories: CT: Premise Complex social structures CT: Concept Sociologists and social theory Holistic and non deterministic theories structure and human behaviour Identifying the factors that make Social Identities Viable i.e able to survive in their environment should provide greater understanding of the processes and factors that determine the successful creation or management of organisational systems CT: Premise, Conclusion Does Systems Theory not already represent social systems? CT: Question Social Identity CT: Concept Ackoff, Checkland, Churchamn CT: Validity Von Bertalanffy, Weiner, Ashby CT: Validity Emancipation Marx, Ulrich, Espejo, Habermas CT: Validity System as a Culture/Society CT: Concept Yolles Systems Thinking CT: Concept Leadership Theories CT: Validity Ontology of Social Systems is Unordered and the Epistemology is Heuristic. The landscape of management: Creating the context for understanding social complexity, E:CO Special Double Issue Vol. 6 Nos. 1-2 2004 pp. 140-148 Snowden D and Stanbridge P "on their way to increased complexity, systems acquire new properties through the phenomenon of emergence. Self-organization, self-production, self-reference, are features that appear only beyond some threshold of complexity and are therefore not understandable by the usual mechanistic natural sciences. Such necessary extension of science requires not only new theories and new formal tools - like non linear dynamics, chaos theory, fractals, cellular automata, cybernetical networks, etc. - but also, in our opinion, invites us to question the usual epistemological and ontological presuppositions." From Epistemology to Action Eric Schwarz Schwarz bifurcation of systems CT: Validity Cilliers P Complex systems do not respond to simple input control in a straight forward way and they grow and change in reaction to their environment CT: Concept Car manufacturing became more complex first with multiple colours; General Motors , then with multiple choice; Toyota CT: Validity Viable Systems CT: Concept Complex Adaptive Systems CT: Concept Second Order Cybernetics CT: Concept Cybernetics CT: Concept Unlike theories in the sciences, theories in the social sciences tend to be self-fulfilling Gergen 1973. As demonstrated by Ghoshal & Moran 1996 CT: Validity Structure and agency paradigm CT: Concept System Theory CT: Validity, Concept The Industrial Revolution deals with the mechanization of work. Work is during this phase seen as the transformation of energy; the transformation of various types of energy for the purpose of creating something. A machine is any object capable of transforming energy into matter (Gehlen, 1980). Transferred to management, machine thinking becomes synonymous with “scientific management” , where any task can be broken down into its tiniest constituents which an individual can carry out. The work analysis, according to Taylor, was to find the individual elements of a task. The next step is then to mechanize the various tasks. A dehumanization of work is one of the results of this development. And this is one of the largest problems facing us today; lack of obligation, commitment and motivation, in addition to the lack of ability to see partial elements and total structures in context. Despite large improvements in productivity resulting from mechanization of work, American studies (Trend Letter, 1997) indicate that work productivity has declined. The limit of productivity for the workforce is reached, with the accompanying mental and social problems. Beyond these limits increase in production based on the existing economic and technological paradigm is impossible (Ackoff, 1994; Senge, 1991; Thurow, 1996). Open System Theory CT: Concept Psychologists CT: Concept Theories of individual behaviour and group action CT: Concept SSM & Interactive Planning CT: Concept First, the way in which the reproduction of the social practices is described has a resemblance to autopoiesis as it is described in the system theory literature.30 Second, since these practices are taken to be the “basic domain of study of the social sciences,”and since social systems are considered to be no more than collections of such practices, Giddens has no real concept of a social system that does justice to the term. And third, as a consequence of the second point, Giddens is not really able to overcome the “dualism”between the individual and the social by introducing the concept of rules: instead (and the same can be said for Bourdieu), what he has done is isolate a third aspect of the social in addition to those emphasized by individualists and collectivists, respectively, that of rules or social practices (and hence merely started one more empire-building endeavor). To really overcome the dualism, the third must mediate between the first two in a way that preserves their importance; Viskovatoff, A 1999.Foundations of Niklas Luhmann’ s Theory of Social Systems: Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 4, December 1999 481-516 CT: Validity Hoos documented the many difficulties that arose in trying to apply systems analysis to public policy issues. Hoos, I. 1972. Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique. Berkeley: University of California Press. CT: Validity For Weber, human social action was distinctive because it was directed towards others. The mutual reaction of others was an intrinsic and dynamic element of human interaction. Moreover, these interactions were never independent of human consciousness. Humans had to come to a mutual understanding of what their interactions signified. They had to understand what their social relations involved and what they demanded of them. Human social relations were ultimately dependent on the shared meanings which the participants attach to their actions and relations. For Weber, these meanings transformed mere existence into something distinctively human: life. It was the task of the sociologists to analyse life in any historical period. Weber, like Durkheim, enthused about the infinite potential of human social relations; ‘Life with its irrational reality and its store of possible meanings is inexhaustible’(Weber 1949: 111). Structuration CT: Concept Action theory CT: Concept Luhmann proposed the interactive construction of social meaning, as the unit of operation of social systems. Whereas Parsons (1937) had considered action as the unit of the system's operation, Luhmann's social systems theory provides a mirror-image of Parsons's so-called "structural functionalism." The analysis of social structure should not be based on (the aggregate of) action, but on the interactions between actions. Luhmann's theory sides with symbolic interactionism by defining human action in terms of its interactive meaning at the network level (Blumer 1969) The dynamics of the interactions are assumed to "self"-organize the roles that are attributed to the actors. The actors carry the network at the nodes while the links of the network span an architecture which develops additional complexity in terms of its recursive interactions. The architecture of relations can be considered as a structure containing the expected information of the network's further development (Leydesdorff 1993). CT: Validity Theory of Communicative Action and Truth Validation Model (3 Worlds) CT: Concept Human Relations paradigm CT: Concept In Structuration theory, structure is implicated recursively in the reproduction of social systems. The assumption of a duality of structure provides a methodology for relating institutional analysis and the analysis of strategic conduct: the one narrative can be used as a context for informing the other (Giddens 1976). The two narratives, however, remain juxtaposed by "bracketing" the one perspective when focusing on the other (Giddens 1984). This model was intended to offer a specific solution to the gap between action theory and institutional analysis in American sociology (Giddens 1981, at p. 167). CT: Validity Luhmann found Parsons’ systems approach inspiring, but noticed several inconsistencies and problems. Stichweh (2000), explains that there are two major strands of reasoning that led Luhmann to base his theory on communication rather than action. The first issue was that the actions of psychic systems (minds) and of social systems is difficult to distinguish using action theory. The interaction of the actor and his environment can only be described when the actor and environment are placed on the same analytic level. In Luhmann’ s theory, the social system emerges from the communication between psychic systems (minds), and cannot be understood as a separate system “acting”on the individual. The second issue is that action theory cannot differentiate between action and experience. Selection can be viewed as either an action on the part of the selecting system, or as information about the state of the selecting system’ s environment. The classification of information, Luhmann reasons, is not causally related to actors, and should be classified as experience, not action. For Luhmann, the evolution of the system is a critical focus which distinguishes his systems theory from Parsons’ structural- functionalism. While Parsons’structural- functionalism prioritises systemic equilibrium through the interrelation of whole and parts, Luhmann emphasises differentiation (Luhmann 1995: 18). CT: Validity BEYOND DUALISM Ontological dualism is currently hegemonic in social theory. Current debates in social theory presuppose an ontology of structure and agency but even in more empirical areas of research, as the works of Lash, Urry and Hall demonstrate, the concepts of structure and agency predominate. Against this dualism, a social ontology must be promoted. This social ontology does not divide society into structure and agent. It focuses only on social relations between humans. Humans are never isolated, nor are they confronted by an objective structure. Humans exist in social relations with other humans. The focus of sociology has to be these social relations. This social ontology in no way denies the institutional reality of modern society. It recognises the extraordinary powers of modern states and multinational corporations but explains these powers in terms of the social networks of which these entities consist. It does not unthinkingly reify these institutions into objective structures but seeks through detailed empirical analysis to show how certain social groups are able to mobilise themselves in ways which have the most striking social effects. The social ontology understands the reality of institutions by reference to the actuality of social relations which persistent there. A sociology based on a social ontology recognises the potency of human social relations but it avoids the reification of ontological dualism. Society is no less real simply because it is believed to consist of social relations. Social theory is currently entranced by a dualism but the reality of social life stands before its eyes. Anthony King Contemporary Social Theory CT: Validity And third, as a consequence of the second point, Giddens is not really able to overcome the “dualism”between the individual and the social by introducing the concept of rules: instead (and the same can be said for Bourdieu), what he has done is isolate a third aspect of the social in addition to those emphasized by individualists and collectivists, respectively, that of rules or social practices (and hence merely started one more empire-building endeavor). To really overcome the dualism, the third must mediate between the first two in a way that preserves their importance; instead, in Giddens’ s work, they recede into the background. One can argue that by introducing the distinction between syntax and semantics into social theory, particularly into Luhmann’ s theory, one has for the first time the conceptual means by which to give an account of how it can be quite sensible to attribute action to social systems while keeping a place for the actor in the story.31 The way to do so is to treat the concepts actor, system, and rule as all equally important and fundamental for social theory. Alex Viskovatoff 1999 Foundations of Niklas Luhmann’ s Theory of Social Systems Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1999; 29; 481 CT: Validity Implications of Self-Reference: Niklas Luhmann’ s Autopoiesis and Organization Theory Tor Hernes and Tore Bakken Niklas Luhmann’ s autopoiesis as a contribution to organization theory. organization theory consist of three epistemological foundations, equilibrium-based theory, process-based theory and recursivity-based theory. Luhmann’ s autopoietic theory in relation to each of these three foundations suggest that whereas it deviates radically from equilibrium-based theory and deviates significantly from process-based theory, it holds potential in its complementarily with Giddens’ s structuration theory in providing a promising basis for recursivity-based organization theory. CT: Validity Luhmann’ s theory of meaning cannot coherently make the social domain autonomous as he desires since Luhmann does not take into account the distinction between syntax and semantics. By introducing this distinction, making clear that social systems consist of rules, not just communications, and raising the rule concept to the same prominence in social theory as those of actor and system, autonomy can be maintained while avoiding the counterintuitive aspects of Luhmann’ s theory. Viskovatoff, A 1999.Foundations of Niklas Luhmann’ s Theory of Social Systems: Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 4, December 1999 481-516 Alignment with the system - Identity CT: Premise, Concept Alignment with the system - Motivation, reward and politics CT: Premise, Concept Alignment with the system - Ethics & intentionality CT: Premise, Concept Social Behaviour in Organisations CT: Premise, Concept Viable System Model CT: Concept Theory of Intentional Stance Dennett defines three levels of abstraction The most concrete is the physical stance, which is the domain of physics and chemistry. At this level, we are concerned with such things as mass, energy, velocity, and chemical composition Somewhat more abstract is the design stance, which is the domain of biology and engineering. At this level, we are concerned with such things as purpose, function and design Most abstract is the intentional stance, which is the domain of software and minds. At this level, we are concerned with such things as belief, thinking and intent. A key point is that switching to a higher level of abstraction has its risks as well as its benefits. Dennett argues that it is best to understand human behaviour at the