Synergy between Sociocracy and the VSM

Yes, I think that is fair enough @davehollings. It makes sense to me to focus on what works.

And, of course, there will be aspects of Sociocracy that 'don't work'. That is one of the problems of trying to apply a model. We also need to take the context into account. Stafford Beer did what he did, and whether you judge what happened a success for him or not depends on one's own context, and his.

My own view is that now, at the end of 2018, we are better off moving away from applying models from outside and instead becoming more aware of the steps we can follow when we are communicating with other people.

I like that this topic is framed as the synergy between VSM and Sociocracy. Looking for synergy is a positive way to engage with something. Similarly, I wonder what similarities we can find in what all of us here are trying to do in the organisations in which we work. And what we can learn about what has worked well and what has not not worked so well - using models, or using processes of communication?

Maybe the information systems (S1 operational, S2 conflict resolution, S3 coordination, S4 external view, S5 policies) in VSM that Beer and others say are necessary for an organisation to be viable, are useful to guide conversation in an organisation to 'cover the bases'. A facilitator could use them as a checklist, 'colleagues, dont we need to talk about how we look at the external market environment?'
But these Subsystems dont cover all 'necessary' topics so theres a danger of them blinding people to other things they should be considering.

Yes, I think that's right. There's a big difference between using a framework to support a conversation, while still recognising it is just a framework.

And believing the framework represents reality.

Dear Bob @bobcan , I find the idea of using the VSM as some kind of "checklist" unfair on such a useful model. From previous posts I know you have suspicions that the VSM could be used by people who prefer Hierarchy or use "complicated" to bamboozle the workers. But I think you may have a wrong understanding. The VSM can be used as a force for good or for evil. If it could be used for one force alone then it could not truly be a organizational systems model. I believe the model is universal but that does not mean that progress in thinking of complexity should be excluded. Stafford Beer proposed that a measure of complexity was variety itself. He did not conclude which form of complexity falls within the variety measurement. Perhaps this is something @jonwalker or @angelaespinosa would be kind enough to explain? A big revelation for me was the concept of "variety matching" which I understand from the Heart of Enterprise to be separate from "requisite variety". Requisite is useful when considering freedom and constraint where minimal constraint is used to allow the autonomous self organizing units to operate. Eg Imagine if no one had thought of the white line in the middle of the road, how many months ahead would you have to plan your journey to avoid collision? Whereas "variety matching" is matching the variety (complexity) of the environment to that of the organizational variety ( complexity) of the system in focus. Eg's failure of high street shops to meet shoppers needs, where the digital age offers so much choice and experiences and methods of delivery. Failure of Transition, due to constraints on protest, leading to the formation of Extinction Rebellion. Perhaps even failure to understand the London riots could be looked at in terms of variety matching?
I know these examples will be contested but as yet no one has come up with how Sociocracy accounts for variety and surely we all need to make progress in determining if this is all cobblers or not?

Apologies for the proposed examples of variety matching, that retched electronic pen got the better of me. At least if we have to take the letter to the post box, there is time to reflect.....Would any reader please disregard the examples, they are not evidence based and evidence should be the basis for finding synergy, albeit they seem intuitively to have merit . :cry:

I appreciate there is an impatience to move on but surely one thing we know today is the power of dissonance? That blind spot which affects us all. Mankind has been getting it wrong for the last 2000 years or so, isn't it only right that we should temper our patience and consider the evidence? I guess somewhere there must have been a publication I missed debunking cybernetics two and I find it hard to move from a evidence based system back to philosophy alone. So some :thinking: one please provide the link. As Bob mentioned legitimate governments have been from power and so it is important we can show the new way forward is whiter than white and not some inconvenient truth, buried. I am sure some of you are probably thinking why don't you ask the CIA but isn't this a bit like the lads playing cricket, smashing that window and one of the poor boys is pushed forward to ask for their ball back. Only ten thousand times worse.

For me what matters is whether I can convince the other members of my co-op that there's value in dedicating time and energy to something. For the VSM I can point to Suma's (historic) experience, and for sociocracy I can point to the (current) experience of Outlandish and Unicorn. Sociocracy is a much easier sell in that respect. There's also the question of educating members about one or other - and sociocracy seems much easier to teach and learn than the VSM (resources easily available and affordable). And our experience with sociocracy so far has been really positive, so I imagine there'd be little appetite for adopting the VSM as well, unless there was a compelling business case for it.

