Are Social Identities Viable Systems? · complexity,€systems€acquire€new...
Transcript of Are Social Identities Viable Systems? · complexity,€systems€acquire€new...
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