level of the intentional stance, without making any specific commitments to any deeper reality to the artifacts of folk psychology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_psychology>. In addition to the controversy inherent in this, there is also some dispute about the extent to which Dennett is committing to realism about mental properties. Initially, Dennett's interpretation was seen as leaning more towards instrumental ism but over the years, as this idea has been used to support more extensive theories of consciousness it has been taken as being more like Realism. His own words hint at something in the middle, as he suggests that the self is as real as a centre of gravity, "an abstract object , a theorist's fiction", but operationally valid CT: Validity Human Social Behaviour & Human Nature CT: Concept Systems Meta Model CT: Concept Can Real Life Complex Systems Be Interpreted with the Usual Dualist Physicalist Epistemology - Or is a Holistic Approach Necessary ? Eric Schwarz Beer, S CT: Validity Stafford Beer: Brain of the Firm CT: Validity Closed System Theory CT: Concept System as a Machine CT: Concept System as an Organism CT: Concept System as a Brain CT: Concept Living System Theory CT: Concept Jim & Jessie Miller VSM extended by Schwarz, Brier, Yolles Luhman, Habermas, Espejo and Ulrich CT: Concept Viable Social Systems : Yolles CT: Concept Social identity demonstrates key aspects of viability as defined in the VSM CT: Premise, Conclusion Research question CT: Validity Critical Systems Heuristics CT: Concept Basis of motivation Basis of power Basis of knowledge Basis of legitimacy Together, the four issues make up a claim’ s ‘anatomy of purposefulness’(Ulrich 1983,p. 342). Critical heuristics proposes that these four issues are essential for reflective practice in most (if not all) s ituations of problem solving, decision-making, or professional intervention. They are essential since without considering them, we do not really understand what a claim means and whether or to what extent we should recognise it as valid, that is, as a basis for action. The underlying philosophical position is that of pragmatism. Its core principle, the pragmatic maxim, was formulated by the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce (1878): An introduction to CSH, Ulrich CT: Validity Ulrich, W (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31, No. 3, 276-283. CT: Validity Behaviourism CT: Concept Individual Motivation Theories CT: Concept Cognitive Theory CT: Concept Social Identity Theory CT: Concept Katz and Kahn Social Identity modeled as a Viable System CT: Premise, Conclusion, Concept Foucault. Statements constitute a network of rules establishing what is meaningful and these rules are the preconditions for propositions, utterances, speech act to have meaning. Statement are also events. Statements depend on the conditions in which they emerge and exist within a field of discourse; the meaning of a statement relies on the succession of statements that precede and follow it. Discursive formations. CT: Validity Parsons, drew on Durkheim’ s functionalism in the development of his theory of social action. He integrated concepts from general systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1950; 1976), information theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1949), and social cybernetics (Wiener, 1948; 1950). Whereas Durkheim was content to develop sociology as a discipline alongside the other social sciences, Parsons became the advocate of a “grand theory”that could subsume the other social sciences. Drawing from Weber’ s writings on action, Parsons’ functionalism was developed as a theory of action. Individuals were understood as acting of their own volition, influenced in their behavior by external forces. As a component of this larger theory, Parsons developed the theory of the social system. His “social system”is generally synonymous with the term “society”and emerges from the interaction of individuals (Parsons, 1951). a) Culture is the key to social action and defines the differentiation of social systems and the central code by which the matrix of social evolution proceed. Culture is a system of value-orientationandand will control societal, political and economic systems. Parsons maintained that a political system, which use power or force far beyond the realm of cultural legitimation would distabilize and disintegrate, Culture as a systemic imperative would prevail over both power and money, when the ultimate cybernetic test was reached.b) Culture has intrinsic value, that is, it represents a higher cybernetic order of regulation which has universal grounding and implication. c) Culture is on its basic "operational" level inhernently historical, so that the progress of Mankind (to the extend such a progress occur at all) depend on the particular codification of cultural systems, social systems and personality systems within each historical juncture of time and the embedded, accumulative and institutionalized pattern of this process determines societies relatively degree of socio-economic and civilizational success. d) Culture itself (within its actualization in the social system) is premarily non-rational and not simply an ordering factor but to an important extent a highly disordering factor. The high disorder and non-rational factor is within the realm of a certain equilibrium an evolutionary enabling factor and not the opposite; The high disorder factor inherent in cultural systems can naturally have negative, distabilizing and system-nihilating consequences ^ Bourricaud, F. 'The Sociology of Talcott Parsons' Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-067564. p. 94 CT: Validity SSM does not model human behaviour it relies on dialogue to resolve conflicts and to encompass all opinions Critics suggest that it is liable to dominance by ruling powers and does not deal with coercive systems CT: Premise, Rebuttal Emergence Counter Theories Social Exchange Theory CT: Concept Rational Choice Theory CT: Concept Structuralism CT: Concept Social Impact Theory CT: Concept Ng , 1980 identified limitations in the SET viewpoint. The first, that the cost benefit relationship at the heart of this is much less tangible than first thought. Second people do not always seem to exit a low-power situation when they should (Tyler, 1996). He suggests identification with particular groups is also highly relevant. The social exchange approach assumes that power can work as a basis or substitute for social influence. As later argued by Turner and Tajfel (Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.) the most important upshot of the original minimal group studies was that they suggested that the mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members was sufficient to lead them to display in-group favouritism. The results also challenged established theories of intergroup conflict by pointing to the possibility that discriminatory intergroup behaviour cannot be fully understood if it is considered solely in terms of 'objective' conflict of interests or in terms of deep-seated motives that it may serve. Extensive research has confirmed these original findings this meaning was found by them in the adoption of a strategy for action based on the establishment through action, of a distinctiveness between their ingroup and the other, between the two social categories in a truly minimal social system distinction from the other category provided an identity for their own group and thus some kind of meaning to an otherwise empty situation. Tajfel concluded that in the minimal group studies social categorization required the establishment of a distinct and positively valued social identity (Tajfel, H. (1972). La catégorisation sociale. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale (Vol. 1). Paris : Larousse.) He defined social identity as the individuals knowledge that he or she belongs to a certain social groups together with some emotional and values significance to him of this group membership. In other words social identity is part of a person's sense of who they are associated with any internalised group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity, which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individuals unique attributes (concerning physical appearance, intellectual qualities and idiosyncratic tastes. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ontology Key Tenets CT: Concept Turner hypothesized 1982 that an individual self concept could itself be defined along a continuum ranging from definition of the self in term of personal identity to definition of the self in terms of social identity. He proposed that the functioning of the self concept is the cognitive mechanism that underpins the behavioural continuum described by Tajfel. Thus interpersonal behaviour is associated with a salient personal identity and intergroup behaviour with a salient social identity. Turner argued that the switching on of social identity actually allowed intergroup behaviour to take place. Turner named this cognitive process depersonalisation. This refers to the process of self stereotyping by means of which the self comes to be perceived as a categorically interchangeable with other ingroup members The theory suggests that ingroup favouritism is not an automatic or a person-specific response, but a reaction to particular social psychological circumstances. Accordingly it will vary with the social situation. Tajfel and Turner identified three variables that make a particularly important contribution to the emergence of group favouritism; a, the extent to which individuals identify with an ingroup and internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept, b, the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups and c, the perceived relevance of the comparison outgroup. CT: Validity Individuals react to themselves and others not as differentiated individual persons but as exemplars of the common characteristics of their group. It is through this process that salient of functioning social identifications help to regulate social behaviour. They do so directly by causing group members to act in terms of the shared needs, goals and norms which they assign to themselves. And indirectly through the perceptual homogenization of others which elicits uniform reactions form the perceivers. This suggests that group behaviour is associated with change in the structure of the self - change in self-categorization. CT: Validity Tajfel asserted that behaviour in general could be represented in terms of a bipolar continuum. As Mayo 1949 had argued groups are not just collections of individuals and group behaviour cannot be explained in terms of interpersonal principles. Although it is impossible to imagine that social categories do not always play some role. It is impossible to imagine a social encounter between two people which will not be affected, at least to some degree by their assignments of one another to a variety of social categories about which some general expectations concerning their characteristics and behaviour exist in the mind of the interactants This will be even more true of professional role encounters Tajfel proposed two hypotheses. As behaviour became defined in intergroup terms, members of an ingroup would be more likely to react uniformly to members of the outgroup and to treat the outgroup as an undifferentiated category.Empirical evidence shows that heightened salience of group memberships is associated with increases in the perceived homogeneity of outgroups and in consensus among the ingroup Requisite Variety Group Psychology CT: Concept Self Categorisation Theory CT: Concept Social identity theory CT: Concept Meta System Recursion In essence it suggest that after being categorized in terms of group membership and having defined themselves in terms of that social categorization, individuals seek to achieve positive self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some values dimension. This quest of positive distinctiveness means that when peoples sense of who they are is defined in terms of "we" rather than "I" they want to see "Us" as different to and better than "Them" in order to feel good about who and what they are. Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CT: Validity Exactly where people place themselves in the continuum is an interplay between social and psychological factors. Social factors have to do with the objective features of the world that and individual confronts and psychological factors are associated with the individuals interpretation of that world. Key elements of this perspective are an individuals belief structures. These lie on another continuum between an ideology of social mobility and on of social change Tajfel 1975. Social mobility beliefs are characterized by the view that people are free to move between groups in order to improve or maintain their social standing. Social change beliefs are held when conditions a) an objectively rigid system of social stratification that is perceived to be in some sense illegitimate and unstable.. b) a desire to create or intensify the impact of group memberships c) a motivation to clarify otherwise vague or group boundaries. d) a division between two groups that makes movement unthinkable.SIT integrates discrimination and movement along the interpersonal intergroup continuum by examining how people shared understanding if status relations lead to different strategies for self enhancement. This relates to how much people perceive group boundaries are permeable and the groups relative position on a dimension of social comparison to be secure in the sense of being stable and legitimate. Three basic strategies; self enhancement, individual mobility, social creativity (finding a new dimension for comparison, changing the values assigned to the attributes of the ingroup and engaging in comparisons with different outgroups) High status groups may show magnanimity or relatively covert benign forms of discrimination or favouritism in irrelevant dimensions. Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CT: Validity Meta-Contrast CT: Concept Motivation CT: Concept Group Conflict CT: Concept Power CT: Concept Fit CT: Concept Communication CT: Concept Social Change CT: Concept Social Mobility CT: Concept Functional Antagonism CT: Concept Minimal group studies Findings from Tajfel et al's first experiment indicated that even these most minimal of conditions were sufficient to encourage ingroup favouring from a strategy of fairness. In a situation devoid of the usual trappings of ingroup membership and all the vagaries of interacting with an outgoup the subjects still act in terms of their ingroup membership and an intergroup categorization. Their action are unambiguously directed at favouring the members of their ingroup as against the members of the outgroup. This happens despite the fact that an alternative strategy - acting in terms of the greatest common good - is clearly open to them at a relatively small cost. The conflict between these findings and those predicted by a model of economic self-interest is striking (Akerloff & Kranton, 2000). Why didn't the participants simply try to get as much money for themselves as they could? Failing that why didn't they simply try to obtain as much money as possible for the two recipients combined? Extracting as much money as possible from the experimenter? First cognitive representations of the self take the form of self categorizations Second self categories and other exist at different levels of abstraction with higher levels being more inclusive. Rosh's 1978 natural categories. Lower level categories can be subsumed into higher level ones and are defined in terms of relations made at that level. Three important levels of the self concept are; at the super ordinate human level at the intermediate social level as and in-group member and as the subordinate personal level as a unique individual Importantly level of category abstraction is a relative concept and so for any one person more than one level of social self category will be available.Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Social Comparison Theory CT: Concept Self Categorisation CT: Concept Group Identity CT: Concept Types of group Self esteem CT: Concept Group norms CT: Concept Self Justification theory CT: Concept Individual belief structures CT: Concept Personal identity Out group homogeneity/derogation CT: Concept Holon Yolles 2006, places the VSM S1 in Schwarz's phenomenal domain, S2 and 3 in the Noumenal domain and S4 and S5 in the Existential. S1 is couped to S2 and 3 through Autopoiesis s2 & 3 are structurally coupled. S4 & 5 are coupled to the lower domains through Autogenesis (which include S3*. S4 7 5 are structurally coupled. CT: Validity Habermas Human Knowledge Constitutive Interests CT: Concept Practical use and validation of the VSM CT: Validity Roberts 1974 bemoans the fact that katz and kahn theory is constructed at such an abstract level that it is difficult to reduce its principles to testable hypothesis. Roberts KH O'Reilly CA Bretton GE & Porter lW (1974) "Organisational theory and organisational communication: a communication failure?", Human Relations, 27, 501-24 Cybersemiotics CT: Concept In-group favouritism CT: Concept Level of Abstraction CT: Concept Human Nature Issues CT: Concept Ssren Brier,1996,, From Second-order Cybernetics to Cybersemiotics: A Semiotic Re-entry into the Second-order Cybernetics of Heinz von Foerster, Systems Research Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 229-244 1996 Stokes, P Identity: articulating cybernetics and sociology :Kybernetes Vol. 35 No. 1/2, 2006 pp. 124-147 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0368-492X Wellbeing Social Conflict Social Creativity eigenvalues and objects are what Maturana and Luhmann call structural couplings between the environment and the autopoietic system. Some of these the ethologist calls ’Sign Stimuli’ (Brier, 1993). Through language and culture we learn to construct the difference between ’ourselves’ and the ’ surrounding world as a difference that makes a difference (sometimes all the difference). The process of human knowing is the process in which we, through languaging, create the difference between the world and ourselves, between self and non-self, and thereby to some extent create the world by creating ourselves. But we do this by relating to a common reality which exists in some way before we make the difference between ’ the world’and ’ourselves’ make a difference Multiple-identities Metaphors of system Theory Development CT: Validity, Concept Cilliers P CT: Validity The Use of the Concept Autopoiesis in the Theory of Viable Systems John Brocklesby1* and John Mingers SystemsResearchandBehavioralScience Syst. Res.22,3^9 (2005) DOI:10.1002/sres.603 that when an observer specifies some real-world entity as a‘ viable system’ , he or she does this using the various concepts and terminology of cybernetics and the viable system model, i.e. Systems 1–5, meta-system, variety amplification/attenuation etc. If one were not to use such distinctions then it would be anathema to claim that the object ‘brought forth’ was indeed a viable system. A viable system is one sustaining the capability for independent existence as a recognizable identity. Thus a person is a viable system, and so is a firm. (Beer, 1983, p. 807). CT: Validity Stokes, P Identity: articulating cybernetics and sociology :Kybernetes Vol. 35 No. 1/2, 2006 pp. 124-147 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0368-492X Variety i.e. the states of the system CT: Concept VSM Ontology Self Organising CT: Concept Self Reference CT: Concept Social systems transcend their normative closure by redefinition of boundaries and thereby give new meaning to the system through communication and self reflection. When the system reflects itself and its environment, the learning element has been introduced into the system (the learning loop in Figure 1). Luhmann (1975, Vol. 2, p. 73) describes this process as system rationality. It is in fact by reflecting on, and gradually making one’ s own self-reference explicit, that the normative basis can be changed and organisational innovation can be developed. It is in this way we here interpret Luhmann’ s rationality concept (Luhmann, 1975, Vol. 5). Johannessen J 1998, Luhmann, N. (1990), Essays on Self-Reference, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. CT: Concept Luhmann’ s application of the autopoiesis theory can be used to describe, explain and possibly predict change or lack of change in social systems. Luhmann’ s autopoiesis understanding is neither a conflict model nor a consensus model, but an evolution model. Johannessen J 1998, Organisations as social systems: the search for a systemic theory of organisational innovation processes. Kybernetes, Vol. 27 No. 4, 1998, pp. 359-387, © MCB University Press, 0368-492X CT: Concept Meaning always refers to meaning and never to anything else, and is therefore, a self-referentially closed system. “Meaning systems are completely closed to the extent that only meaning can refer to meaning and that only meaning can change meaning”(Luhmann, 1995, p. 37). Buchinger, E 2006 The sociological concept of autopoiesis Biological and philosophical basics and governance relevance, Kybernetes Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 360-374 Emerald Group Publishing Limited CT: Concept As Luhmann (1984/1995, at p. 67) emphasized: "By information we mean an event that selects system states." CT: Validity Systems Identity Systems Meaning CT: Concept Boundaries Differentiation Senge the Fifth Discipline to develop methodologies capable of operating when problem contexts are perceived to be conflictual and coercive, has proved more difficult. Critical systems thinking: beyond the fragments Mike C. Jackson System Dynamics Review Vol. 10, nos. 2-3 (Summer-Fall 1994): 213-229 @ 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Raul Espejo,2000, Self-construction of desirable social systems Kybernetes, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, 2000, pp. 949-963. However, in multicultural societies, when the essential diversity of the collective is not recognised, conflicts and wars may also emerge from these interactions. But, we still are far from knowing what kinds of interactions produce a desirable operational closure, that is, a social system with desirable properties. Communication and knowledge CT: Concept Group Commitment CT: Concept Workgroup interaction CT: Concept Trust CT: Concept The Theory of Reasoned Action or Planned Behaviour CT: Concept You have to look at how the system functions in the larger system of which it is part in order to explain the system in focus (Beer, 1979, 1981). Semiotics Kanouse, Brian. "The Divestiture of Social Conditions: A Critical Critique of Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory through a Post-Structural Lens" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, TBA, San Diego, CA, Nov 20, 2008 CT: Validity Yolles 2006, Jessop 1990 State Theory, Polity Press, Cambridge UK and Yolles 2006 p 63 Autopoiesis CT: Concept Traditional Human Relation Differentiation & Integration processes: Katz & Kahn 1978, von Bertalanffy 1956 CT: Validity Limits of Reductionist and Determinist thinking CT: Concept Observing observers (1): if the practical realm is more complex than most management literature suggests, we need more complex descriptions of everyday organizational life, allowing for the contingency of observing. Theory’ s task would then be to come up with alternative, non-trivializing descriptions of organizational problems – problems that, in the practical realm of organising, are continually solved.Observing observers. Von Foerster, Luhmann, and management thinking Beyes T Complex systems are systems in which many agents, elements, and subsystems interact in densely connected networks. They are non-reductive systems, indivisible into smaller units as are traditional linear systems: “ . . . The whole cannot be understood by being divided into or reduced to its elements . . . interaction and connection are non-linear, and non-causal determinism is the rule” (Wulun, 2007, pp. 398-9) The traditional and dominant models of organisation "dehumanises" people and has a limited view of human behaviour and how it fits the organisation or address the people and not the structure CT: Rebuttal Raul Espejo,2000, Self-construction of desirable social systems Kybernetes, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, 2000, pp. 949-963. The challenge is bootstrapping our espoused purposes in the complexity of social processes so that they become purposes-inuse. Social systems by definition are self-constructed, that is, their meanings-inuse are created and produced by themselves. In this sense they are purposeful human activities. On the other hand, it is common for institutions to have their espoused purposes defined for them by others. Others impose these meanings on them. They are purposive rather than purposeful. The implication, most likely, is a mismatch between the self-constructed purposes and the externally imposed purposes. There is structural fragmentation between those creating meanings and those producing them. Overcoming this fragmentation is the relevance of effective organisation in the embodiment of social systems. Life span General comments from OD practitioners CT: Validity ‘Double Hermeneutic’ , Giddens A, (1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology (Cambridge, Polity Press Management theory has adopted the scientific approach of trying to discover patterns and laws, replacing human intentionality with a belief in causal determinism....Management theories are overwhelmingly causal or functional. Ethics or Morality, however are mental phenomena as a res ult they are excluded from scientific analysis. Ghoshal 2005 CT: Validity “Tell me how you grasp organization and management, and I tell you who you are” : it needs an observer to describe organizational realities, to project an attribution onto a perceived “object” . Hence, organization and management theories give away more about their authors than about their “objects”(von Foerster, 2002). Seen this way, large parts of management and organization theory await their “deconstruction” (Chia, 1994) Scientific method CT: Premise Concern about state of management research and pedagogy the lack of impact of research on practice and the lack of training. Porter & McKibbin 1988, Leavitt 1989, Hambrick 1994, Mintzberg & Gosling 2002, Donaldson 2002, Because of the very nature of social phenomena, which Hayek described as "phenomena of organized complexity" the application of scientific methods to such phenomena "are often the most unscientific, and, beyond these fields there are definite limits to what we can expect science to achieve"Hayek 1989 CT: Validity Deductive reasoning based on theorising on particularisation of analysis and the exclusion of any role for human intentionality or choice Bailey & Ford 1996 CT: Validity Elster 1983 demonstrates why causality works well for the Natural Sciences. He shows why Functional explanations can play an important part in areas like Biology and shows that Intentionality is the most viable theoretical approach to social science "using causal explanation we can talk about all there is, including mental phenomena, but we shall not be able to single out mental phenomena from what else there is" CT: Validity Causal explanations do not work in complex systems of systems Beer S CT: Validity A complex system cannot be reduced to a collection of its basic constituents, not because the system is not constituted by them, but because too much of the relational information gets lost in the process. Cilliers p10 CT: Validity Russell Ackoff: Because most managers don’ t have the knowledge and understanding required to deal with complexity, they attempt to reduce complex situations to simple ones. As a result, they tend to look for simple, if not simple-minded, solutions to problems. For this reason managers are susceptible to management gurus pitching panaceas. When a panacea appears to work in one or two prominent business situations, it can quickly become a fad. The consultants relentlessly promote these fads and fantasies because they’ re sources of business.Robert J. Allio An interview with Ackoff R STRATEGY & LEADERSHIP | VOL. 31 NO. 3 2003 CT: Validity Holistic Theory E Theory O Deming’ s system of profound knowledge. 1. Understanding systems Understanding the organic nature of society, the living, interacting, interdependent nature of life, c ommunities, and events. 2. Understanding variation There are various indicators-"vital signs"-for System health and well-being. These indicators give us a profile of multiple dimensions of the ongoing status: 3. Understanding psychology and human behavior 4. Understanding a theory of knowledge, learning and improvement are necessary for us as individuals as well as our communities. What is knowledge? How is it increased? What is improvement? How is it accomplished? Deming, W.E. 1994. The New Economics (2nd edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. CT: Validity Are Social Identities Viable Systems.mmap - 13/02/2015 -

