Can you express snowden's ideas in the methodology proposed by vickers
Expressing Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework through Sir Geoffrey Vickers’ Appreciative System involves reframing the four decision-making domains as different “settings” for human judgment. In this view, complexity is not just an external state of the world, but a condition that dictates how we perceive reality, what we value, and how we choose to intervene[1][2].
Here is an analysis of Snowden’s ideas expressed through the methodology of Vickers:
1. The Decision Cycle: Probes as Instrumental Judgments
Vickers’ appreciative cycle—consisting of Reality, Value, and Instrumental judgments—provides a structured way to understand Snowden’s decision loops[3][4].
• Ordered Domains (Simple/Complicated): In these domains, Reality Judgments are stable; we can see “what is the case” clearly[5][6]. Consequently, Value Judgments are often settled (e.g., “efficiency is good”), and Instrumental Judgments follow “programmed knowledge” or best practices[7][8].
• Complex Domain: Here, a Reality Judgment cannot be made through passive observation because cause and effect are only visible in retrospect[9][10]. In Vickers’ terms, we must launch an Instrumental Judgment (a Probe) specifically to generate the information needed for a Reality Judgment (Sense)[7][11].
• Chaotic Domain: Reality Judgments are effectively broken[7]. The cycle begins with a rapid Instrumental Judgment (Act) to create a boundary, followed by a new Reality Judgment to see if stability has returned[7][12].
2. Appreciative Settings as “Dispositional Constraints”
Vickers identifies Appreciative Settings as the “readinesses to notice” certain things and value them in specific ways[2][13].
• In Snowden’s methodology, these settings act as the dispositional constraints of a social system[14].
• While Snowden focuses on the “disposition” of the system (how it is likely to behave), Vickers would argue that this disposition is a product of the shared values and tacit norms held by the agents within it[15][16].
• Handling different perspectives involves using Self-Signification to reveal the diverse “appreciative settings” across a human sensor network without the bias of an external analyst[17][18].
3. Relationship Maintenance vs. Evolutionary Potential
Vickers famously rejected “goal-seeking” in favor of Relationship Maintenance, arguing that human activity consists of keeping essential relations within acceptable limits[19][20].
• This aligns with Snowden’s advice to manage the “evolutionary potential of the present” rather than a fixed future state[21][22].
• From a Vickers perspective, “managing the present potential” is the act of adjusting the system’s Value Judgments to ensure that relationships (with stakeholders, the environment, and values) remain viable as the context shifts[23][24].
4. Narrative as the “Appreciative” Medium
Both authors contend that formal, linear models are inadequate for human systems[25][26].
• Vickers views “appreciation” as a social process of mutual persuasion and dialogue to align the “inner worlds” of participants[27].
• Snowden operationalizes this through Narrative Research, using micro-narratives to capture the “messy coherence” of a situation that rigid prose or mathematical models might miss[28][29].
• In a Vickers-informed Cynefin study, these narratives are the primary source of Reality Judgments, revealing the “facts” that are meaningful to the people actually living in the system[17][30].
Summary: The Cynefin-Appreciative Mapping
| Snowden’s Idea | Vickers’ Methodology Expression |
|---|---|
| Probe-Sense-Respond | Act-as-Inquiry → Reality Judgment → Instrumental Judgment[7][31]. |
| Disposition | The current state of the Appreciative Settings[14][32]. |
| Vectors of Change | The direction of travel required for Relationship Maintenance[20][33]. |
| Anthro-complexity | A system of agents with unique, historically-path-dependent Appreciative Systems[1][9]. |
Does this expression of Snowden’s work through the lens of Appreciation clarify how you might use these two frameworks together to manage your project’s “muddle,” or should we look at the “Italian Flag” as a tool for Vickers’ Reality Judgments?[34][35].
References
[1] 💬Distinctions.md [2] 💬Perspectives.md [3] 💬How To Guides.md [4] 💬Questions.md [5] 💬Questions.md [6] 💬Questions.md [7] 💬Questions.md [8] 💬What is Complexity.md [9] 💬What is Complexity.md [10] 💬What is Complexity.md [11] 💬What is Complexity.md [12] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [13] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [14] 💬Environment.md [15] 💬Environment.md [16] 💬Perspectives.md [17] 💬People Dynamics.md [18] 💬People Dynamics.md [19] 💬Gists.md [20] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [21] 💬Distinctions.md [22] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [23] 💬Environment.md [24] 💬Questions.md [25] 💬Gists.md [26] 💬Nutshell (Process).md [27] 💬Perspectives.md [28] 💬Gists.md [29] 💬What is Complexity.md [30] 💬Distinctions.md [31] 💬How To Guides.md [32] 💬How To Guides.md [33] 💬Keywords + Jargon.md [34] 💬Environment.md [35] 💬Questions.md