Comments on: Viable System Model and Group Dynamics cycle http://weblog.tetradian.com/2009/01/03/vsm-and-group-dynamics/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=vsm-and-group-dynamics Random ramblings over the metaphoric edge Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:56:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mitch Nogrady http://weblog.tetradian.com/2009/01/03/vsm-and-group-dynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-31961 Mitch Nogrady Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:50:03 +0000 http://weblog.tomgraves.org/index.php/2009/01/03/vsm-and-group-dynamics/#comment-31961 I think your suspicion is correct--this disparity stems from the roots of the VSM as a cybernetic description of the minimum set of "functionalities" required by any viable system. My thought would be that the typical progression through forming to performing reflects the fact that humans will tend to form themselves into viable systems ("shout across the void," as SB puts it in HOE, I think) BUT this natural tendency does not guarantee a smooth process. Forming might then be seen to take place place place as an organization "grows" in terms of establishment of a rudimentary system 3 and "command channel" consisting of somewhat patterned communications processes between informal leaders and group members ("I aways talk to Joe at the coffeepot before signing a client"). Storming takes place when 'overly autonomous' systems 1 undergo attempted regulation by a more robust system 3--which, even though it entails probable future benefits to system one elements, also comes at an immediate and often unwelcome cost in terms of autonomy. Norming reflects development of more routinized gatekeeping and homeostatic functionality as systems 2 and 3 functions coalesce into an at least partially integrated set of SOPs, habits, mental models, and rules. A second stage of storming may come about as the "calmness" seeking nature of the 1-2-3 complex is "challenged" by a system 4-5 input to change operational mode, either in response to an emergency or as a strategic decision. Once the dust settles from such a conflict, the overall organization will have a more internally consistent, and hopefully better-balanced, capability for dealing with external events and internal relations. For both the 1 "against" 2-3 conflict and the 1-2-3 "against" 4-5 conflict, the issue may not be conflict as humans would normally percieve it--it's probably more a question of hierarchy of application of rules. Undoubtedly, this cybernetic issue can very directly lead to interpersonal issues, but it may not do so in all cases. (Further, the less participatory the dust-settling process is, the less likely that the new intra-system relations will actually be "better balanced" in terms of ability to maintain viability in the face of external change.) Without explicit attention to balancing the authority/autonomy of these systems, it isn't surprising that the first several oscillations the system undergoes are relatively extreme--the smooth and balanced VSM is evolving itself. Even with design, it is likely that some of the oscillations will still arise...but if attention to viability concepts AND feedback based adaptation are built in to the original structure, such oscillations will be far less severe and the organization will be far more capable. Human organizations are the primary laboratory for this unfolding autopietic process, I believe, because so many other natural viable systems "did their thing" in the distant past, so most natural viable systems are already well-tuned. I think your suspicion is correct–this disparity stems from the roots of the VSM as a cybernetic description of the minimum set of “functionalities” required by any viable system. My thought would be that the typical progression through forming to performing reflects the fact that humans will tend to form themselves into viable systems (“shout across the void,” as SB puts it in HOE, I think) BUT this natural tendency does not guarantee a smooth process. Forming might then be seen to take place place place as an organization “grows” in terms of establishment of a rudimentary system 3 and “command channel” consisting of somewhat patterned communications processes between informal leaders and group members (“I aways talk to Joe at the coffeepot before signing a client”). Storming takes place when ‘overly autonomous’ systems 1 undergo attempted regulation by a more robust system 3–which, even though it entails probable future benefits to system one elements, also comes at an immediate and often unwelcome cost in terms of autonomy. Norming reflects development of more routinized gatekeeping and homeostatic functionality as systems 2 and 3 functions coalesce into an at least partially integrated set of SOPs, habits, mental models, and rules. A second stage of storming may come about as the “calmness” seeking nature of the 1-2-3 complex is “challenged” by a system 4-5 input to change operational mode, either in response to an emergency or as a strategic decision. Once the dust settles from such a conflict, the overall organization will have a more internally consistent, and hopefully better-balanced, capability for dealing with external events and internal relations. For both the 1 “against” 2-3 conflict and the 1-2-3 “against” 4-5 conflict, the issue may not be conflict as humans would normally percieve it–it’s probably more a question of hierarchy of application of rules. Undoubtedly, this cybernetic issue can very directly lead to interpersonal issues, but it may not do so in all cases. (Further, the less participatory the dust-settling process is, the less likely that the new intra-system relations will actually be “better balanced” in terms of ability to maintain viability in the face of external change.)

Without explicit attention to balancing the authority/autonomy of these systems, it isn’t surprising that the first several oscillations the system undergoes are relatively extreme–the smooth and balanced VSM is evolving itself. Even with design, it is likely that some of the oscillations will still arise…but if attention to viability concepts AND feedback based adaptation are built in to the original structure, such oscillations will be far less severe and the organization will be far more capable. Human organizations are the primary laboratory for this unfolding autopietic process, I believe, because so many other natural viable systems “did their thing” in the distant past, so most natural viable systems are already well-tuned.

]]>