Upload: others

Post on 25-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Are Social Identities Viable Systems? · complexity,€systems€acquire€new properties€through€the€phenomenon of€emergence.€Selforganization, selfproduction,€selfreference,€are

Beer, M suggests that amulti­dimensional approach is moreeffective

Who says?

Recognition of complexity oforganisations

Who says?

Which is based on Decartes

Pretence of knowledgeCT: Premise

Who says?

We frequently use Theories based onReductionist  and deterministic thinkingCT: Premise

Observations on living systems

does not work with complex social systemsCT: Premise

Theories eventually fail becauseevolving systems grow more complexand then do not respond to changes inthe environment with simple controlsCT: Premise

System Theory builds social structuresusing autopoiesis

Autonomy andautopoiesis are linked insocial communities thathave radical autonomyCT: Rebuttal

Autopoiesis is not a keymechanism of the VSMwhich is allopoieticCT: Counter Premise

Kanouse suggestion thatButler's theory of identityis more relevent hassimilariites to Luhmannand provides aninteresting suggestion thatcombining the theoriesmakes sense

Key Aspect of VSM

Role and Group identity

Koestler's notion of theholon allows the systemand meta system can beviewed as a totalityCT: Rebuttal

Schwarz Meta Systemprovides construct forcomplex ontologicalrelationshipsCT: Rebuttal

The system and itsmeta­system havedifferent ontologies andare therefore notcompatible.CT: Counter Premise

The VSM is based onVariety, a cyberneticprinciple, which limits thecommunications tosyntactic means only.Critics argue thatsemantic and pragmaticcommunication areneeded to show socialsystems such as power,trust,  etcCT: Premise

Luhmann's System Theory is adominant system model of Society butis criticised for the almost totalremoval of the individualCT: Premise

Systems Theory has a high level ofabstraction which makes it difficult tomodel individualsCT: Premise

System Theory has struggled torepresent Human Behaviour as shownby the history of its developmentCT: Premise

System Development is also shown by Schwarz

increase in the salience of one identityreduces that of others

fused identitiesInternalised identities

Provides a frameworkfor issues such aspower and politicswithin a systemsperspective

Issues not readily apparent in the VSMCT: Premise

Abstractions have different saliencethat reflects self belief

Appears similar to

not automatic but context drivenCT: Premise

Appears similar to

Brier  connects  motivation/intentionality, autopoiesis and semiosis.CT: Premise

 the meta­contrast principle contends thatpeople “maximize the ratio of intergroup tointragroup differences

increased Salience of  in­group leads togreater out group homogeneityCT: Premise

Depersonalisation

Determined by key factors

Perceiver readiness

Clear identity from other groupsclarifies norms and reduces uncertaintyand anxietyCT: Premise

Strategies to boost SE

Based around Self EsteemCT: Premise

Individuals assume a groupidentity throughdepersonalisationCT: Premise

Appears similar toFunctionalist approach toidentity for categorisationleads to a failure toexamine the causes forselectionCT: Counter Premise

Comparative fit

SET fails to provide adequate reasonsfor people's behaviour with tyrannyCT: Premise

Key Aspect of VSM

Key Aspect of VSM

Key Aspects of VSM

Can the key tenets of SIT be matchedto a revised VSM model at differentlevels of recursion to show individual,group and meta­group behaviour withinthe structure of the VSM so we have amore complete model of "humannature"CT: Premise

Social identity theoryprovides the currentmost complete andholistic model of humannatureCT: Conclusion

Defined by

Influenced Communications andknowledge processesCT: Premise

The use of CriticalSystems Heuristics in theconstruction of a VSMcan overcome misuse ofthe systemCT: Premise, Rebuttal

allows for human nature byquestioning the intention

Applying Schwarz modelas adapted byYolles/Brier to the VSMadds semantic andpragmaticcommunications andenables Luhmannsexpectation structures tooccur through autopoieticcommunicationsCT: Premise, Rebuttal

The VSM can be appliedto Schwarz's ThreeDomains Model alongwith Brier'sCybersemiotics givingPhenomenal,Neoumenal andExistential Domainsconnected throughAutopoiesis andAutogenesis to providethe mechanisms forLuhmann/Habermascommunications modelsCT: Conclusion

Yolles 2006 defines Schwarz's 3Domains in terms of social cognitiveproperties and sociality

Luhman's Theoryprovide mechanisms forthe development ofsocial structures: theyprovide a template inwhich a model of humanbehaviour could operateCT: Conclusion

Matches Schwartz's Three DomainsSystem Meta Model

Sociology and system theories modelhuman behaviour by creating anunderstanding of general socialcommunication, action and process butthey do not model "human nature"trust, politicsCT: Premise

Viable Systems with closure can berepresented by models such as VSM &LSTCT: Premise

The VSM is a fractal template ofstructural arrangements of complexadaptive systemsCT: Premise

Changes the VSM from a first Ordersystem to  Second Order one, i.e anepistemologyCT: Premise

Ross Ashby Law of Requisite VarietyLeads to the development by Beer ofthe VSM

VSM  frequently used  in SSM at Stage4 for models because it provides astructured methodology for examiningorganisationsCT: Premise

Alexander King details thelimitation and hegemony of thedualist ontology of Structureand Agency and suggest areturn to Weber's HumanRelations paradigmCT: Validity, Counter Premise

Webber sees the creation of societythrough the action of human relationsCT: Premise

Alex Viskovatoff proposes thatthe Luhmann's theory needs athird concept, that of "rules" asproposed by Gidden's. This isanalogues to Habermas' ThreeWorlds and Schwarz's ThreeDomainsCT: Counter Premise

Habermas proposes that agency is theprinciple component and that humancommunications based around truth,rightness and sincerity create societyCT: Premise

Parsons proposed the creation of rolesin society through the action ofindividualsCT: Premise

Luhmann sees Parsons’ theoryas missing the concepts ofself­reference and complexity(diferentiation in particular)Self­reference is a condition forthe efficient functioning ofsystemsCT: Premise

Luhmann claims Structuration Theoryexplains the complementary basis ofrecursivity but fails to resolve thedualism between individual and  thesocial

Gidden's proposed the creation ofsystem and structure (rules) throughthe Structuration of individuals actionCT: Premise

Complex Social Problems can beresolved by using the SSMCT: Counter Premise

The problems of modelling socialsystems led to the development ofsystem as a systematic processCT: Premise

Have created

Provided by

Luhmann proposed the creation ofsociety through the Autopoiesis ofcommunicationCT: Premise

Provided by

Luhmann's System Theory provides aSystems Perspective of SocialSystemsCT: Premise

Has  influenced and been influenced bySystems Theory

Observer and Observed

Complex Open Viable Systems suchas networks can be represented byCASCT: Premise

CAS have been used to model Open SocietiesCT: Premise

Are able to adapt and survive in theirenvironment  ­ to maintain their identityCT: Premise

for instance the development of areaction to the scientific approachCT: Premise

Particularly with people ­ who createCT: Premise

Explain human behaviour on acontinuum from individual to groupCT: Premise

Tajfel,E

WE have a significant body of OD andOrganisation TheoryCT: Counter Premise

But don't we already know how socialsystems and organisations work?CT: Counter Premise

A Reductionist andDeterministic Approachdoes represent ComplexSocial Systems well.  Aholistic andnon­deterministicprocess is preferredCT: Conclusion

Because we fail  to understand what we are dealing withCT: Premise

But the fact that there are a largenumber of different theories eithershows a lack of understanding of thetotality of the systems or narrowperspectives, or a constantly changingenvironmentCT: Premise, Rebuttal

Who says?

No one system predominates ­ underall circumstances. Indicating a lack ofknowledge of the possible states of thesystemsCT: Rebuttal

Who studies the structure ofSocial Systems?CT: Question

The VSM should be ableto model individuals andgroups as viable systemscritics claim that it isvulnerable to autocraticmisuse and therefore nottruly emancipatoryCT: Premise

Normative Fit

VSSM based on principles of  viabilityestablished  in the VSM, Yolles 2006p301

Viability is  in the eye of the beholder

Linking social and organisationalsystems through viability

Unfolding Complexity

Depends on how the organisation hasbeen structured

Citizenship

Luhmann's theory of communication

Created by collaborationCT: Premise

LegitimacyCT: Premise

In Luhmann meaning is not existential

Autonomy

criticised because a theory restrictingitself to external conditions, to "what islearned,"  cannot adequately accountfor generative grammar

Latest Theories do not fit well withtraditional model

Participant leadership is important forcreating a purposeful  organisation butyou cannot talk to everybody

Are Social IdentitiesViable Systems?

CT: Question

Organisational lifespan isvery low andorganisational change islargely unsuccessful. Thiscould indicate that we donot fully understand thefactors that control themCT: Rebuttal

KotterCT: Validity

OD Theories andPractitionersCT: Concept

Organisational change modelsCT: Validity

Bad ManagementTheories:CT: Premise

Complex social structuresCT: Concept

Sociologists and social theory

Holistic and nondeterministic theoriesstructure and humanbehaviour

Identifying the factorsthat make SocialIdentities Viable i.e ableto survive in theirenvironment shouldprovide greaterunderstanding of theprocesses and factorsthat determine thesuccessful creation ormanagement oforganisational systemsCT: Premise, Conclusion

Does Systems Theory notalready represent socialsystems?CT: Question

Social IdentityCT: Concept

Ackoff, Checkland, ChurchamnCT: Validity

Von Bertalanffy, Weiner, AshbyCT: Validity

Emancipation  Marx, Ulrich, Espejo,  HabermasCT: Validity

System as aCulture/SocietyCT: Concept

Yolles

Systems ThinkingCT: Concept

Leadership TheoriesCT: Validity

Ontology of Social Systems isUnordered and the Epistemology isHeuristic. The landscape ofmanagement: Creating the contextfor understanding social complexity,E:CO Special Double Issue Vol. 6Nos.  1­2  2004  pp.  140­148Snowden D and Stanbridge P

"on their way to increasedcomplexity, systems acquire newproperties  through the phenomenonof emergence. Self­organization,self­production, self­reference, arefeatures that appear only beyondsome threshold of complexity andare  therefore not understandable bythe usual mechanistic naturalsciences.Such necessary extension ofscience requires not only newtheories and new formal tools ­ likenon linear dynamics, chaos theory,fractals, cellular automata,cybernetical networks, etc. ­ butalso, in our opinion, invites us toquestion the usual epistemologicaland  ontological  presuppositions."From  Epistemology  to  ActionEric Schwarz