Don't get me wrong, what I see of the VSM looks fascinating and I'll continue to look at it personally. But I'm not convinced it's the answer to the problems we're currently trying to solve. I tend to agree with the apples/pears comments made earlier - sociocracy and the VSM are very different solutions to different (though frequently overlapping) problems.

Hi @philipcoulthard

You say we've been getting it wrong for 2000 years or so, and we know the power of dissonance. And that we need to temper our impatience and consider the evidence.

I am also hearing that you think it is difficult to move from a system based on evidence to one based on philosophy alone.

I am not sure what you are referring to?

Do you mean moving to a system like Sociocracy, or what @bobcan was talking about which some academics (notably Prof Ralph Stacey) have called 'complex responsive process'.

In either case I think you're right that process-based ways of thinking (I would include Sociocracy in that - it's both a structure, and a system, and a focus on process) - are not always as easy to find 'evidence' for.

That's because the base assumption is that the world is complex - therefore context, goals, and process interact to produce sometimes unpredictable results. What happens in one situation may not work again in another.

I guess that is the same for VSM - how and where it is applied will affect what happens subsequently?

This is a problem for social scientists to grapple with - research approaches such as ethnography come up against these issues all the time.

For our purposes I think we need 'promising practice' - not always 'evidence'. (Can't remember where I heard this term, but I really like it!).

So, for example, @johnn 's point about the experience of Outlandish and Unicorn and his own experience of educating members is 'promising practice'.

I also certainly don't want to debunk cybernetics. I think we need to build on the 'shoulders of giants'. (I believe Sociocracy has roots in cybernetics, too, by the way.)

Process philosophy and the philosophy of experience is also not a new idea - Heraclitus pointed out that we can never step in the same river (of complexity?) twice.

I think, pragmatically we need to take the best of what those traditions tell us, as well as all the other roots. And use that to inform our current practice.

Thank you for your reply Pete, Can I suggest we park this whole conversation till after Christmas? I make the suggestion for several reasons, I ordered "The Heart of Enterprise" by Stafford Beer and its going to take some reading. Up till this time I have relied upon the abridged work on the VSM from Jon Walker and whilst it was a useful introduction I am beginning to understand there is so much more to this subject. I go back to that ISO 9001 diploma course, there is no way I should have got through that using the VSM as a reference it was a bit like the Compton scattering experiment, where particles unexpectedly came straight back at you. I should have immediately gone to the source text and not wasted this forums time until without a fuller understanding. I will admit to one small departure from convention. In using the VSM I too the view of the model seen from a ConFederal perspective which is discussed in Jon's paper from the perspective of nation states. For a self organising structure I still think this could apply but I need to dig deeper so I would prefer to continue once I have read the book and Complexity and Management by Professor Ralph Stacey.

That's great with me Philip.

Sounds like you're going to do some more reading on Beer - going back to source. There is a lot to this subject. I only begin to recognise how much I don't know.

Personally, although I don't want to contradict you, this dialogue has been helpful to me already. I really don't think you have wasted the forum's time. And I suppose it is, in any case, really up to other people to decide!

By the way 'Complexity and Management' is now quite old - the trouble is the more recent books like 'Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics' and 'Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management' are very expensive.

I found @bobcan's article "'Break Free From Our Systems Prisons" here: https://www.academia.edu/36658111/Break_Free_from_Our_Systems_Prison.

There's also a nice chapter by Andy Smith in 'A Field Guide to Organisational Development' which I very much like because it charts his personal journey in coming to terms with a complex responsive process approach. It's on the web here https://www.roffeypark.com/wp-content/uploads2/Andy-Smith-Chapter.pdf. The parallel perhaps is Stacey's own journey through the idea of Complex Adaptive Systems to arrive at Complex Responsive Process (or what some people call complex 'social' process)? You need to read right to the end to get the whole story of course!

BTW a friend of mine knew Stafford Beer and told me some lovely stories about him. Sounds like he was a very special man.

Good luck with the reading, will be good to hear what you find, and have a great Christmas!