Schwarz bifurcation of systemsCT: Validity

Cilliers P

Complex systems do notrespond to simple inputcontrol in a straightforward way and theygrow and change inreaction to theirenvironmentCT: Concept

Car manufacturing became morecomplex first with multiple colours;General Motors ,  then with multiplechoice; ToyotaCT: Validity

Viable SystemsCT: Concept

Complex AdaptiveSystemsCT: Concept

Second OrderCyberneticsCT: Concept

CyberneticsCT: Concept

Unlike theories in the sciences,theories in the social sciences tendto be self­fulfilling Gergen 1973. Asdemonstrated by Ghoshal & Moran1996CT: Validity

Structure and agencyparadigmCT: Concept

SystemTheoryCT: Validity, Concept

The  Industrial Revolution  deals with  the mechanization of  work. Work  is duringthis phase  seen as  the  transformation  of energy;  the  transformation  of  varioustypes of energy  for  the purpose of  creating  something. A machine  is any objectcapable  of  transforming  energy  into  matter  (Gehlen,  1980).Transferred  to  management,  machine  thinking  becomes  synonymous with“scientific management”, where any  task can be broken down  into  its  tiniestconstituents  which an  individual can  carry out. The work  analysis,  according  toTaylor, was  to  find  the individual elements of a  task. The next step  is  then  tomechanize  the various  tasks. A dehumanization of work  is one of  the  results ofthis development. And  this  is one of  the  largest problems  facing us  today;  lack ofobligation,  commitment and motivation,  in addition  to  the  lack  of ability  to  seepartial  elements and  total  structures  in  context. Despite  large  improvements  inproductivity  resulting  from  mechanization of  work,  American  studies  (TrendLetter,  1997)  indicate  that work  productivity  has  declined.  The  limit  of  productivityfor  the  workforce  is  reached, with  the accompanying mental  and  social problems.Beyond  these  limits  increase  in  production based on  the existing economic  andtechnological  paradigm  is  impossible  (Ackoff,  1994;  Senge,  1991;  Thurow,1996).

Open System TheoryCT: Concept

PsychologistsCT: Concept

Theories of individualbehaviour and groupactionCT: Concept

SSM & InteractivePlanningCT: Concept

First,  the way in which the reproduction of  the socialpractices is described has a resemblance toautopoiesis as  it is described in the system theoryliterature.30 Second,  since  these practices are takento be the “basic domain of study of the socialsciences,” and since social systems are consideredto be no more than collections of such practices,Giddens has no  real concept of a social system thatdoes justice to the term. And third, as aconsequence of the second point, Giddens  is notreally  able  to  overcome  the  “dualism”  betweenthe  individual and  the social by  introducing  theconcept of rules:  instead (and the same can be saidfor Bourdieu), what he has done is isolate a thirdaspect of the social  in addition  to those emphasizedby  individualists and  collectivists,  respectively,  thatof rules or social practices (and hence merelystarted one  more empire­building endeavor). Toreally overcome the dualism,  the third must mediatebetween the  first two in a way that preserves theirimportance;   Viskovatoff,  A 1999.Foundations  ofNiklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems:Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 4,December 1999 481­516CT: Validity

Hoos documented  the many difficulties  that arosein  trying to apply systems analysis  to public policyissues. Hoos, I. 1972. Systems Analysis in PublicPolicy:  A Critique.  Berkeley:  University of  CaliforniaPress.CT: Validity

For Weber,  human social action was distinctive because  it was directed  towardsothers. The mutual  reaction of others was an  intrinsic and dynamic element ofhuman  interaction.  Moreover,  these  interactions  were  never  independent  ofhuman consciousness. Humans had  to  come  to a mutual  understanding of whattheir  interactions  signified. They  had  to understand  what  their social  relationsinvolved  and what  they  demanded of  them. Human  social  relations wereultimately  dependent on  the  shared meanings  which  the  participants  attach  totheir actions  and  relations. For Weber,  these  meanings  transformed mereexistence  into  something distinctively human:  life.  It was  the  task  of  thesociologists  to analyse  life  in any historical  period. Weber,  like  Durkheim,enthused  about  the  infinite potential  of  human social  relations; ‘Life  with  itsirrational  reality and  its  store of  possible meanings  is  inexhaustible’  (Weber  1949:111).

StructurationCT: Concept

Action theoryCT: Concept

Luhmann proposed  the  interactive construction of  socialmeaning, as the unit of  operation of social  systems. WhereasParsons  (1937) had considered action as  the unit  of the system'soperation, Luhmann's social  systems  theory provides amirror­image  of Parsons's so­called  "structural  functionalism."The analysis of  social structure should not be based on  (theaggregate of)  action, but on  the  interactions between actions.Luhmann's  theory sides with  symbolic  interactionism by  defininghuman action  in terms of  its  interactive meaning at  the networklevel  (Blumer 1969) The dynamics of  the  interactions areassumed  to  "self"­organize  the  roles  that are attributed  to  theactors. The actors carry  the network at the nodes while  the linksof  the network span an  architecture which develops  additionalcomplexity  in  terms of  its  recursive  interactions. The architectureof  relations can be considered as a structure containing  theexpected  information  of  the  network's  further development(Leydesdorff 1993).CT: Validity

Theory of CommunicativeAction and TruthValidation Model (3Worlds)CT: Concept

Human RelationsparadigmCT: Concept

In Structuration theory, structure isimplicated recursively in thereproduction of social systems. Theassumption of a duality of structureprovides a methodology for relatinginstitutional analysis and theanalysis of strategic conduct: theone narrative can be used as acontext for informing the other(Giddens 1976). The  two narratives,however, remain juxtaposed by"bracketing" the one perspectivewhen focusing on the other(Giddens 1984). This model wasintended to offer a specific solutionto the gap between action theoryand institutional analysis inAmerican sociology (Giddens 1981,at p. 167).CT: Validity

Luhmann found Parsons’ systems approachinspiring, but noticed several  inconsistencies andproblems. Stichweh  (2000),  explains  that  there aretwo major strands of  reasoning that  led Luhmann  tobase his theory on communication  rather thanaction. The first issue was that the actions of psychicsystems (minds) and of social systems is difficult todistinguish using action  theory. The  interaction ofthe actor and his environment  can only be describedwhen  the actor and environment are placed on  thesame analytic  level.  In Luhmann’s  theory,  the socialsystem emerges from the communication betweenpsychic systems (minds), and cannot be understoodas a separate  system “acting” on the  individual. Thesecond issue is that action theory cannotdifferentiate  between action  and  experience.Selection can be viewed as either an action on  thepart  of the selecting system, or as  information aboutthe state of  the selecting system’s environment. Theclassification of  information, Luhmann  reasons,  isnot causally  related to actors, and should beclassified as experience, not action. For Luhmann,the evolution of the system is a critical focus whichdistinguishes his systems theory from Parsons’structural­  functionalism. While Parsons’ structural­functionalism prioritises systemic equilibriumthrough  the  interrelation of whole and parts,Luhmann  emphasises  differentiation  (Luhmann1995: 18).CT: Validity

BEYOND  DUALISMOntological  dualism  is  currently hegemonic  in social  theory. Current  debates  insocial  theory presuppose an ontology  of  structure and agency  but even  in  moreempirical areas of  research, as  the works of Lash, Urry and Hall demonstrate,  theconcepts  of  structure and agency  predominate. Against  this dualism,  a socialontology  must be promoted.  This social ontology does not  divide society  intostructure and  agent.  It  focuses only on  social  relations between humans.Humans  are never  isolated, nor are  they confronted  by an  objective structure.Humans exist  in social  relations with other humans. The  focus of sociology has  tobe  these social  relations.  This social ontology  in no way denies  the  institutionalreality  of modern  society.  It  recognises  the extraordinary  powers of  modernstates  and multinational corporations but  explains  these powers  in  terms of  thesocial  networks of which  these  entities consist.  It  does  not unthinkingly  reifythese  institutions  into  objective structures but  seeks  through  detailed  empiricalanalysis  to  show how certain  social groups are able to mobilise  themselves  inways which have  the most striking social effects. The social ontologyunderstands  the  reality of  institutions  by  reference  to  the actuality of  socialrelations  which persistent  there. A  sociology based on  a social ontologyrecognises  the  potency of human social  relations  but  it  avoids  the  reification  ofontological dualism. Society  is no  less  real simply because  it  is believed  toconsist  of  social  relations. Social  theory  is currently entranced by a dualism butthe  reality of  social  life  stands  before  its  eyes. Anthony King Contemporary SocialTheory

CT: Validity

And  third,  as a consequence of  the second point, Giddens  is notreally  able  to overcome  the “dualism”  between  the  individual  andthe social by  introducing the concept of  rules:  instead (and  thesame can be said  for Bourdieu), what he has done  is isolate athird aspect of  the social in addition  to those emphasized byindividualists  and collectivists,  respectively,  that of  rules or  socialpractices  (and hence merely started  one more empire­buildingendeavor). To  really overcome  the dualism,  the third mustmediate between the  first two  in a way  that preserves  theirimportance;  instead,  in Giddens’s work,  they  recede  into  thebackground.  One can argue  that by  introducing  the  distinctionbetween  syntax and semantics  into  social  theory, particularly  intoLuhmann’s  theory, one has  for  the first  time  the conceptualmeans by which to give an account of how it  can be quitesensible  to attribute action  to  social  systems while keeping aplace  for the actor in  the story.31 The way to do so is to  treat theconcepts actor,  system, and  rule as all equally  important andfundamental  for  social  theory.  Alex  Viskovatoff  1999  Foundationsof Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems Philosophy of  theSocial Sciences 1999; 29; 481CT: Validity

Implications  of  Self­Reference:Niklas  Luhmann’s  Autopoiesis  andOrganization  TheoryTor  Hernes  and  Tore  Bakken

Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis as a contribution toorganization  theory. organization  theory  consist  ofthree epistemological foundations,equilibrium­based  theory,  process­based  theoryand   recursivity­based  theory. Luhmann’sautopoietic  theory in  relation to each of  thesethree foundations suggest that whereas  itdeviates  radically  from equilibrium­based  theoryand deviates significantly from process­basedtheory,  it  holds potential  in  its complementarilywith Giddens’s structuration  theory  in providing apromising  basis  for  recursivity­based organizationtheory.CT: Validity

Luhmann’s  theory  of  meaning  cannot  coherentlymake  the social domain autonomous as he desires sinceLuhmann does not  take  into account  the distinction betweensyntax and  semantics. By  introducing  this distinction,  makingclear that social systems consist of rules, not justcommunications, and raising  the rule concept to  the sameprominence  in social theory as those of actor and system,autonomy  can  be  maintained  while  avoiding  the  counterintuitiveaspects  of  Luhmann’s  theory.  Viskovatoff,  A  1999.Foundationsof Niklas Luhmann’s  Theory of Social Systems: Philosophy of  theSocial Sciences, Vol.  29 No. 4, December 1999 481­516

Alignment with the system ­ IdentityCT: Premise, Concept

Alignment with the system­ Motivation, reward andpoliticsCT: Premise, Concept

Alignment with the system­ Ethics & intentionalityCT: Premise, Concept

Social Behaviour inOrganisationsCT: Premise, Concept

Viable System ModelCT: Concept

Theory  of  Intentional Stance  Dennett  defines  three  levels  of  abstraction  The  mostconcrete  is  the physical stance, which  is the domain of physics and chemistry. Atthis  level, we are concerned with  such things as mass, energy, velocity,  andchemical composition Somewhat more abstract  is the design stance, which  is  thedomain  of biology and  engineering. At  this  level, we  are concerned  with  such  thingsas purpose,  function and design Most abstract  is  the  intentional stance, which  is  thedomain of  software and minds. At  this  level, we are concerned with  such  things asbelief,  thinking  and  intent. A key point  is  that  switching  to a higher  level ofabstraction  has  its  risks  as well  as  its  benefits.Dennett argues  that  it  is best  to understand human behaviour at  the  level of  theintentional  stance,  without making  any  specific commitments  to  any deeper  realityto  the  artifacts  of  folk  psychology  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_psychology>.  Inaddition  to  the controversy  inherent  in  this,  there  is also some dispute about  theextent  to which  Dennett  is committing  to  realism  about mental  properties.  Initially,Dennett's  interpretation was seen  as  leaning more  towards  instrumental  ism butover  the years,  as  this  idea has been used  to  support more extensive theories ofconsciousness  it  has been taken as being more  like Realism. His own words hint  atsomething  in the middle, as he suggests that  the self is as real as a centre ofgravity,  "an abstract  object  ,  a  theorist's  fiction", but operationally  validCT: Validity

Human Social Behaviour& Human NatureCT: Concept

Systems Meta ModelCT: Concept

Can Real Life Complex Systems BeInterpreted with the Usual DualistPhysicalist Epistemology ­ Or is aHolistic  Approach  Necessary  ?Eric Schwarz

Beer, SCT: Validity

Stafford Beer: Brain of the FirmCT: Validity

Closed System TheoryCT: Concept System as a Machine

CT: Concept

System as an OrganismCT: Concept

System as a BrainCT: Concept

Living System TheoryCT: Concept

Jim & Jessie Miller

VSM extended bySchwarz, Brier, YollesLuhman, Habermas,Espejo and UlrichCT: Concept

Viable Social Systems : YollesCT: Concept

Social identitydemonstrates keyaspects of viability asdefined in the VSMCT: Premise, Conclusion

Research questionCT: Validity

Critical SystemsHeuristicsCT: Concept

Basis  of  motivationBasis  of  powerBasis  of  knowledgeBasis  of  legitimacy

Together, the four issues make up a claim’s‘anatomy  of purposefulness’  (Ulrich 1983,p.  342).Critical heuristics proposes  that these four issuesare essential  for reflective practice in most (if notall)  s ituations of problem solving,  decision­making,or professional  intervention. They are essentialsince without considering them, we do not reallyunderstand what a claim means and whether or towhat extent we should  recognise it as valid, that is,as a basis for action. The underlying philosophicalposition  is that of pragmatism.  Its core principle,the pragmatic maxim, was formulated by theAmerican philosopher Charles S. Peirce  (1878): Anintroduction to CSH, UlrichCT: Validity

Ulrich, W (1987). Critical heuristics ofsocial systems design. EuropeanJournal of Operational Research, 31,No. 3, 276­283.CT: Validity

BehaviourismCT: Concept

Individual MotivationTheoriesCT: Concept

Cognitive TheoryCT: Concept

Social Identity TheoryCT: Concept

Katz and Kahn

Social Identity modeledas a Viable SystemCT: Premise, Conclusion, Concept

Foucault. Statements constitute anetwork of rules establishing what ismeaningful and these rules are thepreconditions for propositions,utterances, speech act to havemeaning. Statement are also events.Statements depend on the conditionsin which they emerge and exist withina field of discourse; the meaning of astatement relies on the succession ofstatements that precede and follow it.Discursive  formations.

CT: Validity

Parsons,  drew on Durkheim’s  functionalism  in  the  development of  his  theoryof  social  action. He  integrated concepts  from general  systems  theory  (vonBertalanffy,  1950;  1976),  information  theory  (Shannon  &  Weaver,  1949),  andsocial cybernetics  (Wiener,  1948; 1950). Whereas Durkheim  was content  todevelop sociology as a discipline alongside  the other social  sciences,Parsons became  the advocate of a “grand  theory”  that could subsume  theother social  sciences. Drawing  from Weber’s writings on action, Parsons’functionalism  was developed  as a  theory  of  action.  Individuals wereunderstood  as acting  of  their  own volition,  influenced  in  their  behavior byexternal  forces. As a  component of  this  larger  theory, Parsons developedthe  theory of  the social  system. His “social system” is generally synonymouswith  the  term “society” and  emerges  from  the  interaction of  individuals(Parsons, 1951).  a) Culture is  the key  to social action and defines thedifferentiation of  social  systems and  the central code by which  the matrix ofsocial  evolution  proceed.  Culture  is  a  system  of  value­orientationandand  willcontrol  societal, political and economic  systems. Parsons maintained  that  apolitical  system, which use power or  force  far beyond  the realm of  culturallegitimation  would distabilize  and disintegrate,  Culture as  a systemicimperative  would prevail  over both  power and  money,  when  the  ultimatecybernetic  test was  reached.b) Culture has  intrinsic value,  that  is, itrepresents  a higher cybernetic  order of  regulation which has  universalgrounding  and  implication. c)  Culture  is on  its basic  "operational"  levelinhernently  historical,  so  that  the  progress of Mankind  (to  the extend such aprogress occur at all)  depend on  the particular codification of  culturalsystems,  social  systems and personality systems within each historicaljuncture  of  time  and  the  embedded,  accumulative  and  institutionalizedpattern of  this  process determines societies  relatively degree ofsocio­economic and civilizational  success. d) Culture  itself  (within  itsactualization  in  the social  system)  is premarily non­rational  and  not  simplyan  ordering  factor but  to  an  important extent  a highly disordering  factor. Thehigh disorder and non­rational  factor  is within  the  realm of a certainequilibrium  an  evolutionary  enabling  factor  and  not  the  opposite;  The  highdisorder  factor  inherent  in cultural  systems  can naturally  have negative,distabilizing  and  system­nihilating  consequences   ̂ Bourricaud,  F.  'TheSociology  of Talcott Parsons' Chicago  University Press.  ISBN0­226­067564. p. 94CT: Validity

SSM does not modelhuman behaviour it relieson dialogue to resolveconflicts and toencompass all opinionsCritics suggest that it isliable to dominance byruling powers and doesnot deal with coercivesystemsCT: Premise, Rebuttal

Emergence

Counter TheoriesSocial Exchange TheoryCT: Concept

Rational Choice TheoryCT: Concept

StructuralismCT: Concept

Social Impact TheoryCT: Concept

Ng ,  1980 identified limitations in theSET viewpoint. The first, that the costbenefit relationship at the heart of thisis much less tangible than first thought.Second people do not always seem toexit a low­power situation when theyshould (Tyler, 1996). He suggestsidentification with particular groups isalso highly relevant. The socialexchange approach assumes thatpower can work as a basis orsubstitute for social influence.

As  later argued by Turner and Tajfel    (Tajfel, H., & Turner,  J. C.  (1986). Thesocial  identity  theory of  intergroup behavior.  In S.  Worchel & W. G. Austin(Eds.),  The psychology  of  intergroup  relations  (pp.  7­24). Chicago:Nelson­Hall.)  the most  important upshot  of  the  original minimal  groupstudies was  that  they suggested  that  the mere act of  individualscategorizing  themselves as group members was sufficient to  lead  them  todisplay  in­group  favouritism.  The  results  also  challenged  establishedtheories  of  intergroup conflict  by  pointing  to  the possibility  thatdiscriminatory  intergroup behaviour  cannot be  fully  understood  if  it  isconsidered solely  in terms of  'objective' conflict  of interests or  in terms ofdeep­seated  motives  that  it  may  serve.

Extensive  research  has  confirmed  these  original  findings

this meaning was  found by  them  in  the adoption of a strategy  for actionbased  on  the  establishment  through  action, of  a  distinctiveness betweentheir  ingroup and  the other,  between  the  two social  categories  in a  trulyminimal  social  system  distinction  from  the  other  category  provided  anidentity  for  their own group and  thus some kind of meaning  to an otherwiseempty  situation.

Tajfel  concluded  that  in  the minimal  group studies social  categorizationrequired  the  establishment of  a  distinct  and  positively  valued social  identity(Tajfel,  H.  (1972).  La  catégorisation sociale.  In  S. Moscovici  (Ed.),Introduction  à  la  psychologie  sociale  (Vol.  1).  Paris  :  Larousse.)

He  defined social  identity as  the  individuals knowledge  that he or shebelongs  to  a certain  social groups  together with  some emotional  and valuessignificance  to  him  of  this  group  membership.

In other words social  identity is part of  a person's sense of who  they areassociated with any  internalised group membership.   This can bedistinguished  from  the notion of  personal  identity, which  refers  toself­knowledge  that  derives  from  the  individuals  unique  attributes(concerning  physical  appearance,  intellectual  qualities  and  idiosyncratictastes. Turner,  J. C.  (1982). Towards a cognitive  redefinition of  the socialgroup.  In  H. Tajfel  (Ed.),  Social  identity and  intergroup  relations  (pp.  15­40).Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.

Ontology

Key TenetsCT: Concept

Turner  hypothesized 1982  that an  individual  self  concept  could  itself  bedefined along a continuum ranging  from definition of  the self  in  term  ofpersonal  identity  to  definition  of  the  self  in  terms  of  social  identity.

He proposed  that  the  functioning of  the self  concept  is  the cognitivemechanism  that  underpins  the  behavioural  continuum  described  by  Tajfel.Thus  interpersonal  behaviour  is  associated  with  a salient  personal  identityand  intergroup  behaviour  with  a  salient  social  identity.

Turner  argued  that  the  switching on of  social  identity actually  allowedintergroup  behaviour  to  take  place. Turner  named  this  cognitive  processdepersonalisation. This  refers  to  the process of  self  stereotyping by meansof which  the self  comes  to be perceived as a categorically  interchangeablewith  other  ingroup  members

The  theory suggests  that  ingroup favouritismis not an automatic or a person­specificresponse, but a reaction to particular socialpsychological circumstances. Accordingly itwill  vary  with  the  social  situation.

Tajfel and Turner  identified  three variablesthat make a particularly importantcontribution to  the emergence of groupfavouritism;     a, the extent to which individuals  identifywith an ingroup and internalize  that groupmembership as an aspect of theirself­concept,     b, the extent to which the prevailingcontext provides ground for comparisonbetween  groups  and     c, the perceived relevance of thecomparison  outgroup.

CT: Validity

Individuals react to themselvesand others not as differentiatedindividual persons but asexemplars of the commoncharacteristics of their group. Itis through this process thatsalient of functioning socialidentifications help to regulatesocial behaviour. They do sodirectly by causing groupmembers to act in terms of theshared needs, goals and normswhich they assign tothemselves. And indirectlythrough the perceptualhomogenization of others whichelicits uniform reactions form theperceivers.

This suggests that groupbehaviour is associated withchange in the structure of theself ­ change inself­categorization.

CT: Validity

Tajfel asserted  that behaviour  in general could be  represented  in  terms of abipolar  continuum.

As  Mayo 1949 had  argued groups are  not  just  collections  of  individuals andgroup  behaviour  cannot  be  explained  in  terms  of  interpersonal  principles.Although  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  that social  categories do not alwaysplay  some  role.

It  is  impossible  to  imagine a social  encounter between  two people which willnot be affected, at  least  to some degree by their assignments of oneanother  to a variety of  social  categories about which some generalexpectations  concerning  their characteristics  and  behaviour exist  in  themind  of  the  interactants This will be even more  true of professional roleencounters

Tajfel  proposed  two  hypotheses.As  behaviour became defined  in  intergroup  terms,  members of an  ingroupwould be more  likely  to  react uniformly to members of  the outgroup and  totreat  the  outgroup  as  an  undifferentiated  category.Empirical  evidenceshows  that  heightened salience of group memberships  is associated  withincreases  in  the perceived  homogeneity of  outgroups  and  in consensusamong  the  ingroup

Requisite Variety

Group PsychologyCT: Concept

Self Categorisation TheoryCT: Concept

Social identity theoryCT: Concept

Meta System

Recursion

In essence  it suggest that after being categorized in  terms of groupmembership and having defined  themselves  in  terms of  that socialcategorization,  individuals  seek  to  achieve  positive  self­esteem  by  positivelydifferentiating  their  ingroup  from  a comparison  outgroup on  some valuesdimension.  This quest  of  positive distinctiveness  means  that  when peoplessense of who they are  is defined  in  terms of  "we"  rather  than "I"  they wantto  see  "Us" as different  to and better than  "Them"  in order to  feel  goodabout who and what  they are. Haslam, S. A.  (2001). Psychology  inorganizations:  The  social  identity approach.  London  &  Thousand Oaks,  CA:Sage.CT: Validity

Exactly where people place  themselves  in the continuum  is aninterplay  between social and  psychological  factors.  Socialfactors have  to do with  the objective  features of the world  thatand  individual  confronts and psychological  factors areassociated with  the  individuals  interpretation of  that world.   Keyelements of  this perspective are an  individuals  belief  structures.These  lie on  another continuum between an  ideology of  socialmobility  and  on  of  social  change  Tajfel  1975.Social mobility  beliefs are characterized by  the  view  that peopleare  free to move between groups in order  to improve ormaintain  their  social  standing.Social  change  beliefs  are  held  when  conditions     a) an objectively rigid system of social  stratification that  isperceived  to  be  in  some  sense  illegitimate  and  unstable..     b) a desire to create or intensify the impact of  groupmemberships     c) a motivation  to clarify otherwise vague or groupboundaries.     d) a division between  two groups that makes movementunthinkable.SIT  integrates  discrimination  and  movement  alongthe  interpersonal  intergroup  continuum by  examining  howpeople  shared understanding  if  status  relations  lead  to differentstrategies  for self  enhancement. This  relates to how muchpeople  perceive group  boundaries are  permeable and  thegroups  relative position on a dimension of  social comparison  tobe  secure  in  the  sense  of  being  stable  and  legitimate.Three  basic  strategies;  self  enhancement,  individual  mobility,social  creativity  (finding a new dimension  for comparison,changing  the values assigned  to  the attributes of  the  ingroupand  engaging  in  comparisons  with  different  outgroups)

High status groups  may show magnanimity or  relatively covertbenign  forms of discrimination or  favouritism  in  irrelevantdimensions.    Haslam, S. A.  (2001).  Psychology  in organizations:The social  identity approach. London & Thousand Oaks,  CA:Sage.

CT: Validity

Meta­ContrastCT: Concept

MotivationCT: Concept

Group ConflictCT: Concept

PowerCT: Concept

FitCT: Concept

CommunicationCT: Concept

Social ChangeCT: Concept

Social MobilityCT: Concept

Functional AntagonismCT: Concept

Minimal  group  studies

Findings from Tajfel et al's firstexperiment  indicated that even  thesemost minimal of conditions weresufficient to encourage ingroupfavouring  from  a  strategy  of  fairness.

In a situation devoid of the usualtrappings of ingroup membership andall the vagaries of interacting with anoutgoup the subjects still act in termsof their ingroup membership and anintergroup categorization. Their actionare unambiguously directed atfavouring the members of their ingroupas against the members of theoutgroup. This happens despite thefact that an alternative strategy ­ actingin terms of the greatest common good­ is clearly open to them at a relativelysmall  cost.

The conflict between these findingsand those predicted by a model ofeconomic self­interest is striking(Akerloff & Kranton, 2000). Why didn'tthe participants simply try to get asmuch money for themselves as theycould? Failing that why didn't theysimply try to obtain as much money aspossible for the two recipientscombined? Extracting as much moneyas  possible  from  the  experimenter?

First  cognitive  representations of  the self  take  theform  of  self  categorizationsSecond self categories and other exist  at differentlevels of abstraction with higher  levels being moreinclusive. Rosh's 1978 natural categories.  Lowerlevel categories can be subsumed into higherlevel ones and are defined in terms of relationsmade  at  that  level.Three  important levels of the self concept are; atthe super ordinate human level at theintermediate  social  level as and  in­group memberand as  the subordinate personal level as aunique  individualImportantly  level of  category abstraction is arelative concept and so for any one person morethan one  level of social self category will beavailable.Haslam, S.  A.  (2001). Psychology  inorganizations: The social  identity approach.London  &  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage.

Social Comparison TheoryCT: Concept

Self CategorisationCT: Concept

GroupIdentityCT: Concept

Types of group

Self esteemCT: Concept

Group normsCT: Concept

Self Justification theoryCT: Concept

Individual belief structuresCT: Concept

Personal identity

Out grouphomogeneity/derogationCT: Concept

Holon

Yolles 2006, places the VSM S1 inSchwarz's phenomenal domain, S2and 3 in the Noumenal domain and S4and S5 in the Existential. S1 is coupedto S2 and 3 through Autopoiesis s2 & 3are structurally coupled. S4 & 5 arecoupled to the lower domains throughAutogenesis (which include S3*. S4 75 are structurally coupled.CT: Validity

Habermas HumanKnowledge ConstitutiveInterestsCT: Concept

Practical use and validation of the VSMCT: Validity

Roberts 1974 bemoans the fact thatkatz and kahn theory is constructed atsuch an abstract level that it is difficultto reduce its principles to testablehypothesis.  Roberts KH O'Reilly CABretton GE & Porter lW (1974)"Organisational theory andorganisational communication: acommunication failure?", HumanRelations, 27, 501­24

CybersemioticsCT: Concept

In­group favouritismCT: Concept

Level of AbstractionCT: Concept

Human Nature IssuesCT: Concept

Ssren Brier,1996,, From Second­orderCybernetics to Cybersemiotics: ASemiotic Re­entry into theSecond­order Cybernetics of Heinzvon Foerster, Systems Research Vol.13  No.  3,  pp.  229­244  1996

Stokes,  P  Identity:  articulating  cyberneticsand  sociology  :Kybernetes  Vol.  35  No.  1/2,  2006pp.  124­147  q  Emerald  Group  Publishing  Limited0368­492X

Wellbeing

Social Conflict

Social Creativity

eigenvalues and objects are whatMaturana and Luhmann callstructural couplings between theenvironment and the autopoieticsystem. Some of these theethologist calls ’Sign Stimuli’ (Brier,1993). Through language andculture we learn to construct thedifference between ’ourselves’ andthe  ’surrounding world as adifference that makes a difference(sometimes all the difference). Theprocess of human knowing is theprocess in which we, throughlanguaging, create  the differencebetween the world and ourselves,between self and non­self, andthereby to some  extent create theworld by creating ourselves. But wedo this by relating to a commonreality which exists in some waybefore we make the differencebetween ’the world’ and ’ourselves’make a difference

Multiple­identities

Metaphors of systemTheory DevelopmentCT: Validity, Concept

Cilliers PCT: Validity

The Use of  the Concept Autopoiesis  in the Theoryof Viable Systems John Brocklesby1* and JohnMingers  SystemsResearchandBehavioralScienceSyst.  Res.22,3 9̂  (2005)  DOI:10.1002/sres.603

that when an observer specifiessome real­world entity as a‘viablesystem’, he or she does this usingthe various concepts andterminology of cybernetics and theviable system model, i.e. Systems1–5, meta­system, varietyamplification/attenuation etc.  If  onewere not to use such distinctionsthen it would be anathema to claimthat the object ‘brought forth’ wasindeed a viable system.

A viable system is one sustainingthe capability for independentexistence as a recognizable identity.Thus a person is a viable system,and so is a firm. (Beer, 1983, p.807).CT: Validity

Stokes,  P  Identity:  articulating  cyberneticsand  sociology  :Kybernetes  Vol.  35  No.  1/2,  2006pp.  124­147  q  Emerald  Group  Publishing  Limited0368­492X

Variety i.e. the states ofthe systemCT: Concept

VSM Ontology

Self OrganisingCT: Concept

Self ReferenceCT: Concept

Social  systems transcend their normative closureby  redefinition  of  boundaries and  thereby give  newmeaning  to the system  through communicationand self  reflection. When the system reflects itselfand  its  environment,  the  learning  element  hasbeen  introduced  into  the system  (the  learning  loopin Figure 1). Luhmann (1975, Vol. 2, p. 73)describes this process as system rationality. It is infact by  reflecting on, and gradually making one’sown self­reference explicit,  that  the normativebasis can be changed and organisationalinnovation can be developed. It  is in  this way wehere  interpret  Luhmann’s  rationality concept(Luhmann, 1975, Vol.  5).  Johannessen J 1998,Luhmann, N.  (1990), Essays on Self­Reference,Columbia University Press, New York, NY.CT: Concept

Luhmann’s application  of  the autopoiesis  theorycan be used to describe, explain and possiblypredict change or  lack of change in social systems.Luhmann’s autopoiesis  understanding  is neither aconflict model nor a consensus model, but anevolution model.  Johannessen J 1998,Organisations as social systems: the search for asystemic  theory  of organisational  innovationprocesses. Kybernetes, Vol.  27 No. 4, 1998, pp.359­387, ©  MCB University Press, 0368­492XCT: Concept

Meaning always  refers to meaning and never toanything else,  and  is  therefore, a  self­referentiallyclosed system. “Meaning systems are completelyclosed  to the extent  that only meaning can  refer tomeaning and that only meaning can changemeaning”  (Luhmann, 1995, p.  37). Buchinger, E2006 The sociological concept of autopoiesisBiological and philosophical basics andgovernance  relevance, Kybernetes  Vol.  35 No.  3/4,pp. 360­374  Emerald Group Publishing LimitedCT: Concept

As Luhmann (1984/1995, at p. 67)emphasized: "By information we meanan event that selects system states."CT: Validity

Systems Identity

Systems MeaningCT: Concept

Boundaries

Differentiation

Senge the FifthDiscipline

to  develop methodologies capable  of  operatingwhen problem contexts are perceived to beconflictual  and coercive, has proved more difficult.Critical  systems  thinking:  beyond  thefragments Mike C.  Jackson System DynamicsReview Vol. 10, nos. 2­3 (Summer­Fall 1994):213­229 @ 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Raul  Espejo,2000, Self­construction of  desirablesocial  systems Kybernetes, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, 2000,pp.  949­963.However,  in multicultural societies, when theessential diversity of the collective is notrecognised, conflicts and wars may also emergefrom these interactions. But, we still are far fromknowing what kinds of interactions produce adesirable operational closure,  that is, a socialsystem with desirable properties.

Communication andknowledgeCT: Concept

Group CommitmentCT: Concept

Workgroup interactionCT: Concept

TrustCT: Concept

The Theory of ReasonedAction or PlannedBehaviourCT: Concept

You have to look at how the systemfunctions in the larger system of whichit is part in order to explain the systemin focus (Beer, 1979, 1981).

Semiotics

Kanouse,  Brian.  "The  Divestiture of  Social Conditions:  A Critical  Critique ofSocial  Identity  Theory  and  Self­Categorization  Theory  through  aPost­Structural  Lens" Paper presented  at  the  annual meeting of  the NCA94th  Annual Convention,  TBA, San  Diego, CA,  Nov 20,  2008CT: Validity

Yolles  2006,Jessop 1990 State Theory, PolityPress, Cambridge UK and Yolles 2006p 63

AutopoiesisCT: Concept

Traditional

Human Relation

Differentiation & Integrationprocesses: Katz & Kahn 1978, vonBertalanffy 1956CT: Validity

Limits of Reductionist andDeterminist thinkingCT: Concept

Observing observers (1): if thepractical realm is more complexthan most management literaturesuggests, we need more complexdescriptions of everydayorganizational  life, allowing for  thecontingency of observing. Theory’stask would then be to come up withalternative, non­trivializingdescriptions of organizationalproblems – problems that, in thepractical realm of organising, arecontinually solved.Observingobservers.Von  Foerster,  Luhmann,and  management  thinking Beyes T

Complex systems are systems inwhich  manyagents, elements, and subsystemsinteract in densely connectednetworks.  They  arenon­reductive systems, indivisibleinto smaller units as are traditionallinear  systems:“. . . The whole cannot beunderstood by being divided into orreduced  to  its  elements. . . interaction and connection arenon­linear, and non­causaldeterminism  is  the  rule”(Wulun, 2007, pp. 398­9)

The traditional anddominant models oforganisation"dehumanises" peopleand has a limited view ofhuman behaviour andhow it fits the organisationor address the peopleand not the structureCT: Rebuttal

Raul Espejo,2000, Self­constructionof desirable social systemsKybernetes, Vol.  29 No. 7/8, 2000,pp.  949­963.The challenge is bootstrapping ourespoused purposes in thecomplexity of social processes sothat they become purposes­inuse.Social systems by definition areself­constructed, that is, theirmeanings­inuse are created andproduced by themselves. In thissense they are purposeful humanactivities. On the other hand, it iscommon for institutions to havetheir espoused purposes defined forthem by others. Others imposethese meanings on them. They arepurposive rather than purposeful.The implication, most likely, is amismatch between theself­constructed purposes and theexternally imposed purposes. Thereis structural fragmentation betweenthose creating meanings and thoseproducing them. Overcoming thisfragmentation is the relevance ofeffective organisation in theembodiment of social systems.

Life span

General comments from ODpractitionersCT: Validity

‘Double Hermeneutic’,   Giddens A,(1987) Social Theory and ModernSociology (Cambridge, Polity Press

Management  theory has adoptedthe scientific approach of trying todiscover patterns and laws,replacing human intentionality witha belief in causaldeterminism....Managementtheories are overwhelmingly causalor functional. Ethics or Morality,however are mental phenomena asa result they are excluded fromscientific analysis. Ghoshal 2005CT: Validity

“Tell me how you grasp organization andmanagement, and I tell you who you are”: itneeds an observer to describe organizationalrealities,  to project an attribution onto a perceived“object”.  Hence, organization and  managementtheories give away more about  their authors  thanabout  their “objects” (von Foerster,  2002). Seenthis way, large parts of management andorganization  theory await  their  “deconstruction”(Chia, 1994)

Scientific methodCT: PremiseConcern about state of

management research andpedagogy the lack of impact ofresearch on practice and the lack oftraining. Porter & McKibbin 1988,Leavitt 1989, Hambrick 1994,Mintzberg & Gosling 2002,Donaldson 2002,

Because of the very nature of socialphenomena, which Hayekdescribed as "phenomena oforganized complexity" theapplication of scientific methods tosuch phenomena "are often themost unscientific, and, beyondthese fields there are definite limitsto what we can expect science toachieve"Hayek 1989CT: Validity

Deductive reasoning based ontheorising on particularisation ofanalysis and the exclusion of anyrole for human intentionality orchoice  Bailey & Ford 1996CT: Validity

Elster 1983 demonstrates whycausality works well for the NaturalSciences. He shows why Functionalexplanations can play an importantpart in areas like Biology and showsthat Intentionality is the most viabletheoretical approach to socialscience "using causal explanationwe can talk about all there is,including mental phenomena, butwe shall not be able to single outmental phenomena from what elsethere is"CT: Validity

Causal explanations do not work incomplex systems of systems Beer SCT: Validity

A complex system cannot bereduced to a collection of its basicconstituents, not because thesystem is not constituted by them,but because too much of therelational information gets lost inthe process. Cilliers p10CT: Validity

Russell Ackoff: Because mostmanagers don’t have the knowledgeand  understandingrequired to deal with complexity,they attempt to reduce complexsituationsto simple ones. As a result, theytend to look for simple, if notsimple­minded,  solutionsto problems. For this reasonmanagers are susceptible tomanagement  gurus  pitchingpanaceas. When a panaceaappears to work in one or twoprominent  businesssituations, it can quickly become afad. The consultants relentlesslypromote  thesefads and fantasies because they’resources of business.Robert J. AllioAn interview with Ackoff RSTRATEGY & LEADERSHIP  | VOL.31 NO. 3 2003CT: Validity

Holistic

Theory E Theory O

Deming’s  system  of  profound  knowledge.1.  Understanding  systemsUnderstanding  the organic nature of  society,  theliving,  interacting,  interdependent  nature of  life,communities,  and  events.2.  Understanding  variationThere are various  indicators­"vital  signs"­forSystem health and well­being. These  indicatorsgive us a profile of multiple dimensions of theongoing  status:3. Understanding psychology and humanbehavior4.  Understanding a  theory of  knowledge,  learningand improvement are necessary for us asindividuals as well as our communities. What isknowledge? How is it increased? What isimprovement? How is  it accomplished? Deming,W.E. 1994. The New Economics (2nd edition).Cambridge,  MA: MIT Center  for  AdvancedEngineering Study.CT: Validity

Are Social  Identities Viable Systems.mmap ­ 13/02/2015 ­

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_psychology

11: Multirate Systems - Imperial College London Systems 11: Multirate Systems •Multirate Systems •Building blocks •Resampling Cascades •Noble Identities •Noble Identities

CHAPTER 5 ANALYTIC TRIGONOMETRY. 5.1 Verifying Trigonometric Identities Objectives –Use the fundamental trigonometric identities to verify identities

Hidden identities · 2018. 1. 2. · Hidden identities Basic examples Remarkable identities for matrices Identities in rings Other structures Hidden identities Friedrich Wehrung Universit

Trig Identities. Reciprocal Identities OR Pythagorean Identities OR Quotient Identities

Periodicities of T-systems and Y-systems, Dilogarithm Identities, and

Selforganization in Complex Systems: The Past, Present, and Future of Synergetics · 2019-12-17 · Axel Pelster ·Günter Wunner Editors Selforganization in Complex Systems: The

Interethnic systems and localized identities : the Khmu

5.1 Using Fundamental Identities. Fundamental Trigonometric Identities

Ch5.1A – Using Fundamental Identities Reciprocal Identities Quotient Identities Pythagorean Identities sin 2 u + cos 2 u = 1 1 + tan 2 u = sec 2 u 1 +

Using Fundamental Identities Objectives: 1.Recognize and write the fundamental trigonometric identities 2.Use the fundamental trigonometric identities

SELFORGANIZATION IN NONEQUILIBRIUM SYSTEMS · ISBN 86-82475-15-4 Title: Selforganization in Nonequilibrium Systems (Papers) Published by: Society of Physical Chemists of Serbia, Studentski

Slide 1-1 5.1 Fundamental Identities 5.2 Verifying Trigonometric Identities 5.3 Sum and Difference Identities for Cosine 5.4 Sum and Difference Identities

Curated Identities

Legal identities

Designing identities

A Dynamic Access Governance Approach for Identities in SAP ... · A Dynamic Access Governance Approach for Identities in SAP Systems Johan Hermans CEO [email protected]

British Identities

Scholars in the Open: Networked Identities vs. Institutional Identities

Section 5.1 Simplifying More Trig Expressions Fundamental Trigonometric Identities: Reciprocal Identities: Quotient Identities: Pythagorean Identities:

Chapter 4 Identities 4.1 Fundamental Identities and Their Use 4.2 Verifying Trigonometric Identities 4.3 Sum, Difference, and Cofunction Identities 4.4

SELFORGANIZATION IN NONEQUILIBRIUM SYSTEMSPreface PAPERS OF THE INVITED LECTURES P.M. Allen 3 Self-Organisation: From Physics to Social Systems G. R Armstrong, V. Gáspár, S.K. Scott,

Trig identities

The evolution of visual identities from static identities ... · The evolution of visual identities from static identities to dynamic identities David Delahunty A dissertation submitted

mrsharringtoncva.weebly.com · Web viewTrigonometric Identities Reciprocal Identities: Quotient Identities Pythagorean Identities Test your skills Answer each of the following. Choose

Trigonometric identities

Quotient Identities Along with reciprocal identities ... · Quotient Identities Along with reciprocal identities, quotient identities are useful when solving right triangles. There

visual identities

Gosselain Identities

Identities, cleavages and European party systems Alistair Cole

Dyadics Identities

Waterborne identities

Invisible Identities: Promoting and Protecting Diverse Identities in Study Abroad

Modeling complex systems - ETH Z...Modeling complex systems ... Frank Schweitzer DDM Colloquium 28 June 2006 3 / 20 Selforganization emergence of “order out of chaos” Special Conditions

Web Identities

PERIODICITIES OF T AND Y-SYSTEMS, DILOGARITHM IDENTITIES ... · arxiv:1001.1881v4 [math.qa] 15 nov 2010 periodicities of t and y-systems, dilogarithm identities, and cluster algebras